< September 24 September 26 >

September 25

Category:Rhodesian military personnel of World War II

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) 03:00, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Follow-on from resolved discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 12#Category:Military history of Rhodesia during World War II. Some relevant categories were missed and not tagged in the nomination and therefore were not moved. I have listed above those that were "left behind" and need to also be moved per the above discussion. There are no Northern Rhodesians listed in any of the above categories; separate Northern Rhodesian categories can easily be created later if need be. —  Cliftonian (talk)  21:13, 25 September 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:American League Wild Card champion seasons

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) 03:10, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:American League Wild Card champion seasons to Category:American League Wild Card seasons
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as the National League category... Being selected as a wild card team isn't the same thing as being winning a division championship, and isnt really a "championship" at all... especially now that there are two wild cards each season. Spanneraol (talk) 16:21, 25 September 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:National League Wild Card champion seasons

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) 03:09, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:National League Wild Card champion seasons to Category:National League Wild Card seasons
Nominator's rationale: Being selected as a wild card team isn't the same thing as being winning a division championship, and isnt really a "championship" at all... especially now that there are two wild cards each season. Spanneraol (talk) 16:20, 25 September 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:English idioms

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:24, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Renaming these categories will clarify their scope. "English idioms," for example, should contain idioms in the English language, not just those associated with England. --BDD (talk) 14:22, 25 September 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:Mars Orbiter Mission

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) 03:08, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with single article and I don't see any more possible articles that would come in this. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 14:21, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Whats upmerge? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 06:52, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's a procedure of automatically recategorizing all articles in a category to one (or more) of the parents of the category so that the category becomes empty and will be deleted. So in this case the one article in this category will be recategorized as 'Missions to Mars' instead of 'Mars Orbiter Mission', - at least, if there is consensus about that. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, so you basically mean is that this category should be deleted. Now what categories should be included on the current single article Mars Orbiter Mission is something that is not the topic here. But of course, the relevant categories will be added on the article once this is deleted. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In theory you're right but then we would need to rely on coincidental editors' actions. Here we see it also as our responsibility, if a category gets deleted, to systematically replace the category assignment in the articles by another suitable category, - within reason of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait a minute, the category suddenly contains multiple articles instead of a single article. This is a new situation for which we need to start a new discussion. The rationale to delete/upmerge is no longer applicable. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • It really doesn't change anything. The only article with relevance is the MOM article...all others can be safely removed. At that point, the category is still invalid because we shouldn't have categories with single articles. — Huntster (t @ c) 21:56, 6 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Removed all those. 178.93.237.66 (talk · contribs) had added them. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 07:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks! Marcocapelle (talk) 18:03, 7 October 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:Critique of the basis of psychiatry

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 categories Category:Psychiatry controversies and Category:Anti-psychiatry already exist, which can sufficient cover this topic at present. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This category is different from the category Anti-psychiatry, as it represents the theoretical and practical rejection of the basis of psychiatry and their authors propose the elimination of psychiatry.
I created this category as a subcategory of Psychiatry (not Anti-psychiatry), as I find necessary to emphasize the differences of thought of the authors gathered. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footprintsinthesand (talk • contribs) 06:53, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've indented the above comment and added "keep" for clarity as (without a CFD nomination) it was rather confusing. DexDor (talk) 19:58, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No it's actually not my nomination, though I've already requested the nominator to share his view again after I noticed that this nomination was broken. Let's just wait a bit until he reacts. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:17, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem! But it's actually @ImprovingWiki: who is the nominator (while Footprints contests), so hopefully ImprovingWiki will react soon. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 27 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there is sufficient content, I just need more time to add it. User talk:Footprintinthesand — Preceding unsigned comment added by Footprintsinthesand (talk • contribs) 10:27, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, support rename per SFB. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:25, 2 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • A quote to confirm the need of a completely new category: Be aware of the so called anti-psychiatry .. they are just to reform psychiatry and do something for psychiatry to live longer | Thomas Szasz comment added by Footprintsinthesand — Preceding undated comment added 20:22, 5 October 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:Postmodern terminology

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wp articles should be categorized by characteristics of their topic, not by characteristics of their title. So, for example, the word colonialism may be postmodern terminology, but the Colonialism article is about practices - it should not be in a terminology category (which puts it under Category:Linguistics etc). Similarly Heterosexism etc. Inappropriate subcats have also been placed in this category - e.g. the Mulga apple article does not belong in either the postmodernism or the linguistics category trees. See related discussion Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/IncidentArchive741#Stefanomione_and_.22Terminology_of....22_categories. DexDor (talk) 06:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We could put notices on the category pages (a bit like there is at Category:French words and phrases). More notes on terminology categories can be found at User:DexDor/TermCat. DexDor (talk) 20:54, 26 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Very recognisable problem analysis. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 26 September 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:List of Mediterranean countries

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; renaming to Category:Mediterranean countries would be a re-creating of previously deleted material under a slightly different name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 20 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary category, recently created by somebody inappropriately moving the article List of Mediterranean countries into the category namespace. (List of Mediterranean countries was moved back into the article namespace, but apparently not before articles were added to the category.)
I'm prepared to reconsider the usefulness of the category, but if the consensus does go for keeping it, it should at least be renamed to drop the "List of ". — Paul A (talk) 03:03, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • That could be a very good reason to have categories like Mediterranean culture, Mediterranean history, Mediterranean climate. However, I keep having doubts about the usefulness of just having these countries in a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:36, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The constitution of the countries themselves are an expression of culture and history. I don't see how this categorisation is any less relevant than the other categories on, say, the Greece article. SFB 23:28, 29 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree, the emergence of the current countries of Italy and Greece in the 19th century is totally unrelated to ancient history. More importantly, Mediterranean should be a defining characteristic of these countries (as such), and that's something that I do not really see. They happen to border the Mediterranean Sea, that's about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • As interacting maritime nations, the sea is a key part of nation formation, in the same way Category:Central Europe is a key part of Poland's nation formation (until very recently land was a greater physical barrier than the sea). As far as ancient history goes, Italian Libya, French Algeria and Al-Andalus are hardly ancient Mediterranean artefacts that have no bearing on the state and creation of the modern nations. Between history, cuisine, culture and language, it's obvious there is a lot more going on than these countries just happening to border a body of water. SFB 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @SFB. How would the "Mediterranean countries" category you propose differ from the categories that were deleted last December? Placing Greece in a Med category might not be unreasonable, but a country-by-sea category scheme means that, for example, Russia is categorised under Caspian Sea, France is categorized under Pacific (because of overseas territories) etc - see previous discussion. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Countries with Atlantic/Pacific coasts do not have the profound cultural connection that Mediterranean ones do. That's why that category is invalid. I'm specifically not advocating categorising by shared incidental geographical features (as stated above). SFB 21:31, 30 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But if we have a Med countries category that you intend for countries that have a profound cultural connection because of the Med Sea then can you explain what the inclusion criteria of such a category would be (e.g. would it be for countries with Med coastline, or would it be for countries that have some level of profound cultural connection because of the Med Sea) ? Would, for example, the UK fit in the category because of its connections to the Med (Malta, Cyprus etc) ? Would such a Med countries category still fit under Category:Geography of the Mediterranean ?
An editor looking at the bottom of, for example, the France article would see the Med category and think "Heh - it's missing the equivalent categories for Atlantic Ocean, North Sea etc". An editor interested in another sea/ocean (Black, Baltic, Pacific or whatever) is likely to think "If the Med can have a countries-of category then we deserve one as well". DexDor (talk) 05:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would be common sense that to qualify for the category a country would be (a) a country and (b) that country would be based in the Mediterranean (what any sensible, non-hyper-literal-minded person would expect). All categories are subjective on some level: this is no more subjective than Category:Countries. As stated before, if someone thinks an Atlantic category is missing as a result, then they can justify that separately as it is an entirely different matter. SFB 21:11, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What does "based in the Mediterranean" mean ? e.g. is France based in the Med, is Russia based in the Caspian ? DexDor (talk) 21:32, 1 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: It means the main body of the country is set in that area. If we count overseas territories, we could class Britain as a European, Asian, African, South America, North American and Oceanian country. Or even as a politically integral country, by this logic France should be categorised as a North American, South American, African, European and Oceanian country...but we don't do so because it's clearly a ridiculous proposition. SFB 20:05, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@SFB. That's how the categories that were deleted were being used - e.g. France was in a Pacific category. Some people argue that a DOM-TOM is as much part of France as Brittany is and technically they may be correct. DexDor (talk) 20:27, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Have you read the previous CFD ? DexDor (talk) 05:03, 5 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
With such a categorization scheme would Russia end up in categories for Countries bordering the Arctic Ocean, Countries bordering the Pacific Ocean, Countries bordering the Baltic Sea, Countries bordering the Sea of Azov, Countries bordering the Black Sea, Countries bordering the Caspian Sea, Countries bordering the Barents Sea, Countries bordering the White Sea, Countries bordering the Kara Sea, Countries bordering the Laptev Sea, Countries bordering the East Siberian Sea, Countries bordering the Chukchi Sea, Countries bordering the Bering Sea, Countries bordering the Sea of Okhotsk, and Countries bordering the Sea of Japan. How many of those are a defining characteristic of Russia ? DexDor (talk) 19:13, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I also disagree with this interpretation, but on the basis that the body of water is not a central aspect of the grouped countries identities. We should only be grouping countries when the shared characteristic affects them in a shared way (i.e. Greenland's being in the Atlantic is a profoundly different (and disassociated) experience from that of Namibia and it's Atlantic coast. SFB 18:28, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So what exactly would the inclusion criteria of such a category be? Would the UK (which includes Gibralter) be a valid member? Are, for example, Monaco and Libya affected "in a shared way" by having some Med coast? Under your plan would, for example, a "Countries of the North Sea" category be valid? What about "Countries of the Irish Sea"? ... DexDor (talk) 19:15, 21 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we did allow what I was suggesting, I think we would need to be sparing in how many seas we allowed. The Azov sea is effectively an arm of the Black Sea. The Sea of Japan is an arm of the Pacific. An Irish sea category could only have two countries and would fail as too small. With so much air travel today, sea tranmsport has become much less important, but the sea remains important for trade: most of the goods made in China for the European market come by sea. In reply to someone else, the UK does not have a Meditterranean coast, any more than Hawaii has an Atlantic Coast. Gibraltar is a British Overseas Territory - a British possession, not part of UK. Gibraltar would properly be part of both a Mediterrean and a North Atlantic category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 26 October 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.
More