Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< January 19 January 21 >

January 20

Category:Placer mining

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 parents: Category:Mining techniques and Category:Surface mining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article, placer mining, and unlikely to expand.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  19:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge as the category has a parent which the article does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge is fine, there may be future potential, but as it sits now not likely. --kelapstick(bainuu) 21:37, 24 January 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:Moths of Cape Verde

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 might be consensus for a merge to smaller geographical areas than Sub-Saharan Africa. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:02, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For a species such as Hellula undalis or nutmeg (moth) being found in a particular small (on a global scale) country is non-defining.  See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_6#Category:Moths_of_Cameroon. Note: A merge up to Category:Moths of Africa (and hence deletion of Category:Moths of Sub-Saharan Africa) could also be considered. DexDor (talk) 16:54, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support 3 and 4 per the previous cfd in 2014. The first 2 are islands and more likely to have endemic species (although the vast majority of Category:Moths of Cape Verde appear to be widespread). I would much prefer all such categories to include 'endemic' in the name (and contents). Oculi (talk) 18:38, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While most countries are not biogeagraphic units, Category:Moths of Sub-Saharan Africa (and even more so, Category:Moths of Africa) would be a behemoth of tens of thousands articles, if properly populated. At the moment, I do not see a better operational solution than using country-based categories (which also have practical value, whether non-defining or not). I think an agreeable category structure should raised up at the appropriate project page(s), not only here (as Arthur Dent might have agreed). Micromesistius (talk) 18:55, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The solution is to use Category:Erebid moths of Africa etc. DexDor (talk) 20:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at a sample of the articles in the Cape Verde category and found (1) none of the articles mentioned Cape Verde and (2) all of the articles were already directly in the Africa category (which, incidentally, violates WP:SUBCAT). DexDor (talk) 09:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is Agdistis notabilis, already in another Cape Verde fauna category. Oculi (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This proposal is much to wideranging. Biota are likely to be split according to a series of climatic zones. The Sahel, tropic Africa, East Africa, and southern Africa (south of Tanzania & DRC) may be viable splits for Africa. I presume that the biota of the Cape Verde Islands is similar to that of the adjacent areas of west Africa. This needs a wide-ranging nom from someone who known much more of the subject than I do. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:14, 22 January 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.

War in Afghanistan

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/merge all on extended list at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 20#War_in_Afghanistan_(belongs_to_this_discussion). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And more (see talk page).

Nominator's rationale: per parent category Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) Jpcase (talk) 15:49, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Wikipedia talk:CFD - there are quite a lot more categories under this topic that I feel should be renamed. WP:CFD says that I could request help in cases where there's a large number of categories under discussion. I've never nominated anything at CfD before, so I figured it would be worth asking for help, in case there's a better way of going about this than just manually adding the CfD template to each and every category page. --Jpcase (talk) 14:03, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Wow! How did you compile that so fast, haha? Is there a special tool that you were able to use? Thanks for putting a list together. To be honest, I haven't gone through all of the categories myself, so I'm not entirely sure how many there are that need to be renamed. The thing to keep in mind, as noted at Wikipedia talk:CFD, is that some of the categories are split into (2001-2014) and (2015-present). The list that you compiled only has (2001-2014) categories. And again, I'm not typically involved with military topics on Wikipedia, so someone else should decide whether there's any value in keeping separate categories for the (2001-2014) and (2015-present) phases of the war in such cases where distinctions have already been made.
If it's decided that everything should be moved to (2001-present), then some categories will simply have to be renamed - like Category:Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2001–2014), since Category:Opposition to the War in Afghanistan (2015–present) was never created - while others will have to be merged - like Category:Battles of the War in Afghanistan (2001–2014), since the category Category:Battles of the War in Afghanistan (2015–present) also exists. --Jpcase (talk) 15:06, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Jpcase: There is no Wikipedia tool that I know of (but I don't know everything either...), the trick that works well for me is that an unfolded category tree can be copied to Excel, where you can sort and filter and apply all kinds of formulas. I've added the two categories of 2015–present that I could find, in order to get them merged. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:17, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • General comment the proposal is now extended to renaming about 80 categories and merging 2 three categories, see talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:26, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Thanks again! I think that the total number of categories needing to be merged is actually three - since Category:Military operations of the War in Afghanistan (2015–present) has the subcategory Category:Airstrikes during the War in Afghanistan (2015–present). -Jpcase (talk) 17:21, 21 January 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.

Russia

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: split 1720s, 1910s, 18th and 20th century categories; keep 1721 and 1917 for now, but editors may split them manually; and rename the rest. – Fayenatic London 00:03, 30 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories - until 1917
Nominator's rationale: rename, "in Russia" is likely to lead to confusion with the current state of Russia. For example, an event in 1837 that took place in what is nowadays in Ukraine may well be removed from Category:1837 in Russia by an editor who thinks it belongs in a Ukraine category rather than a Russia category. When we rename to "in the Russian Empire" it is more clearly referring to a polity of the past. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously depends on whether one looks after 1917 establishments in what is today Russia or the historical Russian Empire.--Zoupan 04:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom Clearer scope. There are however two minor problems, at the beginning and the end of the Empire's life. The Russian Empire starts in 1721, so a 1720s category will probably also cover events from the final years of the Tsardom of Russia. The Russian Empire pretty much collapsed by March, 1917. The rest of the year was very unstable, with a short-lived Russian Republic that had only nominal control over the areas it claimed, the emergence of Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic, and several breakaway states and separatist governments, such as the Ukrainian People's Republic. Is the 1917 category supposed to cover all of them? Dimadick (talk) 17:33, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. That may be a reason not to rename the 1917 categories, hence to stop renaming after 1916. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:50, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support generally -- 1917 is a problem. I think the boundary should probably be at the October (or November) Revolution. I am not convinced that the treaty ending the Great Northern War is an appropriate boundary, but that is a debate for another day. The Russian title was Tsar, which is a version of the Roman imperial title Caesar. That applies both before and after 1721. The difference consists in an attitude to the West. St Petersburgh was build before that as Russia's "window on the west" and the conquest of Sweden's Baltic provinces (now the three Baltic states). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In November, 1721, Peter the Great changed the traditional titles of the Russian monarchy by adding "the Great, Father of His Country, Emperor of All the Russias" to them. His new imperial title received diplomatic recognition from Poland, Prussia, and Sweden, though ignored by other European monarchies. The new title was a recognition of Russia's new status as a great power and reflected Peter's claim of superiority over other European monarchs. Dimadick (talk) 10:05, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • Gotta say I don't get the relevance of the above three comments. Or at least I don't get how it clears things up. Doprendek (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support specifically because anything under 'NNNN establishments in Russia' should not correspond to say establishments in say what is now Ukraine--a lot of those categories above should simply be understood as miscategorized under any criteria. BUT this does not mean that the category say '1911 establishments in Russia' might not be relevant and useful, as per the following-- Doprendek (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose generally because there is an entity of its own called Russia, it means established in present-day Russia, and this should be allowed as a cateogry where appropriate. Insisting otherwise will in fact conflict with developing categorization practices covering establishments in many other parts of the world on Wikipedia. The main problem is that there is no set standard (or if so it's become a dead standard) for categorization of entities that exist in a form that is different from when they were established, although the one I am about to describe seems to be becoming the standard (whether through some decision I'm unaware of, or through a kind of common-sense evolution, I'm not sure). (I should note I do a lot of categorization and come across this kind of thing a lot.) Establishments in countries/territories is a large subcategory of this but is regular enough that one can establish regular practices, I think. A rational solution re the general problem of past establishments in changed countries/state entities, to me, seems to be multiple categorization where appropriate--e.g. if the entity is established in 1842 and is in modern-day Ukraine, then it would be categorized under Ukraine for that year, even if there was no recognized entity called Ukraine for that year. The article would then also be categorized under the Russian Empire--unless it isn't. Because maybe it is the Austrian Empire. If it's established in Ukraine in 1955, it's in Ukraine for that year which is itself categorized under Soviet Union (because one can safely say that any area by this point categorized as "Ukraine"--no, I'm not going to argue over Crimea...). If it's established in 2005 it's under Ukraine, period. Can this be hairy? Sure. How about Category:1925 establishments in Ukraine, which right now is a subcategory of Category:1925 establishments in the Soviet Union? Maybe, unless you're also including entities that were established in what was then Poland. (I haven't checked them all out.) Maybe someone (probably not me) will straighten this one out later (or maybe someone would just rather avoid a dustup over having an article categorized simultaneously under Poland and Ukraine, I wouldn't want to refight that, either, even on a computer screen). Please note that there's an argument--and again, maybe there's some policy directive somewhere--that says if place X didn't exist officially in year X, then don't say it was established in place X. That might even be the original view at Wikipedia, maybe even the official view, but if so it is sufficiently evolved away that it must be at least re-discussed. There's still plenty of cases of articles categorized like this (historically contemporaneous entity only) right now, and that's the way I used to view it, TBH. But I'm not going to revert all of the categories created by people who have categorized establishments in (say) Serbia in 1898 or 1927 or 1954 or whatever if it also has correct categorization in the Austro-Hungarian Empire or Yugoslavia or whatever's appropriate. Now I know there are probably One and Only One Correct Category people out there but I am definitely not one of them. I find multiple categories massively preferable to a) incorrect categories, or b) massive and over-general categories that impart little information to a user seeing the category (I consider this a subcategory of a) BTW). But the important things to keep in mind is that this is a general problem and no general policy has been established--or if it has, it's not been properly shared and no Canute-like declaration is going to revert things. So at this point I've evolved to favoring (through Wikipedia community practice at least) categorizing establishments/disestablishments in places under both present and past entities if they now differ. Generally, I think a prime goal of categorization should be to impart, and then retain, information in and of itself. Like an article, it should evolve toward the detailed and the exact. I say this as a general principle and an ideal, knowing that it will not be established with algorithmic precision, but arguing it nonetheless. Oh and ideally this should mean eventually (this would be a massive task) renaming say "1955 establishments in Ukraine" to "1955 establishments in present-day Ukraine" as well as all the other thousands of categories covering the world that would fall under this... It calls for going over all these categories and writing a bot to make these changes, I would say, rather then doing it piecemeal and creating inconsistencies, but this would take a decision by category-deciders at a high level. Doprendek (talk) 19:44, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Doprendek: This sounds like a perfectly applicable argument to use in this discussion about Ukraine. For Russia however I see it as less of a problem, because the vast amount of articles in these categories really refers to the Russian Empire as a whole. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:15, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: Yes, it makes sense to rename the above categories to "Russian Empire" from "Russia", as the current naming convention contains actual mistakes. I just don't want to dismiss the entire idea of the "in Russia" category--it makes perfect sense (to me at least) to retain this as a subcategory of e.g. "Russian Empire" if it contains establishments/disestablishments in what is understood as Russia proper. But from a practical standpoint here, rename them first, and then later put respective articles in a "Russia" subcategory if appropriate. Sorry to all if that point lost in my long post above. Doprendek (talk) 16:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Christmas by medium

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:12, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, redundant category layer with only three subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge .... overcategorization. — Warren. ‘ talk , 18:47, 20 January 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:Americans who lost children

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: Lost. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:10, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, follow up on this earlier nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:08, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While significant, tragic, and uncommon, losing children is no more a defining characteristic than People who gave birth to triplets. --Animalparty! (talk) 08:35, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The category system does not exist as a venue for creating lists of everything it might be possible to create a list of — it exists to group people by their defining characteristics, not by every single fact that may happen to be true about their lives. But having lost children, while sad and tragic, is not a notability claim that would get a person a Wikipedia article in its own right, nor is it a thing that would be routinely mentioned in all or most coverage of the subject as a core part of what they're getting covered for — which means it's not a defining characteristic for the purposes of the category system. Bearcat (talk) 15:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.... what, like, at the mall? Doesn't pass MOS:EUPHEMISM. — Warren. ‘ talk , 18:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment "Lost" here means children who have disappeared, are missing in action due to warfare, or are simply deceased? I don't get the intended scope. Dimadick (talk) 17:38, 21 January 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 Burma

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) 00:05, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency e.g. with other subcats of Category:Vertebrates of Myanmar. DexDor (talk) 06:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename ... Wikipedia has increasingly standardized on Myanmar instead of Burma. This is another step in that direction. — Warren. ‘ talk , 18:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Didn't we rename similar Myanmar-related categories some time ago? Dimadick (talk) 17:39, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose (1) most Myanmar categories are at Burma (2) The appropriate merge target is Category:Mammals of Southeast Asia. Except for indigenous species a subcontinent is usually the appropriate geographic category for biota. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:49, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
(1) You're wrong (e.g. Category:Burma is a redirect and see the category linked in tbe nom), (2) I agree, but intend to do that later. DexDor (talk) 07:25, 23 January 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 South Korea

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 28 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For a species such as Red squirrel being found in a particular small (on a global scale) country is non-defining. DexDor (talk) 06:41, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many editors interpret these categories as being for any species found in (native to) the region concerned (regardless of whether the species has a wider distribution). DexDor (talk) 07:18, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How many of those 105 articles (e.g wild boar) do you think should be in the category? DexDor (talk) 20:49, 24 January 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_January_20&oldid=1040549060"