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 per precedent and as porposed. The main objections here appear to be based on how experts in the field classify these. However the Wikipedia category system is used for its own organization purposes and as part of that we try to avoid over categorization of articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:37, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Austria to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Germany to Category:Orchids of Europe

Alternative: Merge the above 2 categories to new Category:Orchids of Central Europe

• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Portugal to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Spain to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Metropolitan France to Category:Orchids of Europe

Alternative: Merge the above 3 categories to new Category:Orchids of Southwestern Europe

• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Italy to Category:Orchids of Europe

Alternative: Rename the above category to Category:Orchids of Southeastern Europe

• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Denmark to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of England to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Ireland to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Scotland to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Sweden to Category:Orchids of Europe
• Propose merging Category:Orchids of Wales to Category:Orchids of Europe

Alternative: Merge the above 6 categories to new Category:Orchids of Northern Europe

Nominator's rationale: Within Europe (50+ countries) which countries an orchid is found in is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. See, for example, the categories at Orchis mascula and previous CFDs (e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_16#Category:Moths_of_Andorra). DexDor (talk) 22:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC) Note: The example used in the nomination was in 32 country categories at the time of the nomination[1]. DexDor (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The proposed alternative scheme of upmerging to regional categories would involve the creation of categories such as Category:Orchids of Northern Europe (parented by Category:Flora of Northern Europe and Category:Orchids of Europe). DexDor (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose upmerging to a "of Europe" category but would support upmerging to a "Flora of X" category by country with some consolidation on flora pages; that an article has too many flora categories just means it has been mismanaged and the guidance of WP:PLANTS to use regional categories where appropriate (e.g. the plant's natural distribution, which is defining, can accurately described by inclusion in that regional category) has not been heeded. Country categories in Europe are supported by the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, which we have employed to standardize this category tree to some degree of success. Articles like Orchis mascula just require cleanup; the presence of too many flora categories there does not justify upmerging to an entire continent. Rkitko ^(talk) 23:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Orchids of Europe and Category:Flora of Austria etc (or Category:Endemic flora of Austria for endemic ones). Oculi (talk) 00:46, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose While they are not natural species boundaries, they are how references categorize plants, by country. Wikipedia should follow rather than lead existing authorities. A general category for too small categories might be okay. MicroPaLeo (talk) 00:53, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. Actually nationality is defining. The plants themeselves don't care, but their study and conservation is funded by national bodies and undertaken by national herbaria and national government departments; and most importantly, people read about, write about, and search for, plant species that occur in their country. Hesperian 00:54, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• This is an argument supporting the existence of List of the orchids of Ireland, not for categorising everything on it into Category:Orchids of Ireland. Oculi (talk) 11:10, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. Herperian is right - data about plant distributions, the legal management framework, the funding for study - the relevant unit for these things is the country. In addition, while "country" may not be the most important category for a plant's distribution, knowing that a plant found in Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium gives you very different information about a plant than does Italy, Greece and Malta, or one that was actually found in every European country. Lumping that all into one single category hides this information. Guettarda (talk) 06:15, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Europe category for the same reason as any other species – most species occupy a large number of countries so these escalate to a high number of not very defining categories quite quickly (I count 16 on the relatively Europe-centric Anacamptis palustris). Forget what other sources are doing: that has no bearing on the relevance of Wikipedia categorisation, which has very different aims. The best way to categorise living things is by broader landmasses and geographical areas that are naturally restrictive to their wildlife. Subdivision of large categories of this type (e.g. Flora) should be done by species type (taxonomy) instead because this will provide a reduced number of more relevant categories. Lists should be used to gather the "species in country" type information instead – context-less navigation between the species themselves is much less useful than a list which highlights the circumstances of the species within the country. SFB 19:29, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Then your advice is that botany editors use original research("forget what other sources are doing") to categorize plants? I think that is outside the scope of encyclopedias. MicroPaLeo (talk) 06:49, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

It is original research to put Anacamptis palustris under Italy, Germany, Netherlands, Poland, Sweden, Greece as none of these is mentioned in the article (and thus cannot possibly be defining, in the Wikipedia sense). Oculi (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You can remove unsourced material or request sources instead of suggesting Wikipedia ignore sources and make up a classification system and do away with using sources. MicroPaLeo (talk) 11:37, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The article does mention Central Europe and Western Europe, you could also rewrite the article to list every country on the range map, if you mean that is required for the category, but if you are suggesting these countries are not on the range map in the source, please feel free to remove them. But a plant found in Germany and France should not be upmerged to Europe, because that is not correct. Specific types of flora and fauna have broad or narrow distributions, one found narrowly, suddenly made present in all of Europe changes the ecology of the organism, and that is original research. A mustard that grows throuh most of Southern Europe should not be forced into the same geographic category as a rock plant found in Norway and Sweden, it just removes the value of geographic categories at all to deal with the apparent frustration of plants with cosmopolitan distributions having lots of categories. MicroPaLeo (talk) 11:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Where a certain species is unique to a country, then I am not opposed to a national categorisation (e.g. Category:Orchids endemic to Spain). However, giving a national categorisation to most species (which are found in multiple political jurisdictions) is far from a definitive feature of that species. You have to ask yourself what a political jurisdiction has to do with defining a species – and why should only present states matter? Why just categorise by Germany, say, and not also Kingdom of Bavaria (an equally long-lived entity that covered the range of a species)? This concept flies against many traditional methods of categorisation on Wikipedia. SFB 17:52, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

So, if the plant occurs in Italy and France only, you cannot put those categories, but must inaccurately say it occurs in Europe, implying it also is native to Finland and Wales and Poland and Russia west of the Urals because Wikipedia does not recognize how plants are categorized by experts in their fields, but instead made up a meaningless categorization that does not fly in the face of how things are done on Wikipedia? Your example plant also incorrectly overcategorizes in subcategories. Why do you think categorizing species according to their geography, an actual science, means you must categorize them in their historical locations, not an actual science? The arguments here seem to be too many categories, but the example is mistakenly overcategorized, that if Wikipedia follows how scientists do it today it will force us to make up methods they don't use, and that the unsightlyness of seeing six country categories should be dealt with by making a category meaningless and too broad so if a plant grows in Greece and Turkey it is categorized geographically exactly like a subarctic plant of Finland and European Russia which is the same as a planet that grows all over Western Europe. It is just made up because, for some reason, Wikipedia editors disapprove. MicroPaLeo (talk) 05:14, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Placing an article about a species in an "of Europe" does not imply that the species is found in every European country. By your logic being in a "of Finland" category would imply it's in every region of Finland. DexDor (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the need to add counties and why it is far better to imply Finland than Europe, as the former has latitudinal and geographic specificity far improved and more meaningful. Or we could continue in your direction with continents, at least they are not political boundaries. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:45, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If you're looking to come up with a category system which precisely defines species ranges then you will no doubt struggle with the fact that there are often no human concepts that match those areas. This aim is completely failed by the model of Wikipedia categorisation as it is not acceptable to build a logical model which could easily stretch into hundreds of national categories on the most common species. SFB 00:49, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

As Erupe covers all of Europe, and so on, already, name a sprecies that would require 100s. MicroPaLeo (talk) 02:51, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Among species, the Black rat is not present in every single part of a continent and would certainly merit hundreds of national categories. Your main argument also misses the point that Wikipedia's categorisation scheme is diffusive: articles will be placed in all the categories to which the label applies (which is the basis of categories). They will not simply sit in a parent category should all the children labels apply. As I've said before, your logic is completely counter to the whole culture. In the same way, see how Skyscraper does not have dozens of categories of the type Category:Types of buildings found in Fooland. SFB 20:45, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You are the one who keeps offering a non-diffussive example, so maybe figure out whose argument is whose, before arguing about your faulty logic. And you keep having to create what is not. In such cases, you argue against yourself and make false arguments, I do not know what you are arguing against that I have said. It seems Wikipedia does not allow organisms that are described by their geography in every source to be categorized by their.geography simply because you imagine that would make "hundreds of country categories" while arguing that I am the one who suggests that (I don't) and not allowing for categories to be diffuse. It is all original research to prevent a problem that you cannot give me an example of. MicroPaLeo (talk) 21:41, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge all -- as we have done with many other species groups. The problem otherwise is that a common species will get a couple of dozen categories. For similar reasons we do not allow categories on performance by performers. They create category clutter. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:50, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I know this is technically a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, but it's never been clearly answered why a long river with a dozen "Rivers of X" categories, such as the Volga River article, isn't a problem (category clutter!) but the natural distribution of a species is a problem.

This is the first time flora categories have been brought to such a discussion, so you have to remember that we have very specific guidelines on consolidation of these categories on articles of plants with large distributions. An article will never have all (or nearly all) European country categories; if it's distribution covers the continent, it will be placed in only a single category. If a plant's distribution would accurately be defined by one of the regions recognized by the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions such as Category:Flora of Southeastern Europe (see the category for a map and its inclusive range), then it will be placed in that category and not its constituent country categories. If a range is more limited, it might just be placed in a few country categories. This scheme, however unfamiliar to you, is effective at answering your concern about too many categories. We do have editors who are working through our tens of thousands of articles making appropriate adjustments to clean up clutter and apply the correct categories. That editors can produce examples that are initially jarring just means we haven't yet cleaned it up, but it does not invalidate the legitimate use of country categories such as those included in this proposal. By the way, I cleaned up Orchis mascula (diff) and Anacamptis palustris (diff) and reduced the categories to just five distribution categories. Note that both of these are indeed largely native to almost all of Europe or can accurately be described that way. I also did this for Anacamptis collina (diff) where it would be inappropriate to upmerge completely to "Flora of Europe". I hope that helps explain the proper way to deal with flora categories. Cheers, Rkitko ^(talk) 18:47, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Your query about the Volga has been answered previously (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_August_29#Category:Birds_of_Suriname), but let's try explaining it again. There are many differences between a fixed geographical feature (river, lake, hill etc) and a species. A fixed geographical feature is defined by its location - e.g. it's almost inconceivable for the lead of an article about a river to not mention the country/ies it flows through. Most rivers etc are only in a single country or a few countries and there is usually no doubt about what those countries are - hence, categorizing rivers by country (and possibly by smaller regions) makes sense even if it means that a few rivers end up in many such categories (for a worse example of this sort of thing see how many "wars involving <country>" categories the World War II article is in). And yes, your argument is OTHERSTUFFEXISTS.

The scheme you describe appears to mean that the inclusion condition for a category "Orchids of X" is something like "Orchids that have been found in X, but excluding orchids that have also been found in many other countries in that continent" - that simply isn't how wp categorization is normally used. DexDor (talk) 22:43, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The native distribution of a species is usually well-known and described and only changes very slowly. These categories do not recognize the ranges of introduced flora in their introduced range. Range extensions are rare enough that they're often published (e.g. "I found this orchid in a county in Ohio that it had never been collected in before, pushing the distribution 20 more miles to the west"). Distributions probably change faster than the course of a river, but both change, so why isn't it acceptable to categorize both by their defining characteristics? (Aside: take a look at the "Landforms of County" category clutter at Tennessee River.) It's also inconceivable for the lead of an article about a plant to not mention the country/ies it grows in. It's often the first thing added to our stub articles on plants, even before photos or a rudimentary description. It's often included in the first sentence. As we've been trying to tell you, the native distribution of a species is defining.

The inclusion criteria have been designed to assuage concerns from editors concerned about "category clutter" but if you're unconcerned by similar clutter on river articles because it appears to be necessary, then we could modify the criteria and end up with articles loaded with their necessary distribution categories. Above, by noting that most rivers occur in just one country, you implied that most plants have the opposite -- large distributions. I'm not sure that's true. Most of the groups I'm most familiar with have numerous rare species and only a few that are found nearly everywhere.

Regardless, it seems that we've tried to address "category clutter!" concerns, so arguments have shifted to "abnormal inclusion criteria!" You will always find a reason to dislike these categories; categories, which I might add, have been around for about a decade. If anything has changed, it's needlessly restrictive (and open to interpretation) categorization guidelines. Rkitko ^(talk) 00:40, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

For consistency we should categorize landforms (hills, mountains, rivers etc) in a similar way (even if it means a few rivers end up in quite a few categories).

The statement "the native distribution of a species is defining" misses the point that each category should be a defining characteristic; you appear to be saying that because the distribution of a species is defining there should be lots of categories that (in combination) can represent that distribution (even if each category is non-defining). Note: This is not the first time this has been explained.

Regarding your last point - see the diffs in your comment of 31st. DexDor (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Question - what would categories like this do with Spanish, Turkish or Russian species? Should editors study herbarium sheets to determine the appropriate categorisation? Shouldn't our category system follow the structure in which the data are reported? Surely that's more appropriate than replacing it with OR. Guettarda (talk) 20:07, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also note that orchids represent ~10% of all flowering plants. Assuming that they are all restricted to one continent (which, of course, they aren't) we'd end up with thousands of species per category. Guettarda (talk) 20:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Regarding the 1st point: that problem can occur at any level of geographic categorization - e.g. if a source says that a species occurs in the Pyrenees, in Scandinavia, in southern Europe, in the British Isles etc then it's not obvious how that maps to countries (especially for small states such as Isle of Man or Jersey). Regarding the 2nd point - see, for example, Category:Spiders of Europe. DexDor (talk) 22:07, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • DexDor: when you say "if a source says that a species occurs in the Pyrenees, in Scandinavia, in southern Europe...." you're missing the critical point here. Species distribution data are reported by country. When you say that we should discard these categories and replace them with ones of our own devising you are arguing that we discard the form in which the data are reported and replace it with a wrapper of our own devising. This is classic SYNTH. Guettarda (talk) 23:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • The nomination does not propose to move any articles into Category:Orchids of Europe that are not members of that category already. Nor does it propose to remove any articles from that category. I.e. if articles are currently correctly categorized then they would still be correctly categorized after the merge. DexDor (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • DexDor, you're being obtuse. If you're not interested in answering my question, why respond to my comment at all? Guettarda (talk) 22:28, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • The categories that this CFD proposes to merge (e.g. Category:Orchids of Spain) are sub-categories of Category:Orchids of Europe. I.e. this discussion is proposing an upmerge to a parent category. WP:SYNTH is about (not) adding inappropriate information to Wikipedia (by combining information from multiple sources). An upmerge does not add any information to Wikipedia (it is the removal of information from the Wikipedia category tree). If you think SYNTH has any relevance to an upmerge please explain. DexDor (talk) 07:11, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • Yes, it adds information not in the source, as Spain and Europe are not synonyms. Reasonably, a person reading an article about an orchid found only in Spain and a patch of Portugal, and seeing its category (yes, readers look at and use categories to follow, otherwise they would be hidden), is "Orchids of Europe" could reasonably conclude that the plant is found in France and Italy and Norway, other countries in Europe, when it is not. You are attempting to force editors to inappropriately categorize orchids as belonging to places where they do not grow. Northern Europe, maritime versus inland, all of biogeography, a scientific discipline, disappears from categories on Wikipedia while being used to categorize organisms in the literature. Wikipedia's category scheme is not the unique and original scheme you claim it is. Categories are sourceable pieces of information. The sources, in this instance, use countries. MicroPaLeo (talk) 07:57, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
              • DexDor, you can't arbitrarily upmerge without considering whether the daughter category can be substituted with the parent category. You wouldn't, for example, upmerge a forestry school to cat:Ecosystems, despite the category tree. Cat:Orchids of Spain is a reasonable subcat of Orchids of Europe, but the latter cannot replace the former because there is Spanish territory outside Europe, and that territory has orchids not found in Spain. When we take one piece of information (this orchid is found in Spain) and another (Spain is in Europe) and come up with a novel conclusion (this orchid is found in Europe) we are engaging in SYNTH. SYNTH isn't inappropriate only when it's wrong (as it would be in this case). Guettarda (talk) 13:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
                • To be fair, Guettarda, if we're following the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, Spanish territories not in Europe are not contained under the European flora category tree. E.g. Category:Flora of the Canary Islands is under Category:Flora of Macaronesia, a region of Category:Flora of Africa. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I have added an alternative proposal to the nomination. Pinging opposers of the original proposal (Rkitko, Hesperian, Guettarda, MicroPaLeo) to see if they wish to comment. DexDor (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Let's see: Orchids of Metropolitan France is a subcat of Asparagales of Metropolitan France. Would Orchids of Southwestern Europe then be a subcat of Asparagales of Metropolitan France (which wouldn't make sense) or would we replace one category with two in each article? So oppose on that one, since it will lead to the addition of even more categories to these articles. Guettarda (talk) 22:44, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The Orchids of the Canary Islands, and those of Spain's enclaves in North Africa (if any exist) belong in the Orchids of Spain, but not the Orchids of Southwestern Europe, so that's a clear oppose as well. Guettarda (talk) 22:50, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ditto on the Azores and Madeira. So oppose Portugal. Guettarda (talk) 22:52, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Azores is even trickier, by upmerging orchids found on only a few islands, you could place North America or Africa in Europe.MicroPaLeo (talk) 16:03, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still oppose Still, also, no one has bothered to post the problematic plant article example with "hundreds" of categories. I don't think encyclopedias should be making up information to attach to articles. Plants are already categorizes geographically by the experts, botanists, geographers, the forest service. If Wikipedia made up its own categories for plants and animals to avoid geography, what is the source for this? Encyclopedias are not the place for your original research, including creation of unique categories that do not match how organisms are already categorized by experts publishing in their field. And, then, can geography only be mentioned in the article, but not as a category other than by continent? We list people by nations, car manufacturers, daytime soap operas, rivers, so again, the reason seems to be there will be hundreds of categories (not shown), it is definng for everything on the planet except for living things, excluding politicians, whatever that means. Are we supposed to codify this, plants can be categorized according to taxonomy, year of naming, climate, and growth habit, but not by their most often used category, geography? Or, if you use geography, pick a meaingless level, even if the plant is endemic to San Francisco, lump it into its continent, North America, so you have a category with 25,000 plants, including an endemic SF manzanita, a Florida marine grass, and a rock plant of Canadian island tundra. Then put on the category sign about big categories? Or just concede it is a meaningless category and get rid of all geography, even continents? Encyclopedias are about exsting information on a topic. Plants are categorized geographically. There is no "hundreds of categories" example. Saying you cannot categorize plants like scientists already do on Wikipedia, but must stick to continents, because that is how Wikipdia does it isn't correct, because too large categories are split. If Northern and Western Europe overlap, do I put a plant in both, or decide by myself whether its marine habitat or latitude is what matters? If a plant is marine coastal bluffs NE, why would I falsely imply it is found in Russia, west of the Urals, also?
  • There is no reason to say that plants cannot be categorized in a way that is sourced. Can you source your justification for Northern Europe? MicroPaLeo (talk) 03:39, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that the regions described above in the alternative merge proposal appear to be original research, as they do not follow well-cited European floristic divisions of the continent. Floristic regions are defined, in part, by climates, but these follow (definer-centic) political boundaries. MicroPaLeo (talk) 08:06, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @DexDor: It's a step in the right direction, essentially recognizing the regions in Europe as defined by the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions -- see Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions#Category:Flora of Europe for maps and lists of subdivisions. An effort to compromise is certainly appreciated, but may I ask what changed your mind from a preference for just one European category to recognizing that regions may be necessary? Cannot the same logic also be applied to the recognition of country categories? And rather than go on a case-by-case basis where we determine which country or region categories would be viable due to size of the region or number of possible taxa included in such a category, wouldn't it be better to stick with a recognized and frequently used hierarchical categorization scheme used by Kew's World Checklist of Selected Plant Families and the USDA's Germplasm Resources Information Network? (Anyway, wouldn't this be the very exception pointed out at WP:SMALLCAT: "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme"?) So officially, I would prefer the alternative proposal to the original proposal but still oppose doing away with the country categories. Rkitko ^(talk) 18:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is sourced. I am sad they did not have any geologists when dealing with the Azores. But, anyone writing articles will not be able to simply categorize them. It is only the categories not the article on the biogeogrpahy that lists the subdivisions. It is always a shame to contort things out of the direct way. Botanists use countries, but for diverse reasons, without a single example, a group of editors has decided they know better than botanists, leaving the average editor to have to, instead of using a source directly, translate it to appease the unnatural category system that denies the references. I suspect it will continue to have problems. Native ecosystem plants will be in different regional categories than the animals they coexist with. Creating complex situations to replace what is sourceable and already used will waste time and interfere with creating the encyclopedia. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:29, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @MicroPaLeo: I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here regarding sourcing... Regardless, this is, as far as I can tell, the first CfD proposal like this for plants. What seems like eons ago in 2007, there were a series of upmerge discussions regarding fauna by state/country/region (for example, this one) but plant categories of the same type were generally left alone. Then again last year, fauna categories that were recreated sometime after those discussions were being brought back for discussion here, mostly related to European countries. As far as I'm aware, all of the recent discussions have resulted in upmerging fauna country categories in Europe to the continent categories even though those discussions usually had little participation even after I sometimes made projects aware (in neutral language to avoid canvassing) of the discussions. I have opposed all the other upmerge proposals - at least the ones I've seen - but I feel very strongly about the flora categories. Yes, I suppose floristically the Azores shares less in common with some other subdivisions of Macaronesia, but the WGSRPD explains that they carefully balanced recognizing boundaries with similar flora and existing political boundaries for ease of description. There may be some failings where it could be improved, but we have the system they produced. Yes, you make a good point here -- our articles on the biogeography sometimes include descriptions of their circumscription under different concepts but as far as I'm aware, no articles mention the circumscription under the WGSRPD. We could certainly make an improvement to the article on Macaronesia and include a brief sentence on how the WGSRPD regards this region. Rkitko ^(talk) 22:37, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • All sensible points, which illustrate the benefits of building this information in main space as opposed to cut-and-dry category space. So much talk here yet Flora of Austria goes unwritten. Category:Flora by country should have some useful articles in it, along the lines of List of indigenous trees and shrubs of Lithuania. SFB 19:07, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • I don't understand what you mean, articles shouldn't have categories? And List of indigenous trees and shrubs of Lithuania's text isn't even a complete sentence. Why is that an example of something "useful?" MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:36, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • By sourcing, I mean that information in Wikipedia should be from a reliable source ("Categorization of articles must be verifiable."). That includes categories. Other discussions are linked above, and I don't specialize in plants and may not have figured out exactly what organisms are being discussed, but I think that the overall idea would eventually apply to all articles about living things.
        • The probable reason for recreation of fauna categories underlies why this is a bad idea, and why I focus on sourcing. Biologists categorize living things by geography, and geography is frequently political boundaries. Do a Google search for: "native to Germany" angiosperms -wikipedia. "Native to Germany" appears over and over. Country where plants are native are probably mandatory for "reliable, secondary sources" on the species, and you find the country mentioned "commonly and consistently" in prose. The countries 9or continent or regions) are appropriate to mention in the lead portion, even of a very long article on a species. As for "overcategorization," it keeps being mentioned, and I keep asking for good examples, and I have not gotten one, nor any number of "how many categories is too many."
          • a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject.
          • if the characteristic would not be appropriate to mention in the lead portion of an article, it is probably not defining;
          • if the characteristic falls within any of the forms of overcategorization mentioned on this page, it is probably not defining.
        • Because this is how scientists write about living things, this will continue to be a natural and sourceable method of categorizing living things. People who don't write or read about living things may not see this, and this will create a perpetual discussion point on Wikipedia. Scientists categorize by country. But, even though it is consistently found in prose about the species, Wikipedia writers (who don't appear to be writing about plants or animals, but I could be wrong about that) don't want living things categorized like biologists do.
        • For some types of organisms, these categories allow readers to consider editing, particularly amateurs. It even says on one of the category pages that categories help people find other related articles. Readers want to know about plants and animals where they live, so these categories would serve one stated purpose of categoriez.
        • [[Category:Insects of Europe]] has over 4000 pages, yet subcategories by country should be upmerged, for some reason? Then will someone put a notice to split the category up by anything other than country (could use family, etc., but seem to be few insect editors on Wikipedia). There will be plenty of insect species that can be moved out of this category to smaller ones by country, easily by editors not otherwise familiar with insects, and the regional category can be left for insects found in all of Europe.
        • "Categorization must also maintain a neutral point of view." Countries are from a neutral point of view, but assigning a European regional system to plant categorization is not. I disagree with the one chosen because it ignores major climatic influences on plant (I study ecosystems), such as not adequately grouping maritime current influenced climates. They missed the boat on the Azores because they are not geologists, and don't realize they should have discuss the North American islands, also, or at least shown they knew they existed.
        • Editors who write about living things will use the sources they have and see they have information such as country and naturally categorize them that way, because that is how biologists do. MicroPaLeo (talk) 19:31, 11 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge The orchids do not stop at political boundaries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2015 (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.

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) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Austrian State Prize for European Literature winners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. Having been awarded this prize is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of, for example, W. H. Auden (it's not mentioned in the article text). For info: There is a list at Austrian State Prize for European Literature. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- Award categories are normally listified and deleted. Here we have a list so that plain deletion is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 29 January 2015 (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.

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) 22:35, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Aquarium inverts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: We don't (currently) have an article explaining what an aquarium invert is and it is not clear from the category text ("A list of popular aquarium invertebrates") or the articles that it contains. DexDor (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete looking at List of freshwater aquarium invertebrate species, it becomes clear that this category has quite a serious inclusion problem – how commonly must that species be kept in aquaria for this to be definitive? You can put practically anything in an aquarium, space allowing. Much better dealt with in a list, than a category. SFB 21:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom and SFB. --Randykitty (talk) 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Which invertebrates are appropriate for aquariums seems to me a POV issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 29 January 2015 (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.

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 per snow and G4. Bencherlite^Talk 11:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

---

• Propose deleting Category:Pet Turtles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons that this category has previously been deleted (e.g. see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_January_18#Category:Pet_Turtles) - that some red-eared sliders, for example, have been kept as pets is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the species. Salting could be considered. DexDor (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete not a definitive aspect of a species, or one which can easily be applied to certain species and not others. The Category:Reptiles as pets tree should be used to group information on the pet culture, not the species themselves. SFB 21:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Agree with SFB. --Randykitty (talk) 21:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- It is defined as "commonly" kept as pets. That involves a POV-issue as to how commonly. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Category:Turtles as pets has been created in the midst of this discussion. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:47, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Now at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_February_3#Category:Turtles_as_pets. DexDor (talk) 07:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. I started the ball rolling with bringing the creator's disruptive editing to light. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 10:25, 3 February 2015 (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.

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) 22:36, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:LGBT singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCEGRS. Non-notable intersection. No evidence that being LGBT and a singer-songwriter (as opposed to just a musician who is LGBT) has any significant bearing on their career. Nymf (talk) 19:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support delete. The one biography in this category seems to have been categorized too enthusiastically, because it's in no less than 7 different LGBT categories, while there is no mentioning of LGBT in the body text. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The sole subject isn't even identified as a singer-songwriter in the text (and doesn't appear to be firmly in that tradition). As an aside, I've added his sexuality to the article as a key missing bit of info. SFB 19:36, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category involves way too many intersections to be useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I don't know how many articles were in this category when it was brought to CfD, but now it contains several. Erpert ^{blah, blah, blah...} 07:20, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• That's interesting, when the discussion started, there was only one article. WP:OCEGRS still applies though. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:50, 3 February 2015 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 17:58, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1988 Writers Guild of America strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per discussion below for Category:1981 Writers Guild of America strike, created by the same editor, aside from the eponymous article these are just collections of shows or movies made or broadcast that year. Non-defining. However, there are enough strike-related articles (and a template) in Category:Writers Guild of America to create Category:Writers Guild of America strikes, if one wishes. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:37, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & reasons in the other cat discussion. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not defining and per other cat discussion....William 13:04, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Even if this were about films etc delayed by the strike (of which I am unsure), I would still vote for deletion, as that would be a sort of performance (or rather non-performance by writers) category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It appears that many of the articles in the category make no mention of the strike.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:37, 1 February 2015 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 17:57, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:American jazz singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Jazz singer-songwriters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Jazz singer-songwriters by nationality (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per the rationale and result of this CfD and this CfD. This is an oxymoron. Nymf (talk) 16:57, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom & precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:45, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Jazz singer-songwriter music isn't a defined genre, so this is not helpful to navigation. SFB 21:41, 26 January 2015 (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.

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:Elsevier academic journals and Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies to Category:Elsevier academic journals

Nominator's rationale: Whether or not an academic journal is "associated" with a learned society is a very flexible notion. Some journals are outright owned by a society and published on their behalf by a professional publisher. Other journals are co-owned by a publisher and a society. Yet other journals are completely owned by a publisher but a society names the editorial board and editors and their members get the journal as part of their membership fees. Finally, there are journals that are publisher owned but are labeled as "official journal" of some society, without the society having any influence on the editorial policy and, at best, members getting a favorable personal subscription rate (and sometimes not even that). At this point, journals are categorized by publisher (Category:Academic journals by publisher) and, if there is an association with a learned society, an appropriate cat can be added if there's a cat for that particular society. (There's even a recently created cat Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies, but given the foregoing it should not be a surprise that I find that cat less than useful). There rarely exist good sources on the exact relationship between publishers, societies, and journals. Whether or not a journal published by a particular publisher like Elsevier is also in some unclearly defined way "associated" with a society does not appear to be a defining characteristic for an Elsevier journal. Which Elsevier journals are associated with a society can easily be found (if somebody ever would be interested in this) by intersecting the appropriate existing categories using the tool for this. Randykitty (talk) 14:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose: There is a strong link between a learned society and its associated journals. Indeed, many such journals are outright owned by the learned society, other times the journals are sponsored or otherwise endorsed by the learned society. In any case, being associated with a learned society is a clear demarcation principle, useful for Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources. The publisher, on the other hand, is often a purely commercial link of convenience and changes hand from time to time. That is the reason why Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies was created in the first place. The categorization system previously in place at Wikepedia gives too much weight to companies and too little to the academics and their institutions (learned societies and also universities, as in the newly created Category:Academic journals associated with universities) -- it's the publishing tail wagging the research or sholarly dog, if you will. The Category:Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies simplifies categorization as it allows updating the existing membership to Category:Elsevier academic journals instead of adding a separate category membership to each journal in Wikipedia. To reiterate: association with a learned society (and university, for that matter) is a strong defining characteristic of a journal, and the Elsevier sub-category is a simple and effective way of keeping track of old and new entries (e.g., parsing by journal initial letter). Fgnievinski (talk) 15:33, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Let me give one example of such a "strong" and "defining" relationship. Our article for Physiology & Behavior mentions that it is an "official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society." The latter article faithfully says the same (and even lists an additional two Elsevier journals as official journals). Now go to the journal's homepage, here. Right underneath the journal title, we see "Official journal of the International Behavioral Neuroscience Society". Click the link to the society. Note that it is a dead link. Now go to the correct homepage, here. Clicking around for quite a while, I didn't find any mention of any of these three journals on that website. Perhaps the info is there, but then very well hidden. Searching for "physiology" using the searchbox finally gave one hit: their external links page. Here the journals are just listed as "journals", no other explanation. Apparently, the society itself does not deem their relationship with these journals very important. Searching for the name of the current editor-in-chief, Lutz, gives no hits at all, hence he's probably not even a member (for comparison, try "Blanchard", as a confirmation that prominent members generate multiple hits). Nowhere is there any evidence that the society has any involvement with the editorial running of the journals (not in their newsletters, not in their meeting programs, etc). If we look on the online access page of the journal, here, we see that copyright is with Elsevier alone, strongly suggesting that the journal is 100% Elsevier owned (otherwise copyright would be with the society or shared between Elsevier and the society). In short, the whole "association" between this "official journal" and its society remains extremely murky. I don't see how we can base a category on such opaque criteria. Nonetheless, the debate here is not whether we need a category "Academic journals associated with learned societies", but whether we should subcategorize "Elsevier academic journals" according to a possible association with a society. What's next, are we going to create a cat "Biology journals associated with a learned society"? --Randykitty (talk) 16:03, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: If we can't trust the information in the journal official website then everything falls apart in WP:WikiProject Journals. The fact that the journal association with a learned society appears so prominently ("right underneath the journal title") lends weight to the need for such a categorization in Wikipedia. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:28, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• My point is not that there is no relationship, it is that we are completely in the dark about the nature of the relationship. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The Elsevier sub-category is just for convenience; deleting it would require merging not only with Category:Elsevier academic journals but also Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies, obviously. It will be a slippery slope. We need categorizations in place to encompass associations not strictly related to publishing. E.g., Category:American Geophysical Union academic journals‎, Category:European Geosciences Union academic journals‎, Category:Royal Astronomical Society academic journals‎ cannot be dispersed among, respectively, Category:Wiley-Blackwell academic journals, Category:Copernicus Publications academic journals, Category:Oxford University Press academic journals. Fgnievinski (talk) 16:40, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry, but that remark is a bit disingenuous. It is you who has been replacing cat "Elsevier academic journals" with cat "Elsevier academic journals associated with learned societies". You also created the "Academic journals associated with learned societies" cat despite my clearly voiced objection. In all the examples that you give in your last comment, you are proposing exactly what I propose for Elsevier: categorize a journal in the publisher's cat and, if sources exist and the cat exists, categorize it in the society's cat. Are you going to diffuse Category:Copernicus Publications academic journals into Category:Copernicus Publications academic journals associated with societies? Of course not. So why do you make an exception for Elsevier and Wiley-Blackwell? I am not proposing to delete Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies. I don't like it, but I recognize a fight against windmills when I see it. However, subdividing Elsevier academic journals according to whether or not they have some unclear relationship with some society is a really bad idea. --Randykitty (talk) 17:39, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I didn't mean to single out Elsevier; there's also Category:Wiley-Blackwell academic journals associated with learned societies that would need to be upmerged to both their respective publisher's category and Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies. Fgnievinski (talk) 18:54, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I mentioned that cat above. You created it and started diffusing articles from the parent cats into this one. Don't worry about the work connected to the upmerging, a bot will do this. --Randykitty (talk) 19:14, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Agree, provided that Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies is not immediately nominated for deletion, too. Fgnievinski (talk) 13:33, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to both Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies and Category:Elsevier academic journals this is a "last rung" category the overlap of which is not defining. What is defining about the journals is succinctly stated in the two categories they should be upmerged to, not that they are both Elsevier and associated with learned societies. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm trying to understand the "last rung" criterion that you mention and I can't seem to find it documented in any of the usual guidelines and how-tos (Wikipedia:Categorization, Wikipedia:Overcategorization, and Wikipedia:Defining). I only found WP:NARROWCAT, which says: "In general, intersection categories should only be created when both parent categories are very large and similar intersections can be made for related categories." Fgnievinski (talk) 18:48, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• either Keep or Upmerge -- Some academic journals are produced by a commercial publisher for an academic society. The journal belongs to the society (often a charity), which appoints the editors, and the publisher merely publishes it. Others are fully the property of the publisher. There is a difference, though it may not be obvious to some one who takes a journal off a library shelf. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:09, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Note that this cat is not just for journals owned by a society, but for any journal that has some murky "association" with a society (see the example I gave above). Any journal owned by a society can easily be categorized in a cat for the society as well as the Elsevier journals cat. --Randykitty (talk) 06:43, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Dual Upmerge to both Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies and Category:Elsevier academic journals per Carlossuarez46. There are two trees for academic journals: publisher and organization. This attempts to put a grouping that belongs in Category:Academic journals by publisher under Category:Academic journals associated with learned societies. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:02, 31 January 2015 (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.

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) 22:30, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:1981 Writers Guild of America strike (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. The category has one, maybe two articles that the strike would be a defining characteristic of. The rest are television program articles. Yes the strike affected shows but it didn't define any of them. The category would therefore have only one or two entries. ...William 13:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• I think part of the problem was that it was uncategorized, except for a maintenance category. I've added Category:Labor disputes in the United States, where for now it resides next to the better populated Category:1988 Writers Guild of America strike. I've also added Category:1981 labor disputes and strikes. Now WP:SMALLCAT expressly doesn't apply when it is part of a recognized larger structure but I'm having trouble seeing what the second article would even be. I've added a third cat, Category:Writers Guild of America and I do agree that in this we might just delete, as the main article for that strike was already there. Unless this category can be shown to have more than one bona fide member... sorry, a bit rambly in my rationale. Off to work. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:05, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• And even much larger Category:1988 Writers Guild of America strike is populated with TV shows, schedules and films that I imagine were in some way affected by the strike -- may not be sufficiently defining? I don't work in the labour strike area much. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:14, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – both this and Category:1988 Writers Guild of America strike seem merely to be collecting material that is vaguely connected with the strike. I don't think either is part of a 'recognised larger structure' (unless the structure is that of ill-defined eponymous categories linking together random articles for no good reason). Oculi (talk) 16:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete vague association is not a permissible basis for categorization, per nom & Oculi. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:46, 26 January 2015 (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.

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: result. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:39, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Historical Roman Catholic Dioceses in Asia to Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Asia

Nominator's rationale Per rationale below - consistency with tree structure. Plus fix capitalsation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- The principle right, but Zahle and Forzol appears to be an existing Christian Community, possibly now too small to warrant having a bishop of their own. The other two members have a single one-sentence article. I therefore wonder whether it may be better to merge to Category:Roman Catholic Dioceses in Asia or whatever the appropriate parent or sibling for current dioceses would be, even if this may result in a few defunct ones being in the current category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:19, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, to be more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment what I mean by more clear, is that Historical does not always mean no longer extant as the thing described (that some may sort of be extant, does not change the fact they are not dioceses). Sometimes it just refers to the organization having been in existance before a certain time, or having major impacts on the history of an area.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:21, 8 April 2015 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Defunct Roman Catholic dioceses to Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses

Nominator's rationale This was opposed at speedy on the grounds that it had "Defunct" as a parent. I don't think that this is a good reason. The proposed name is consistent with the tree structure by country and by continent - see Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses in Europe. It's not just a RC convention - it's also used genericaly - Category:Former dioceses in Europe. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – all its subcats use 'Former'. (Category:Former Roman Catholic dioceses was deleted in 2009 as it was empty (emptied?).) Oculi (talk) 12:49, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Support rename per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:55, 26 January 2015 (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.

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. Made the first a child category of the second. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Rawlinsonian Professors of Anglo-Saxon to Category:Rawlinson and Bosworth Professors of Anglo-Saxon

Nominator's rationale: Merge the old name for the title held by these professors into the "new" (1916) name, per Rawlinson and Bosworth Professor of Anglo-Saxon and per precedent e.g. to merge categories of alumni when academic institutions are renamed. Bencherlite^Talk 10:46, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose The trouble is, most of those in this category were simply Rawlinsonian professors. I see no harm in having two categories, just as we have (for instance) a category for graduates of the Royal Military College, Sandhurst, which is a sub-category of the one for graduates of the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst (which is not the same thing). Moonraker (talk) 21:08, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose – I agree with Moonraker. Just make Category:Rawlinsonian Professors of Anglo-Saxon a subcat of Category:Rawlinson and Bosworth Professors of Anglo-Saxon, which collects them together without introducing inaccuracies. Oculi (talk) 14:02, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The name changed in a minor way, but the post is the same and so there's no harm in keeping the professors in the one category. It's not as though it's thought that the two names for the same job mean that we ought to have two articles instead of one. An explanation that the chair was renamed can be added to the category page if necesary. Otherwise, should we have new categories every time the title of a chair changes? The Italian chair at Oxford (Serena Professor of Italian) has been known as the Serena chair, the Fiat–Serana chair and the Agnelli–Serena chair - one professor has had his chair renamed while in post. In such a situation, should we have three categories and categorise one professor in two of them? Seems unnecessary. The Sandhurst example is not a good one because there are two articles and a difference between the two (more than just a rename, as here). Bencherlite^Talk 01:02, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• I have left neutral notes at WT:UNI and WT:OXFORD. Bencherlite^Talk 01:10, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. I agree that it's overdoing things to have two categories when we only have one article about the position. Categories are a blunt tool and we can't always expect them to nail everything precisely for every article they are applied to. This is how we treat alumni of universities—when the university name changes, all the alumni articles are categorized under the old name. We don't try to have subcategories for every permutation the name has gone through. I see no reason why this should be any different. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:26, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. As long as there is only one article, I fully support the rename per [User:Bencherlite|Bencherlite]] and Good Ol’factory. --Bduke (Discussion) 02:37, 28 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge but the merged category requires an extended headnote explaining that the pre-1916 holders were Rawlinson Professor. I would guess that the change in name was the result of further endowment for the post. The precedent on this that springs to mind are alumni categories, where graduates of a merged or renamed college are deemed to have attended the successor. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've added an explanation at Category:Rawlinson and Bosworth Professors of Anglo-Saxon. Bencherlite^Talk 22:44, 3 February 2015 (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.

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. – Fayenatic London 17:55, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:ECO vehicles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: It's unclear exactly what this category is intended for (it has no parents, contains one article and ECO vehicle is a redlink), but it probably fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. DexDor (talk) 06:32, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A Google search for "ECO vehicle" sheds little light on what this is supposed to be, aside from a WP:NEO of some kind for a high-mileage vehicle? There is also no parent category, which doesn't help. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 17:42, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective apparently, because we have no article to define it. And if we did, we'd need to have a sufficiently objective definition that represents a consensus of reliable sources. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:48, 26 January 2015 (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.

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) 22:29, 3 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Buena Vista International films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Following the close of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_18#Category:Films_distributed_by_Paramount.2FDisney as delete, we are left with this subcat (which may have one of the most convoluted category descriptions I've read). It's for films "that have been distributed by The Walt Disney Company's international distribution arm, but not in the United States," and must "not include films that carry the Walt Disney Pictures, Touchstone Pictures, Hollywood Pictures, Miramax Films or Dimension Films (for the latter prior to October 2005) labels and imprints, regardless whether it was distributed by Disney or not." Got that? Anyway, clicking on the first three films I recognize, Garden State, Hollywoodland and Bringing Out the Dead, they are all categorized as either Miramax or Touchstone Pictures films. Delete as another example of a non-defining (and confusing) films-by-distributor category. I don't think it's worth listifying, unless someone can deconstruct the category description to divine what should go in such a list, and why. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:20, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete distribution companies are not defining of the content. The description of the category also indicates the problematic nature of this type of category and how it isn't intuitive for categorical navigation. No opposition to listify if anyone thinks it's worth doing that. SFB 21:44, 26 January 2015 (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.

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: keep. A re-nomination should be allowed if the nominator wishes, since some users focused on the nature of the sparse/unclear rationale. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Font Bureau typefaces (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category merged with article Font_Bureau. David Condrey ^{log talk} 01:37, 27 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Request @David Condrey:, could you provide a little more background on the reason for the nomination? Thanks. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:20, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Procedural opppose, having items of a category listed in an article is in itself not a reason for deleting the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:59, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose No convincing reason for deletion has been given. A nominator should clearly explain their reasoning (particularly on an obscure topic). This has cycled round three times and I still don't even know how to assess this. SFB 21:47, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's why I added my second relisting comment above; I thought it would make the situation sufficiently clear to assess for most users. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:18, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose procedurally -- Categories and articles are differnet kinds of thing. They cannot be merged. On occasion we achieve something similar by listifying,for example for award-winner categories, but that does not apply here. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 30 January 2015 (UTC
  • Peterkingiron: As I (tried to) explain above in the second relisting comment, the nominator is essentially saying that he has "listified" the category contents in the article Font Bureau. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 30 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep -- We have a tree with a number of branches of which this is one. I see no good reason for listifying this one and then deleting it, unless we are going to delete the whole tree, and I do not thinkthat is warranted. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:39, 31 January 2015 (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.