July 4
NEW NOMINATIONS
Category:Paris Saint-Germain Féminines
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:02, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is already a category for this subject, see Category:Paris Saint-Germain F.C. (Ladies). DroopyDoggy (talk) 18:42, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- DElete -- If it were not empty I would say merge. Possibly, it should becopme a cat-redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2013 (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:Archeological terminology
- 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, which has become a de facto merge. Note this should not be considered prejudicial to the fate of the target category. The Bushranger One ping only 06:59, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Rename. Yes, I know it's a US vs Rest-of-world English thing, but this is the only subcategory of Category:Archaeology which uses the US spelling. So, it's either change this one, or change the 343 others... Grutness...wha? 15:13, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Support as original creator of this particular category. I apologise for not having noticed the spelling of the name of the parent category, mea culpa. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 15:31, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose ENGvar rules says we should not change things needlessly, there is no reason to change this category to conform when that would be seen as endorsing British English.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- While categories are not directly covered by WP:CONSISTENCY, I would have expected the same rules to hold unless there are specific national reasons not to. Certainly many categories have had their names changed to become consistent with a particular category tree here before for similar reasons, and I see no reason why this one should be any different. Indeed this is covered under the speedy category rename procedures at C2A - "Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C below." The convention here is quite clearly to use the international spelling. For what its worth, if this had been the only one using international English and all the others had been using US English, it would have needed to be changed in exactly the same way; it is not a case of favo(u)ring one form over the other, but is a case of aiding navigation. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This cat currently contains one article that appears to be a disambiguation page with references (it's unlikely that the phrase is notable enough for WP:WORDISSUBJECT). Terminology cats are usually a bad thing as it's easy for editors to make the mistake "'Foo' is a term used in barology so the Foo article belongs in the Barology terminology category". For example, how many of the articles currently in Category:School terminology are really about linguistics ? - that cat's become a miscellaneous category. There are more examples here. If not deleted then rename - being consistent with 343 other articles is a good reason to rename. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- That's largely because it hasn't been populated yet. There are a large number of articles which could go in there. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Firstly, many (probably most) of the terms listed in that glossary refer to things that are not specific to archaeology (e.g. the WP article titled "Alloy" does not belong in Category:Archaeology). More significantly, we categorize articles by the characteristics of the subject (the thing that the title refers to) rather than by characteristics of the title. E.g. the WP article about absolute dating is in Category:Dating methods and hence is in categories for archeology and chronology. Absolute dating (the subject) is nothing to do with language so shouldn't be placed in Category:Terminology (a child of Category:Language). "Absolute dating" and "Absolute Dating" are (English-language) terms, but that's irrelevant to how we categorize the subject they refer to. Hope that clarifies, DexDor (talk) 16:58, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Makes sense, though I still feel that this category may have a use. Though the terms are not necessarily all specific to archaeology alone, their use in archaeology is an important one, and as such accessing them through the tree of archaeology categories is useful. Grutness...wha? 00:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- But, "accessing [an article like Alloy] through the tree of archaeology categories" would require that article to be in an archaeology category. If that was the way categorization worked the article about alloys would be in dozens/hundreds of categories. The normal way to navigate from an achaeology article that mentions an alloy is to click on a bluelink (alloy, bronze or whatever). DexDor (talk) 06:18, 6 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- With respect, "alloy" is something of a straw man argument. Yes, that would be in hundreds of categories, but it's hardly so closely tied with Archaeology that it would be in a category of archaeological terms to start with. Something like Anthropic units, which is the one article currently in the category, however, is not likely to be in many categories other than the one under discussion - and the same is true for many of the items on the list. Absolute dating, which you mentioned above and which mentions archaeology in the article's first sentence, is similar. Just going through the letter A of that list I can see acheulian, acropolis, agora, amphora, antiquarian, archaeoastronomy, archaeozoology, archaic, artifact (archaeology), assemblage (archaeology), and archaeological association - each of which has a meaning strongly connected to archaeology and is a worthwhile addition to such a category. Grutness...wha? 00:33, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Eek, aargh, no! A "terminology" category should only contain terms which have a special meaning in archaeology, not every term that is used in it (eg "spade" is not needed), nor terms for periods or types of artefacts that only occur in archaeology. Otherwise it will simply duplicate all the terms in the vast tree of archaeology categories (if it were done thoroughly, which of course it would not be), which is pointless. Of that list, probably only Absolute dating, Anthropic units, artifact (archaeology), assemblage (archaeology), and archaeological association should be included. Amphora should not be - if it is, why not bracelet or ring? Most "terminology" categories look rather ropy to me. Johnbod (talk) 02:40, 31 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Since most US universities do not teach arch(a)eology, only anthropology, it seems inappropriate for US spelling to be imposed elsewhere. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Just a comment. Please be careful when working with archaeology articles. Many of them have References to archeology websites, publications, etc. I found one Reference to a NASA.gov website where archeology was changed to archaeology in the article. Fortunately, the link is not broken, but it could happen. One of the links above is to Archaeological Institute of America. Respectfully, Tiyang (talk) 10:03, 12 July 2013 (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:Policies and views of Hassan Rouhani
- 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 Category:Hassan Rouhani. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Too little content. In fact one of these 2 articles is a book which is irrelevant to this category. Farhikht (talk) 13:07, 4 July 2013 (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 the United Kingdom
- 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. Some cleanup may be necessary. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose merging Category:Mammals of the United Kingdom to Category:Mammals of Great Britain
- Nominator's rationale: I really don't see how these "<plants/animals> of <country>" categories fit in WP's categorization as they break many rules that are normally followed in the rest of WP (e.g. see how many country categories Soprano pipistrelle is in - and how many of them are mentioned in the article, let alone referenced). It is particularly bizarre to have both a UK and a GB category. DexDor (talk) 05:26, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree. At the time, I was trying to keep all the species pages consistent, and seeing that Great Britain isn't a sovereign nation and United Kingdom is, I created it. Since then, so many people have hated the idea of categorising species based on country and constantly reverted my edits, that I have now completely given up on it.Elspooky (talk) 12:24, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I generally think a merge would be a good idea – at present the categories look to be being used arbitrarily. However, the merge would have to be done carefully because not all parts of the UK are in Great Britain and some parts are in Ireland (sic). I see Category:Fauna of Ireland includes the whole island and I expect the same applies for the one page in Category:Mammals of Ireland. I certainly would not see this as any sort of precedent for deprecating "<plants/animals> of <country>". Thincat (talk) 20:16, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment -- There are (I think) a few mammals that occur on the island of GB but not the island of Ireland. I suspect that far too many articles are getting cluttered up with too many categories. National boundaries generally do not provide a good basis for fauna categories, as they generally present little obstacle to the spread, or the spread preceded the boundary being established. Either both the British and Irish categories should be merged into Category:Mammals of British Isles or we should have GB and all-Ireland categories. All-Ireland categories are allowed where this is appropriate and in those cases the converse should be a GB category, not a UK one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:57, 7 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Another comment yes. This lists mammals in GB but not in Ireland. Maybe there are none in Ireland which aren't also in GB?? The phrase "British Isles" is often problematic on political grounds.[1] A difficulty is that people interested in categorisation but not in wildlife tend to prefer countries (sometimes strongly). Thincat (talk) 09:08, 8 July 2013 (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:Plants used in traditional Shipibo-Conibo medicine
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is another category that categorizes articles (e.g. Tynanthus) by something that most (if not all) of these articles don't actually mention. I.e. it can hardly be a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Listifying to article space would create an unreferenced article - maybe listify to a note on the talk page of Shipibo-Conibo people. The other categories under Category:Medicinal plants by tradition could also be reviewed, but they are probably more notable traditions (e.g. there are well-developed WP articles about traditions such as Ayurveda). DexDor (talk) 05:11, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete The failure of the articles to mention this fact indicates it is not notable to the articles involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 4 July 2013 (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:People who refused the title of People's Artist of Ukraine
- 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:13, 11 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:People who refused the title of People's Artist of Ukraine (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
- Nominator's rationale: Delete. Given the guidelines in WP:OC#AWARD, which discourages the categorization of people by award, I don't think we should go beyond award recipients and categorize those who refused particular awards. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Listify and delete. No harm in having a list of them, perhaps as a subsection of the article on the award, but we don't need a category. Grutness...wha? 15:15, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- List > Delete Yes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is exactly what we get for not enforcing the rules against award cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:39, 4 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment (nom). Just re: the "listify" comments—there is currently one article in the category, Oleh Skrypka, and he is already mentioned in People's Artist of Ukraine as refusing the title. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:23, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- I would have asked for this to be listified in the artikcle on the award, but understand that not to be necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 7 July 2013 (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.