January 17
Category:Military units and factions of the Syrian Civil War
- 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: relisted, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose splitting Category:Military units and factions of the Syrian Civil War to Category:Factions of the Syrian Civil War and Category:Military units and formations of the Syrian Civil War
- Nominator's rationale: This is a necessary distinction and it would make navigation easier. Not mention the fact that this is the way all other "military units and formations" and "factions" of wars are categorized. Charles Essie (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tentative support - I would like to see some examples though.GreyShark (dibra) 19:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Examples of what exactly? Charles Essie (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (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:National People's Party
- 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:19, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: C2D per National People's Party (India). Charles Essie (talk) 22:21, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom and clarity. There are a lot of national parties and people's parties in the world. buidhe (formerly Catrìona) 03:30, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support renaming to clarify the country of the party this refers to. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 20:04, 18 January 2019 (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:Psycho films
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:48, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This is needed to differentiate the franchise from just movies about psychos. Charles Essie (talk) 22:17, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support to match the main article Psycho (franchise). Note, however, that the franchise follows the name of the original novel by Robert Bloch, and the term "Psycho" is rather inappropriate to cover people suffering from psychosis. We shouldn't have other categories with that name. Dimadick (talk) 13:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. I've already found at least one film in here which appeared to be misinterpreting the category as "films with psychotic characters in them", because its article said nothing whatsoever about it being part of the Psycho-as-in-Norman-Bates franchise at all, so the existing name is prone to ambiguity. Current name should not be retained as a redirect to the new one, however, because any future misfiles will simply cause those articles to get refiled in the new category and completely defeat the purpose of renaming it in the first place. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 27 January 2019 (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:Songs with violin
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Added 18 January:
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category which completely fails inclusion as musical instruments are not the only factor for songs. Propose deleting. —IB [ Poke ] 21:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You beat me to it. I recommend nominating the entire tree under Category:Songs by musical instrument. The instruments used are specific to each recording of such songs and are rarely defining aspects of the song itself. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:55, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete But also procedural close and nominate the tree. @IndianBio: can you please close this and do the work to nominate the other categories? The whole tree only has six total (plus the parent). ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:38, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- How do I add all the categories under the same tree? —IB [ Poke ] 09:04, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. I have added the rest. – Fayenatic London 12:35, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. An instrument used in a particular recording of a song is NOT defining. AS per previous delete conversation here for Mellotron. It also worries me that a 'new' editor appears to immediately understand WP editing, but manages to find a slimmest gap for new categories. Perhaps I am being unfair. However, a good catch to nominate so quickly--Richhoncho (talk) 00:23, 19 January 2019 (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:Invasive plant species
- 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4#Category:Invasive_plant_species. ~ Rob13Talk 05:27, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale:
- 1) Better phrasing for such a category would be "Invasive plants" as "invasive species" is, despite having the taxonomic rank "species" in its name, sometimes used to refer to genera or higher taxon ranks. "Invasive plant species" (vs "invasive plants" or "invasive species—plants" implies that the category should only contain articles about species. Splitting up invasive species by taxonomic rank is not typical and would not be helpful. See new category Category:Invasive plants.
- 2) Categorizing species as invasive without specifying where they are invasive or who said they are invasive is not appropriate. The status of a plant as invasive-or-not can be controversial. The 600+ taxon articles in this category need to be moved to a well-referenced list. If the use of categories is recommended, they would need to be split into much finer grain system by location and/or designation (i.e. called invasive by whom?).
- Some background/related discussions:
- —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 17:11, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep and improve. A plant species is invasive if it has a tendency to displace native plants and take over an area. There are many plants that can be transplanted to new areas without becoming disruptive of these areas, and relatively few that will tend to take over the new area. As for the controversy in deeming a plant invasive, that is easily resolved by turning to reliable sources that describe plants as invasive or not. I would totally agree with subdividing this category both by region where the plant is invasive, and by region from which the invasive plant originates. bd2412 T 17:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for your thoughts; can you clarify your stance here with regards to point #1 and the existence of the other category, Category:Invasive plants? —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 15:26, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. That the main article says "The criteria for invasive species has been controversial, as widely divergent perceptions exist among researchers as well as concerns with the subjectivity of the term "invasive"." shows that this isn't a suitable characteristic to categorize by. DexDor (talk) 18:41, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't trust Wikipedia articles too much. There are real controversies around how to define invasive species - for example, the USDA definition defines invasiveness in terms of economic impact, while almost everyone else uses ecological or environmental impacts as well. And yes, a lot of people use it loosely, as a synonym for "introduced" or "naturalised", but that doesn't remove the utility of the category. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- So that's at least 3 different meanings of "invasive" then. DexDor (talk) 19:07, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support replacing with "Cat:Invasive plants" with a requirement that it just be a container category for invasive plants in broad biogeographic regions (which is how plants are categorised anyway). And, obviously, any listed species need supporting citations. Guettarda (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm curious how exactly this would play out. Many (most?) of the articles currently in Category:Invasive plant species do not have reliable sources discussing invasiveness. Would that category be deleted, and whosoever might decide to rebuild the biogeographic/reference-supported category system could do so piece by piece at Category:Invasive plants (which may be no one)? Whose definition of invasive do we use?
- How could broad biogeographic areas be devised, referenced, or maintained for invasiveness? How do we require or track that reliable references are included before addition to a category? How would controversial invasive-or-not plants be categorized? Or plants that may be invasive in one U.S. state, but just a benign weed or even native in another? Some taxa could end up with dozens or hundreds of categories for each area and/or designation of invasiveness.
- As an example, how to categorize Solidago sempervirens? It is considered by some as invasive in the Midwest, including Wisconsin, Indiana, and Ontario (at least), though the USDA contradicts that, saying
"it is not considered an invasive plant"
, and it's actually native to the east coast.
- Nativity/endemism, the existing broad geographic categories for taxa on Wikipedia, are much better referenced with clearer and generally more agreed-upon definitions than "invasiveness" and can't really be used as an analogous system here. —Hyperik ⌜talk⌟ 16:10, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Category:Invasive plants is a parent of Category:Invasive plant species by region, and that's just fine. There is no need for this category. It currently contains 622 articles, but it is completely inappropriate to categorize something as invasive without an indication of WHERE it is invasive. All plants are native to somewhere on Earth; nothing is invasive everywhere it is found. Plantdrew (talk) 17:01, 23 January 2019 (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:Modern primitive movement
- 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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_4#Category:Modern_primitive_movement. ~ Rob13Talk 05:24, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: I'm not entirely sure this actually qualifies as a movement. Regardless, it's a tiny category, with two of the articles both well-linked thru the third (main) article. Anomalous+0 (talk) 12:01, 17 January 2019 (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:Software engineering professionalism
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:07, 25 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Tiny category, not needed. Articles easily found in parent/merge target. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:51, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support per nom. Created by an editor blocked for disruption, no reason for the small subcategory. power~enwiki (π, ν) 01:51, 23 January 2019 (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:Veterans Law
- 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 to Category:Veterans' affairs law in the United States. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose renaming Category:Veterans Law to Category:Veterans' affairs law
- Nominator's rationale: Consistency with parent category and compliance with the manual of style re: capitalization. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 08:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Support proposal of DexDor. This makes more sense, because this way, new categories can be created for veterans' affairs law in other countries. Eastlaw talk ⁄ contribs 09:39, 9 March 2019 (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.
Television series based on singers and musicians
- 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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 23:20, 26 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current titles are inconsistent and don't match each other. They should follow the naming convention of the parent category Category:Television series based on singers and musicians. ℯxplicit 05:50, 17 January 2019 (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:Ha*Ash
- 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:58, 8 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for a set of albums already in an appropriate sub-scheme and one member who going to be linked from each article anyway. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:15, 17 January 2019 (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.