Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 18

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< April 17 April 19 >

April 18

Category:Glass forming

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article Glass production. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:38, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment there is also the matter of Template:Glass forming which seems to also cover this subject area Hmains (talk) 21:04, 19 April 2014 (UTC).[reply]
    • Yes, it was created by the same retired editor who had also created, then speedily deleted, Glass forming. If this CfD is successful, I'd be happy to move the template to the new name, so it's clearly for "Glass production techniques." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:25, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Rename per nom. New name is also a better fit in the surrounding category structure. Hmains (talk) 16:52, 20 April 2014 (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:AFC DWS players

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 to AFC DWS players. (By now, this effectively means "keep".) – Fayenatic London 20:58, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, I was unaware of this process, but I went ahead and did a clean up for AFC DWS. They are a Duch football club, who used to compete in the higher leagues in the Netherlands, and have played continental football, but are currently playing in the amateur leagues. Basically the name of the club was inconsistent all over the English Wikipedia, eith being called Door Wilskracht Sterk or AFC DWS or simply DWS. I have went ahead and tried to make it more consistent and named everything AFC DWS as the club is officially known as. User:Giant Snowman pointed out that I should have went about it this way, so I wanted to address my changes. I have changed the Category Door Wilskracht Sterk players to AFC DWS players, thereby creating an empty category in error. AFC DWS players is consistent with AFC DWS templates, AFC DWS managers, the AFC DWS page and is the official name of the club. I apologize for not having addressed the issue here first, but I was trying to get some consistency here, since DWS is an acronym, but the club is known as the acronym, and not what it spells out. Regards, (Subzzee (talk) 20:54, 18 April 2014 (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:Amphibians of the Iberian Peninsula

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 and purge per revised nomination. – Fayenatic London 22:09, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Purge and merge. As mentioned below, starting a new discussion for this group. Simply appearing on the peninsula is not WP:DEFINING for a species that is found elsewhere; critters have wings, legs, or fins, and sometimes wander, as the saying goes. However for species that are only found in a certain country or well-defined geographic region, then it is defining. Thanks to the Pyranees, the Iberian Peninsula is one such place: for species found there and only there, it's an appropriately defining categorisation and subcategory of Category:Endemic fauna by region. These will require purging of non-endemic species and checking to be sure the contents are in the appropriate "Foo of Europe" categories (both of which I will do if this passes). The Bushranger One ping only 20:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- If the Pyrenees area sufficient barrier to make the fauna partly unique, we should allow this to be split by type of animal. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fair enough, but what about renaming to "Category:Endemic Foo of the Iberian Peninsula" format then? - The Bushranger One ping only 22:22, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agreed -- Category:Endemic amphibians of the Iberian Peninsula would be even better. Not quite sure "endemic" is quite the right word. What we are about is categorizing fauna that only (or mainly) occur there. And I am not convinced with molluscs, unless this is limited to terrestrial ones, as marine ones would not find the mountains a barrier. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • For flora and fauna that only occur in a specific place, "endemic" is the correct term - the overall phenomenism is endemism, while specific examples are endemic. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:54, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator's note: Per the above discussion, I've changed the nomination targets. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:58, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to Category:XXXXX unique to the Iberian Peninsula, and upmerge the others to the Europe categories. The fact that an animal is endemic to the Iberian Peninsula but is also found all over the place besides makes this category non-defining for the species. Species that are uniquely found in the Iberian Peninsula may be notable for that fact. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:35, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Um....you completely misunderstand what "Endemic" means. An animal can not be "endemic to the Iberian Peninsula but is also found all over the place besides". "Endemic" means it is only found on the Iberian Peninsula. "XXXX unique to the Iberian peninsula" is exactly the same thing as "Endemic foo of the Iberian Peninusla" - and does not fit the existing Category:Endemic fauna by region tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Endemic" is not used that way in our categorization; let's take a few examples: Beaver in the Sierra Nevada, which is categorized in Category:Endemic fauna of California, but alas the 1st paragraph talks about the beavers being all over from the tundra to Mexico before European colonization of the New World. So, endemism as used by this categorization is not as you describe it. This example is not unique (nor endemic) to that article. Take Salmo marmoratus categorized in "endemic to Bosnia & Herzegovina" and also "Fish of Slovenia" and the article talks about the fish in the Po River (in Italy). There is a clear difference of understanding of "endemism" as "indigenous" which needs cleaning up. If Endemic to Foo means exists nowhere else, a mass purge seems to be required. Look for example at the whole structure of Fish species of the Neretva basin which is in an endemic category; but also seems to discuss species "endemic" to various seas - is one to believe that a fish such as a salmon endemic to the Mediterranean according to our article is endemic to Bosnia, with a minute shore on the Adriatic branch of the Mediterranean? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:23, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then that's the beavers being badly miscategorised there. "Endemic" does NOT mean "indigenous" or "native to", it means "exclusive to", and a purge is, indeed, clearly required - thank you for finding this. - The Bushranger One ping only 05:37, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to use endemic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the suggested change to "endemic" and keep the categories as is with their current circumscription. Nominator is abusing the language at WP:DEFINING; a species' distribution, whether endemic or not, is defining. Rkitko (talk) 17:13, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, no, it's not. A species that occurs in, for instance, Spain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Italy, is not "defined" by occuring in any of those countries. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and rename per nom, but would "Amphibians endemic to the Iberian Peninsula" be a better form of wording ? DexDor (talk) 15:59, 11 May 2014 (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:Companies listed on the American Stock Exchange

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) 00:13, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This exchange has now been known as NYSE MKT for several years. UnitedStatesian (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2014 (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:Figure skating competitions by year

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; given the elimination of the competition-by-year categories in the discussion immediately below, they cannot be kept in the nominated category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:15, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Bring into line with all other categories found in Category:Years in sport. This broader name is more inclusive and allows inclusion of discussion of the sport as a whole, not just the competitions. SFB 15:12, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split the figure-skating-by-year subcategories into the proposed category. The competition-by-year subcategories should be kept in this category. The proposed category should be the parent category to this category. -- 70.24.250.192 (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2014 (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:Figure skating competition by year

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) 00:11, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Figure skating competition by year --> Category:Figure skating competition
Nominator's rationale: The vast majority of these categories held in Category:Figure skating competitions by year are a needless extra layer of category that serves no purpose. The parent categories (e.g. Category:Austrian Figure Skating Championships) otherwise contain just the main article and a template category. It is common practice to include a sporting event's editions in the main category when little other content on the subject exists (e.g. Category:World Rowing Championships‎, Category:World Table Tennis Championships). These by year categories should be deleted and the content moved to the competition parent category. SFB 14:17, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Competition categories
----
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:Moths of Metropolitan 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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was missed from the CFD of 16th March. DexDor (talk) 13:39, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge after Schengen, the moths are free to fly across borders now too. :-) Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, being in Metropolitan France is not defining to a moth. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Not defining for the moths. They don't notice the Rhine much, even when the boundary is that clear. I doubt any avoid going into Belgium.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:28, 23 April 2014 (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:Royal Swedish Navy

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. I note that there are a number of subcategories that use "Royal Swedish Navy" which may need to be renamed as a result of this change. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The categories for the other branches of the Swedish Armed Forces is Category:Swedish Army and Category:Swedish Air Force. Same goes for the actual article, Swedish Navy. It's actually somewhat unclear how and why the category became "Royal" in the first place. Peter Isotalo 13:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category became "Royal" because the name of the service is "Royal Swedish Navy". See for instance [1]. This is a case where the article needs to be renamed, not the category. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:27, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I beg to differ.[2] (see the links under "Our organization" in particular) There seems to be some instances of "Royal Swedish Navy", but it's very sporadic. Peter Isotalo 22:53, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per talk:Swedish Navy, the "Royal Swedish Navy" is primarily associated with the Swedish Empire period -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The "Royal" bit may have been used less and less for Swedish public institutions in the last few decades, but what 65.94.77.36 says is nonsense. The Swedish Navy was routinely referred to as the Royal Navy, usually in the abbreviated form "Kgl. Flottan" or "Kungl. Flottan", as late as the mid-20th century. See the statskalender and Who's Who entries and similar reference sources at [3] and [4]. As this is a category predominantly consisting of articles on historical topics, keeping "Royal" could be motivated. As an aside, it seems that at the time when "Kgl. Flottan" was routinely used, the army wasn't usually referred to as "Kgl.", but individual regiments were, e.g. "Kungl. Bohusläns regemente" [5]. --Hegvald (talk) 12:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree. In general, I'd say the "Kungl./Kongl."-bit is closer associated with the navy from the late 18th century to the mid 20th century. Before that, I think it's rather questionable to even speak of an organization with any formalized name at all. That's the mistake many make when it comes to the British Royal Navy. As far as I understand, the armed forces were under the control of specific departments of the central government roughly equivalent to modern day ministries. But regardless of that, the common name of the current organization (which is what the article is about) seems to be just the "Swedish Navy". Peter Isotalo 15:03, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • What I said is based on a comment left at the article's talk page, that being, that book sources usually use "Royal" for the Empire period, while do not use it for the current navy. -- 65.94.77.36 (talk) 22:33, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- I have checked the equivalent article in the Swedish WP, where the title does not include any word that I would translate as "royal", though the ships like those of British RN are HMS. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:29, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. The navy is not "royal" on their current homepage, either in English or in Swedish. Sweden has been doing a lot of deroyalization since the 1970s. I assume this is yet another example. Two from one (talk) 01:42, 24 April 2014 (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 Metropolitan 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 21:03, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories were missed in the large nomination on April 9 of "Mammals of European countries/areas" cats that closed as a unanimous merge, so this is a "cleanup" nomination for the same reasons as there.The second category is proposed for renaming (after removing non-endemic species, a task I shall undertake upon passing) as the proposed title is a valid categorisation (and will be a subcat of Category:Endemic fauna by region). The Bushranger One ping only 11:06, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
procedural discussion
  • Merge per nom. DexDor (talk) 05:36, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. France has multiple boundaries that have no natural reason to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Mammals of France and do not upmerge to Category:Mammals of Europe. I have made my opinion known on other upmerge discussions regarding the fauna of Europe but missed the last "unanimous" one. A quick note to relevant WikiProjects would be appreciated about these discussions would be appreciated. Anyway, a mammal's distribution is defining and the scale to which Europe is broken down into separate countries is not anything to worry about. In reply to John Pack Lambert, political boundaries are chosen to diffuse large flora and fauna by region categories for the simple reason that this is how we discuss, describe, and categorize species' distributions. Upmerging species with limited distributions into such a broad category does a disservice to the goals of navigation and browsing related topics. Rkitko (talk) 17:24, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that being found in (Metropolitan) France is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of, for example, the Common shrew ? In the article text it may be appropriate to go down to the level of European countries, but not for categorization - many animals occur in many of Europe's 50+ states (and in some cases elsewhere). Also, this nomination is really housekeeping following the previous CFD. DexDor (talk) 19:49, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You keep missing the point. The distribution of a species is defining. How we diffuse that is irrelevant. We have chosen to diffuse those to political subdivisions because that's how they're discussed, defined, categorized, and spoken about. Upmerging all to the largest subunits you deem worthwhile is ridiculous and does a disservice to the fine scale some taxa might require for categorization. I could counter your shrew example with an example that's either endemic or native to just a few surrounding countries, but I'd rather just discuss the merits of the proposal. And despite the fact that you see this as a housekeeping proposal, I can still oppose it. Rkitko (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not defining. How we diffuse that is very relevant. A species that occurs in, for instance, Spain, France, Belgium, Luxembourg, Switzerland, and Italy, is not defined by occuring in any of those countries - categorising them by that is overcategorisation. A species that is only found in a single 'unit of how we diffuse that' is defined by that. A species that is found in more than one is not. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:15, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, it is not overcategorization. This is all a question of scale -- unless you're going to acknowledge that, by your logic, some species occur in Europe and Asia and therefore Category:Fauna of Europe should be restricted to endemic fauna. Some fauna are Afro-Eurasian. Which rank should we stop at? It is as ridiculous to me to include all fauna with restricted distributions in the continent category as it would be to upmerge fauna of Europe to fauna of Afro-Eurasia. Rkitko (talk) 23:52, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I'm not going to acknowledge that, because it isn't true. Continent-level is defining for species that occur on multiple continents; country-level is not defining for species that occur in multiple countries. There is nothing inconsistent or illogical about this, it's simply WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:26, 28 April 2014 (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 shot with digital SLR cameras

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) 00:08, 16 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per this previous CfD for essentially the same thing. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 07:52, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The issue is comprehensively discussed at the link. It's too big a category to be meaningful or manageable. Two from one (talk) 01:57, 24 April 2014 (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:Amphibians of Albania

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, but split the last into Category:Endemic amphibians of the Iberian Peninsula. – Fayenatic London 22:17, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: If Category:Amphibians of the Iberian Peninsula‎ is altered per the discussion above then any merge into the renamed category should be a selective merge (see TBR's comment below). DexDor (talk) 05:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If this category tree was complete then an article (e.g. Common toad which is "found throughout most of Europe ...") could be in dozens of by-country categories (for Monaco, San Marino, ...). See Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_April_9#Category:Mammals_of_Monaco. DexDor (talk) 06:09, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Partially oppose I agree that practically unused categories for small countries can be merged, but I do not see why categories that are used and represent larger geographic areas should go. The problem of dozens of country-based categories affects relatively few species. On the other hand, in the Mediterranean region in particular there are many species which have quite limited distribution (without necessarily being country endemics), so grouping them to "Amphibians of Europe" seems a bit blunt. After all, Europe is a continent. A problem is that there are not so many other well-defined geographic entities at lower scales (e.g., the Iberian Peninsula), except countries. I it possible to come up with some intermediate subdividions? Micromesistius (talk) 14:18, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Micromesistius. There are quite a few articles (that are not currently in these country-based categories) where the lead says something like "found in most of Europe and northwestern Africa" (from Midwife toad). Thus, it's usually easy to put an article in the correct continent-level category/ies, but much harder to tell (from the article text) what countries the species has been found in (especially, in Europe where there are lots of small countries). Regions (Iberian Peninsula, British Isles, Scandinavia, Benelux, Western Europe etc) would cause other complications - they overlap and don't all have a clear definition. As a description of the range of an animal (in article text) "of Europe" would be rather blunt, but as a geographical categorization characteristic I think it's about right; if the category becomes large then it could be diffused into subcats such as "Frogs of Europe". DexDor (talk) 20:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all except the last. While more tightly constrained than mammals or, especailly, birds, an amphibian that occurs across country lines isn't defined by being present in either country. On the scale of Europe, the granularity is such that for non-endemics, a continent-wide distribution is sufficient, barring islands (Category:Amphibians of Great Britian might be valid; Category:Amphibians of Montenegro is absolutely not). The last should be purged and renamed/merged to a new Category:Endemic fauna of the Iberian Peninsula, which is a valid geographic region for such a thing thanks to the Pyranees (but again, for non-endemics is not WP:DEFINING) and which can fall under Category:Endemic fauna by region. - The Bushranger One ping only 20:08, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the last one. Merge the rest. National borders generally do not constitute barriers across which animals cannot walk. Iberia has a mountain barrier and Britain the sea (though only since the last ice age), which might make them exceptions. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:14, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all This leads to too much category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 23 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, unless nominator also suggests upmerging Category:1985 births to Category:1980s births and Category:Laotian people to Category:Southeast Asian people. Just as the year of birth and nationality are fine-scale categories that are WP:DEFINING, so are all of the finest scale categories used to describe species distributions and is especially important for taxa that are not widely distributed as inclusion in a broader category does a disservice to the goals of navigation and easy browsing of related topics. I have explained in previous comments on these nominations how "category clutter" can be dealt with by the use of regional categories. I'm more convinced than ever that the use of the phrase "category clutter" here is not a real critique but rather a stand-in for the WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument. Rkitko (talk) 17:36, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The issue here is that many animal species can be found in many countries (albeit possibly less so for amphibians than for moths). I'm not aware of any articles that are in multiple year-of-birth categories so that is irrelevant to this discussion. The complex categorization scheme you proposed at the moths CFD was not supported by any other editors. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My point was about scale. You've chosen "Europe" as an acceptable scale. I strongly disagree. I find it both useful and necessary to categorize some species by continent, others by region, and still others by country. My comment on the moths CfD was not a proposal (perhaps a new concept for the fauna categories), but a reflection of how categorization already works in some other areas, notably with flora. Rkitko (talk) 21:40, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A species that occurs in more than one country is not defined by occuring in that country. Please also do not make "other stuff" arguments, especially ones that are absolutely not comparable. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:16, 27 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, a species that occurs in more than one continent is not defined by occurring in that continent. It's not an OTHERSTUFF argument if the comparison is appropriate. You have clearly chosen the scale (continent) with which you feel most comfortable. I fundamentally disagree on your opinion of the best scale. Clearly I have chosen smaller scale categories (states, provinces, and countries). I chose this based on the ease of access (categories remain small enough to navigate) and the prevalent use of categorization and organization that is the most familiar to readers (flora and fauna are described in terms of the states, provinces, and countries they inhabit). You hand your opinion on WP:DEFINING even though I don't see how you get this kind of interpretation from the wording there. You haven't defended your chosen minimum category circumscription (continents) as defining and I would really appreciate the insight as to why you think they are while countries are not. Every argument given so far can apply to both continents and countries. Rkitko (talk) 21:58, 1 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For a species/genus that occurs in many countries (e.g. across a large part of Europe), as many do, it would not be reasonable to list all those countries (including the likes of San Marino, let alone provinces etc) in the lead as that would in some cases be many dozens of countries - in many cases the article text (let alone the lead) doesn't list all the countries (see my reply to Micromesistius above). In that sense it's not WP:DEFINING. A species will be in at most 7 continents (and most are native to just 1-2) and in most cases that information is in the lead. DexDor (talk) 05:51, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll remind you that species with larger distributions are not categorized (and should not be) in every country but regional categories instead. See my recent edit to Pistachio for an example on how this works: diff. See my reply to Bushranger below, as well. Rkitko (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"species with larger distributions are not categorized (and should not be) in every country but regional categories instead" - Which creates the scenario where some of a country's flora and fauna are categorised as "Foo of Bar", but not all, which is not at all helpful to the reader - if it's simply "X of Y", it must be all, or none. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have never seen this "all or none" argument before. What supports that notion? Policy, guideline, or otherwise. The reader can browse categories and actually the use of intermediate region categories with individual countries as child categories enhances the ability to browse species from similar regions. Rkitko (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In other words, a species that occurs in more than one continent is not defined by occurring in that continent. - Nope. It IS defined by the continents it occurs in. Not the countries. One reason would be continents occur naturally, while countries don't. Another would be pure category clutter. A third would be that the vast majority of species have ranges that cross national boarders; the number that cross continental borders is rather less. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:01, 2 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Why? What evidence do you have that suggests the flora and fauna of ecoregions on different continents are dissimilar enough to separate them? Note that our very own article on the Palearctic ecozone indicates that Euro-Siberian region has many animals and plants in common. It might even be accurate to suggest that the Northern European regions included in the Euro-Siberian region are more similar to Northern Asia than Mediterranean Europe. Biogeographically, the split between Europe and Asia aren't very distinct. When speaking of of flora and fauna and specifically in the case we have here in Afro-Eurasia, contrary to your statement, continents do not occur naturally. Even in the case of Australia -- the northern Queensland coast so much resembles New Guinea that NG even has wallabies. So... continents are geological formations defined by humans for convenience and often follow political boundaries -- just like countries! How about that? In terms of flora and fauna we need biogeography and what that tells us is that biogeographically, continents are no more natural than countries. But it still is how we discuss, define, and categorize flora and fauna. Perhaps you could explain to me why, if continents are natural as you assert, we have the article on boundaries between continents. Simply put, in the context of flora and fauna, your chosen scale of continents are not natural and if that's you're reason for rejecting country categories, you must also reject continents. There is another choice -- we continue to use low level categories (states, provinces, small countries) and mid-level categories (larger countries and regions) in combination with high-level categories (e.g. continents) for their convenience and because that's how we discuss, define, and categorize flora and fauna. You have this odd notion that it's about the movement of species across borders that's troublesome with country categories. Few species -- mostly migratory birds and Lepidoptera -- move around those kinds of distances. Populations of species typically have small ranges (of those that are mobile to that degree, many are sessile or don't travel far) and thus it is appropriate to define a species as being native to the countries in which it resides. Rkitko (talk) 01:53, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"You have this odd notion that it's about the movement of species across borders that's troublesome with country categories" - I do not have any such notion (odd or otherwise), and have not said anything of the sort, so please do not cast such asperisons. It's the population EXISITING on multiple sides of borders that is the problem. The fact that, say, the Italian edible frog occurs only in Italy is WP:DEFINING. The Mediterranean tree frog, on the other hand, occurs in Italy, Portugal, Spain, France, and the Balearic Islands; it is not defined by occuring in any of those regions. It is, however, reasonable (and defining) to categorise it as one of the Category:Amphibians of Europe. The thing is that, even if one argues that a continental boundary is somehow "defined by humans for convenience" (something I don't believe I've ever seen argued anywhere else), the scale of the continent makes the categorisation defining, and not WP:OC. As for "What evidence do you have that suggests the flora and fauna of ecoregions on different continents are dissimilar enough to separate them?" et. al. this is skirting into WP:BLUE territory. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:23, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
On the odd notion, my mistake. I re-read your statement above and mistook it for the argument usually used by John Pack Lambert that "species don't stop at political boundaries," which does appear to be based on the notion of movement and migration. Yours is similar but not exactly the same. Regardless, my points on the affinities of flora and fauna in biogeography remains. You appear to just dismiss it without discussing the merits of my argument. Have you studied biogeography? Did you read up on the affinities between ecoregions in northern Europe and northern Asia and their dissimilarity to Mediterranean Europe? Surely that would discount your WP:BLUE claim. It's not a clear case at all! The common definition of Europe isn't exactly clear either. Please recognize the difference between continents in the context of geological formations and continents in the context of biogeography -- they are entirely different and the delineation between continents when speaking of biogeography is much more difficult and not as clear as you assume. So, again, they're not natural and if that's you're reason for opposing country categories for flora and fauna, then you should oppose continent categories as well. I gave specific examples and hoped you would give it a little more thought.
One of the problems I have with categorizing the Mediterranean tree frog in Category:Amphibians of Europe is that the category does not accurately represent the distribution of that species. In including it in the largest scale category, it is implied to have a larger range than it does. Yes, I know the text is meant to clarify this, but it often doesn't. And for larger taxa with no natural well-known subdivisions, e.g. Category:Orchids of Asia, the category would be so enormous it would be unusable. Political subdivisions are used for convenience and, again, this is how the literature describes and yes defines species. Rkitko (talk) 02:55, 6 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That a species is in a "of Europe" category does not imply that it's found throughout Europe - cf for example Category:Amphibians of the United States (where many/most of the members are found only in a part of the US), Category:Film actors (which doesn't imply the actor has been in every film) or any number of books with titles like "Birds of Europe" (which even mention birds that are just an occasional visitor to a corner of Europe). You seem fixated on trying to use categorization to accurately represent the distribution of a species rather than using it to categorize the species. DexDor (talk) 04:28, 6 May 2014 (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:Insurgencies currently ongoing

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 per C2C. The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Currently ongoing" is repetitively redundant. UnitedStatesian (talk) 05:38, 18 April 2014 (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:Woman natural philosophers

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; already within Category:Women philosophers. – Fayenatic London 21:51, 18 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent category is small, and can't be fully diffused otherwise, so this category would tend to ghettoize and it violates the final rung rule. We don't need this cat - could conceivably put this person in Category:Women philosophers but I think that has a different intent. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:13, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The one article is a BLP on a lady who has a Professorship in the Philosophy of Science. Natural Philosophy is generally a term for those who undertook what we now call science in the medieval and early modern periods. I think the best answer is to find a better category for her and then delete this category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:18, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose for now. The parent Category:Natural philosophers has many sub-categories by field into which articles can be diffused, so the basis of the nomination seems flawed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:25, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Normally we require that the parent be fully diffusable - the 4-5 diffusing cats there now don't do the job in any way - they are all much more constrained versions, and with good reason there are still 64 articles in the parent. We simply don't have enough articles here for a full diffusion otherwise.•, and if we don't have a full diffusion we shouldn't have non-diffusing cats.Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:43, 21 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge I see no reason to keep such a problematic category with only one entry.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:32, 23 April 2014 (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/2014_April_18&oldid=1074812278"