Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 March 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< March 5 March 7 >

March 6

Category:Bitcoin exchanges

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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:29, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category that does not seem to be linked to anything, and the closest category that it seems to be derived from Category:Bitcoin is not so large that it warrants a split into a subcategory. TeleComNasSprVen (talk • contribs) 21:07, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Chris Arnesen 21:14, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Apparently it was speedily deleted. It was emptied out a couple weeks ago, same as this category. Agyle (talk) 17:06, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former FBI Most Wanted Terrorists

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:28, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't have a Category:Former FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives under Category:FBI_Ten_Most_Wanted_Fugitives, and this one isn't needed either - we tend to avoid "former" categories for people's jobs/professions/statuses. If these people were on the "Most wanted terrorist" list, they should remain with this category, even if they've been captured/killed. The list can be kept up to date, but the category can serve as a catch-all. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional knights

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: do not rename/split. In any case, the category was not tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:26, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Knight conjures images of elite mounted soldiers; not Mater (Cars). ^_^ --172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:55, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Arabesk

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) 21:25, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as defunct. Category:Airline alliances does not have categories for other defunct network projects. See Template:Airline alliances for a list of current and former alliances at a glance. – Fayenatic London 18:51, 6 March 2014 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional captains

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 to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 10. The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with Category:Fictional sergeants and Category:Fictional police captains‎ . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Fictional characters based on real people‎

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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:31, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To help promote the distinction between "Fictional versions of real people" and ‎ "Fictional characters based on real people"‎, as both technically mean the same thing,which is confusing! --172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:03, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not the nominator, but my guess is he or she wants to include people whose identity/"reality" might not be well established (e.g., Helen of Troy, King Arthur, Moses, Jesus Christ, William Shakespeare). Agyle (talk) 17:48, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fictional ethnic groups

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 Category:Fictional indigenous peoples‎ into Category:Fictional ethnic groups, resulting in the deletion of the former. --BDD (talk) 23:51, 2 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Reduces redundancy. For efficiency and economy, being more inclusive is better than having two categories. --172.251.77.75 (talk) 17:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:The Hub (TV channel)

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. The Bushranger One ping only 04:33, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No others in Category:Children's television networks in the United States have so little direct content. –– Fayenatic London 08:09, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of Speedy discussion
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 in Arizona

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, but listify first. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:17, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: List of invasive species in the Everglades should not be in a plant-specific category.)
Nominator's rationale: That a plant species/genus (e.g. Ivy, Scots pine or Salix fragilis) is invasive in a particular US state may be sufficiently important to be mentioned in the article about that plant (and if you're in that particular state it may be the most important fact in the article), but in a global encyclopedia it's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the plant. Where the plant originated may be a suitable characteristic for categorization (e.g. Category:Fruits originating in Asia), but not which countries/states the plant has spread to (which could be dozens/hundreds). I.e. like vehicles are categorized by country of origin - not by every country of usage. Listifying is an option, but IMO any such lists should be generated directly from RSs - that way they are more likely to be accurate, complete and referenced (lists can also cope with complexities like a species that was once invasive in an area but has since been eradicated from that area).
For info: This CFD is part of a series of CFDs to remove species/genus articles from under Category:Introduced species {per the inclusion criteria of that category) - example of a previous CFD. This is being done in batches rather than in one large nomination because of the need to check for articles (e.g. lists) that do belong under Category:Introduced species. DexDor (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per nom as non-defining and clutter-causing. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:46, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is not defining to the plants involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. Absolutely the invasive nature of a plant is defining. That it was introduced, was able to become naturalized, then propagate and change its habitat often by excluding native species tells us a lot about its biology and history. It also separates the category structure from the typical understanding of, for example Category:Flora of Utah in which we interpret that to mean "native flora of Utah." They should be separate and it is an important distinction. I'll remind you that plants that have an invasive and native range are often called by different vernacular names, used in different ways, attempts are made to eradicate or manage invasions that aren't made in the native range. So absolutely, certainly the fact that it is invasive in these regions is a defining characteristic for that species. Rkitko (talk) 15:30, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please read WP:DEFINING. Do you really think that, for example, being found in West Virginia is a defining characteristic of Scots pine (that article doesn't mention West Virginia) ? DexDor (talk) 21:03, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. That it is an invasive plant is defining. How we diffuse Category:Invasive plant species so that it isn't huge and impossible to browse is irrelevant, whether it be by taxonomic division such as order or family or by geographic distribution. Rkitko (talk) 22:49, 9 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
USDA Plants also provides county-level detail within states, such as Hesperis matronalis in West Virginia; hopefully nobody wants county categories too. :-) Agyle (talk) 17:14, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is a simple solution to the objection to category clutter. Species, whether invasive or native, have distributions that range from restricted to wide. Indeed this is already an idea that has been followed for years in flora categories by state. 1) Species that have restricted distributions are placed in state/province (or country if the country is small and has no political subdivision categories) -- usually only five or so are used on these articles. 2) If a species' distribution more closely matches a region, the smaller scale child categories are abandoned for regional ones like Category:Flora of the Southeastern United States. 3) If a species has a distribution that more closely matches a whole country, several countries, or a continent, then choose these categories. But the categories chosen imply different things. When I see Category:Flora of the United States or Category:Flora of North America on an article, it suggests to me that this is a plant with a wide distribution. I would also note that current implementation by one editor in these categories is incomplete and sometimes the wrong level is chosen. However, incompleteness and incorrect choices are not reasons to delete. Rkitko (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the explanation, I didn't know about the different levels approach. Regarding "incompleteness and incorrect choices are not reasons to delete", it seems like having the state categories (both for flora and for invasive plants) unfortunately invites incorrectness/incompleteness. I just spot-checked a dozen Flora of West Virginia articles, and only two seemed to use the state categories correctly (a rare orchid known only in that state, and a tree known only in four states). I'd guess the problems are greater in invasives because fewer of them are apt to have habitats as specialized as that rare orchid. However, I'm changing my vote from delete to just a comment. Agyle (talk) 19:26, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Yes, it does seem an issue mostly for clean up and curation. I can take a stab at a few of the flora categories. Probably best to start with one, crawl through slowly and add references for the distributions at the same time. You can probably see why no one has been keen to tackle this enormous task. Cheers, Rkitko (talk) 22:29, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
ETA: A lot of the existing proliferation and inappropriate category choices is the work of just a few editors who are so prolific that it's difficult to keep up with them. For example, take a look at the history of Acalypha rhomboidea. User:Nightphoenix90 is responsible for that category mess when a few regional categories would suffice. The same goes for Acorus americanus, but I have cleaned it up to just a few regional or country categories and two state categories not covered by those regions. Rkitko (talk) 22:42, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the inclusion criteria for a state-level category is to be something like: "This category is for articles about plant species that are invasive in <US state> unless they are also invasive in 5 or more other US states." then that's rather different to how wp categorization normally works and needs to be explained clearly on each affected category page and on a page under Wikiproject plants. Even then (based on my experience with categories) I'd be surprised if all editors followed such rules. Under the proposed scheme if a plant is found to be invasive in several more states then it should be removed from any state categories that it's already in(!). Even with the proposed scheme if an article makes no mention of a particular state then editors can/should remove that article from the category; category schemes like this encourage some users to categorize articles based on an external (off-wiki) database regardless of the actual content of the article. DexDor (talk) 06:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Categories, the geographic scheme. This has been a suggestion from WikiProject Plants for years. Yes, adding categories to an article for flora must be done carefully, with the addition of information and references being the best practice. However, I don't see how this is an issue specific to this case and certainly doesn't argue against the category scheme's existence. Couldn't the same happen with biographical articles where a nationality category is added without information in the article? Rkitko (talk) 15:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If the "Invasive plant species of X" and "Naturalized tree species of Y" approach is approved, WikiProject Plants should update those guidelines. Also, the word choice "invasive" may warrant reconsideration, both because of its non-NPOV connotation (like pest or weed), and because it sometimes indicates other criteria (e.g., increasing/expanding quantity or distribution), while an alternative like "non-native" is more neutral and clearly delineated. I'd also reconsider the term "plant species", if native categories continue to use the term "flora". All in all it seems like these categories arose without planning, consensus, or consistency by the Plants project. Agyle (talk) 18:07, 11 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then delete -- A category such as this might easily apply to several dozen polities, which would result in intolerable category clutter. This is far too like a performacne (occurence in a state) by performer (species) category. Categories are a navigation aid, not bullet points. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 10 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest possible keep Every state in the US mantains a list of invasive species, as experts and scientists consider this a "defining" characteristic, invasiveness. I can't believe I'm even required to argue this. Probably even the Wikipedia article on invasive species says this. That this is already a gouping found extensively in the literature and well-supported by research for well over a hundred years, makes it likely that deleting the categories will be a waste of time. Editors will naturally see the need to recreate these categories. "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to all Wikipedia pages in a hierarchy of categories which readers, knowing essential—defining—characteristics of a topic, can browse and quickly find sets of pages on topics that are defined by those characteristics." As botanists, botanical gardens, the USDA, farmers, horticulturists, and state ag extensions have already created these categories, grouped plants in states by whether they are native or established invasive species, and published volumes of literature on the categories, thereby defining the categories for Wikipedia, it is time to move on to article creation. --(AfadsBad (talk) 13:48, 12 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
"Every state in the US mantains a list of invasive species" - sure, and no-one's saying wp can't have lists of invasive species. But, categorization (which should be based on WP:DEFINING characteristics) isn't the same as lists. There are many many things that are suitable for a wp list, but not for a wp category - for example we don't categorize the Apple article in dozens of "Fruits produced in <country>" categories; we use a list. DexDor (talk) 07:32, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It is a defining characteristic, the ability of a plant to become an invasive species, and it is location specific, not always defined by geography, but political boundaries are how they are studied. So, can we have native plants categories, or will native plants of a state be removed as a category also? It is a scientifically defining and agriculturally important characeristic. Invasive species are dealt with by ag extensions because of their impact on crop plants, native pollinators, elemental transfer ecosystems. Well, it's science, that's my discuss-science-on-Wikipedia laugh for the month, and my lobbing a softball for personally attackng me as an excuse for ignoring anything anyone with specialty knowledge in an area has to say. Good riddance scientifically defined categories that hierarchially arrange things in the same way as experts. -(AfadsBad (talk) 20:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC))[reply]
  • Delete with an optional listify. It is not defining for the plants what states they are able to live in. Take a plant that inhabits the area of Nevada, Arizona and California. It is only in those three states since the conditions are the same there where they have a common border. Plants do not respect the artificial state boundaries. They may respect continental boundaries, but certainly not state boarders. Likewise, a plant in the middle of Texas or Alaska may only exist in one state since those states are so large. How many species exist solely in Rhode Island? This is an issue better discussed in the range section of the species article. If you need another reason, simply read invasive species which makes the point that there is no clear definition. That makes inclusion subjective, something that we try and avoid. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:07, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A plant's range or distribution, invasive or native, is defining. And how do we and our reliable sources describe a plant's distribution? By using political boundaries like states in floras, monographs, scientific publications, etc. The use of the flora by state category hierarchy is therefore representing a defining characteristic, but on a necessarily fine scale as some country and continent categories would be impossible to navigate or manage as there would be too many entries. Rkitko (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Vegaswikian as "it is not defining for the plants what states they are able to live in" and this kind of categorization only leads to distracting category clutter. --ELEKHHT 12:40, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See my comment above on both the point that the range or distribution is defining (more to the point: these categories are about where the plants have invaded, not their potential range which might be much larger if you do the appropriate ecological modelling study) and the fact that these categories, when implemented correctly, do not lead to "category clutter" when regional parent categories are used. Rkitko (talk) 13:33, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete and listify. Wikipedia is not a relational database and we should not use categories to try to replicate same. The idea of using regional parents is a clever one, but it is ultimately misleading to the reader, who now needs to look in 3 cats to find all of the invasive plants in state X as opposed to one. We would be much better served by having a good complete list, and directly linking the reader to off-site databases which are specialized in this topic. Having a woefully and only partially populated set of state categories that don't do what they say on the label is bad for Wikipedia.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:02, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cleanup taskforce - Requests older than 6 months

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) 21:13, 13 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Cleanup Taskforce (CT) has been inactive for six years, so all of these requests are quite a bit older than just six or nine months. In any case, the CT has been superseded by WikiProject Cleanup, which uses cleanup templates instead of these types of "requests". -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:10, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, I looked at all of these contents, they are all comments about cleanup dating from 2006, and as such are irrelevant and outdated. These are all articles that have had hundreds of edits since then, so we're losing no valuable information by simply deleting this category entirely.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_6&oldid=1197940617"