Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 23

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< October 22 October 24 >

October 23

Category:Users who experienced domestic violence as a husband

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) 05:44, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Limited use category that doesn't conform to standards ("Wikipedians who..."). Only in use by one editor who has created userboxes such as Template:Anti-feminist and Template:User who experienced domestic violence as a husband and deleted articles like Cruelty against Husband in India. Unlikely to have wide-spread adoption by other Wikipedians. Liz Read! Talk! 15:30, 23 October 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.

Category:Hellenistic geographers

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) 07:23, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I see Category:Ancient Greek geographers works like all kinds of Category:Ancient Greek writers, that is, regardless of exact ancient political landscape or nationality. This Category:Hellenistic geographers is a double. Note: I recategorized Marcian of Heraclea and Pseudo-Scymnus already. trespassers william (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC) trespassers william (talk) 11:51, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The question here is, is Hellenistic a subset of ancient Greek or not? I think it's not, Syrian and Egyptian people of that era may well be considered to be Hellenists while they would not be considered to be (ancient) Greeks. Btw it is not about Greek colonies but about Greek culture. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:11, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be a use to distinguish the periods in purely geopolitical cats, but regarding cltural products like geographical writing, modern sources are comfortable enough calling all of them, down to Byzantium, "ancient Greek-". See the bibs at Marcian of Heraclea. Not that I mind if it was the other way round, but this seems to be the situation in WP too, and in Peterkingiron's view, and it's a bad idea to stick to such a non-essential exception. trespassers william (talk) 22:27, 25 October 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.

Category:Medical colleges in Bikaner

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) 07:25, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category with no growth potential. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:57, 23 October 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.

Category:Medical colleges in New Delhi

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:26, 4 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match with parent category Category:Universities and colleges in Delhi. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:45, 23 October 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.

Category:Suburbs of Upper Hunter Shire

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:39, 6 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Whatever else most of the places in this category are - they are certainly not suburbs - not in the ordinary dictionary definition and not in the general understanding of the word "suburb". I would prefer a pragmatic approach of calling them "towns" as they are described in ordinary Australian English but I am conscious that some here only like to apply the term "town" to a place gazetted as such. "Locality: is a reasonable compromise term Mattinbgn (talk) 10:31, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The category was named for consistency with other categories in the same tree (See Category:Suburbs of the Hunter Region) and with consideration for the principle of least astonishment. In Australia, particularly in New South Wales where these places are located, suburbs and localities have specific definitions. A locality is defined as being a bounded area within the landscape that has a "rural" character, while a suburb is defined as being a bounded area within the landscape that has an "urban" character. The only differences in the two definitions are the words "rural" and "urban". As a result, suburb and locality are used interchangeably in the Geographical Names Register, which is the official register of place names in NSW, and is maintained by the Geographical Names Board of New South Wales. There is no best name for this, or other similar categories, as the places that are members are variously registered as towns, suburbs, villages etc. Aberdeen for example, is registered as a locality, a rural place and a village. (the village is located within the locality of the same name). "Town" is definitely incorrect as none of these places are registered as towns. The Australian Bureau of Statistics uses "suburb" extensively in its statistics set when referring to places in the Upper Hunter Shire.[1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11] Even LGAs in NSW refer to the subdivisions that make up their LGA as "suburbs" and renaming to use "locality" would introduce an unnecessary level of confusion. --AussieLegend (✉) 12:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from a non-local). Some years ago, we had a long discussion over how we should categorise places, when the question was how to distinguish a town from a city or a village. The consensus (which I did not like at the time) was "Populated places". Unless there is a comprehensive and robust local scheme, I would suggest Category:Populated places in Upper Hunter Shire. This avoids the debate as to the appropriate term. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Populated places in <foo>" has not been a successful category structure. From Category:Populated places in Australia down there is little consistency in that tree. "Suburbs of <foo>" has a much wider use, even in non-cities. --AussieLegend (✉) 17:31, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"Populated places" is generally only used in top-level categories, to gather categories for cities, towns, villages, municipalities, suburbs, etc. for a given place. The subcategories then subdivide by type of place based on local usage. I don't think it was ever meant to be implemented all the way down the tree and replace words like cities, towns, etc. Thus, I don't think it would be appropriate usage in this case. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:19, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would explain the current structure. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:51, 6 November 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.

Category:Medical colleges in Kota

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) 05:43, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category with no potential of growth for now. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:12, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 24 October 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.

Category:Medical colleges in Ajmer

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) 05:38, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A small category with no potential of growth for now. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:11, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:16, 24 October 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.

Category:Indian skeptics

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) sst✈discuss 09:03, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:STRONGNAT Indian English uses "sceptics". AusLondonder (talk) 09:37, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Previous "no consensus" discussion was here; I disagree with the methods users used in that discussion to argue that "skeptics" was actually more commonly used in India. It's easier (and probably more reliable to boot) to just use the form of English dominant in the country in question. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:00, 24 October 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.

Category:Natural history of Alabama

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:11, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: disperse per WP:NONDEF, natural history is not a defining characteristic of any of the content that is in this category. In order to keep the content within the Alabama tree, Geology of Alabama and the paleontology article and category should go to Category:Geology of Alabama, the remainder upmerged to Category:Environment of Alabama. Note: this is a follow-up nomination on this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:57, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) If you are reading articles, then did you read Natural history and how it is different than scientific experimentation? And do you understand the difference between a natural historian and a scientist? your "tree of defining-ness" suggests that you haven't, or at least haven't understood the topic. If it helps, a nice place to start might be this book. - jc37 07:22, 25 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Part of a series for the United States and for countries of the world. No valid reason provided why this should be deleted and make navigation by readers to these related subcats and articles more difficult. Natural history, as such, may no longer be a popular field for academic study, but that does not change the fact of its existence. Hmains (talk) 03:21, 29 October 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.

14th-16th century disasters

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 as discussed, which will require manual checking. User:Marcocapelle, since you have nominated to do the checking/merging, just ping me once you've completed the work, and I can arrange to have the nominated categories deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 19 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
rest of 14th-16th century disasters
rest of 16th century maritime incidents
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one (or occasionally two) articles per category, too few disasters in these centuries to justify separate year categories. There is no double merge needed e.g. to Category:14th-century natural disasters because the individual articles are already in a 14th century floods, earthquakes or fires subcategory of the 14th century disasters category.
This nomination includes a few 16th-century maritime incidents, as part of the disasters tree, (see bottom of list) for which a double merge may be needed; on the other hand it is questionable if these categories should be merged to year categories (since the articles contain ships, not disasters). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete as nominated. For what it's worth, though, since you've done so much work with this tree already, couldn't you just cite precedent rather than having to type all of that out for each nomination chunk? —⁠烏⁠Γ (kaw), 08:08, 23 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Hopefully the articles are already in those country categories so we can just delete instead of merge the nominated categories, but I didn't check this. So this will require a manual merge, for which I'm happy to volunteer if needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:58, 25 October 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.

Norway in the Middle Ages

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:Medieval Norway. – Fayenatic London 19:33, 8 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I think that these categories are a bit awkwardly named, and that the proposed names are more consistent with other naming patterns, both within the Norway tree and the Middle Ages tree. We have Category:History of Norway, not Category:Norwegian history (a redirect), and other categories with similar formats are Category:Norway in World War I, Category:Scotland in the Late Middle Ages‎, Category:Holy Roman Empire in the High Middle Ages, Category:Scotland in the High Middle Ages‎, etc. (Note that these same proposals were part of an unsuccessful group nomination here, but the discussion seemed to focus more on the overall differences between the variety of category formats rather than these Norwegian categories in particular.) If there is no consensus to rename, we could at least fix the capitalization on the second category listed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:50, 23 October 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.

Category:Dance teachers

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:Dance instructors to Category:Dance teachers (technically done via a rename per comments below). Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:35, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant category. Zanhe (talk) 00:20, 23 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_23&oldid=1074815623"