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. ℯxplicit 04:25, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deletingCategory:Lowbrow pop surrealism artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: There is no lowbrow pop surrealist article (and it's a non-notable term apparently based on one non-notable book). All the artists linked to this category are done so without any sources. This appears to be a backdoor attempt to get the term into Wikipedia. freshacconci (✉) 21:06, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
CommentLowbrow (art movement) and "pop surrealism" are apparently two different names for the same art movement. Dimadick (talk) 12:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite. The Lowbrow movement is largely limited to California, where it was established; pop surrealism is an older movement and worldwide. Lowbrow is best described as one branch of pop surrealism.Grutness...wha? 00:24, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NONDEF, in most biographies in this category it is not even mentioned at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. –Daybeers (talk) 00:50, 15 May 2018 (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:Vertebrates of Benin
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. – FayenaticLondon 07:00, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Categories are meant to help readers to find articles. Many readers will be interested in what creatures live in a country. "Organisms of countryX"-type categories are also useful for editors to monitor progress and to see what is wrong/outdated/missing. That some countries are small and that some creatures occur in many countries (and hence might be judged as leading to WP:NON-DEFINING) should not used to decimate a very useful system that is not dependent of dedicated editors. Readers could be satisfied with lists instead of categories, but (1) lists and categories are complementary systems and (2) suitable lists are often missing, incomplete, or outdated. The category approach is easy to maintain, whereas the list approach is not. At least for groups of organisms where editor base is small, categories are much more practical solution than lists. Micromesistius (talk) 14:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are 100 vertebrates of a country categories, which are listed as subcategories of Category:Vertebrates by country. It makes no sense to single out the West African countries and not do mergers for other regions. Given that there are many categories of animals by country (e.g. Mammals by ..., Amphibia by ..., Birds by ..., etc) as well as the less used animals by region categories (e.g. Category:Vertebrates by region), the proposal only makes sense as part of a major reorganisation of the category system. Jts1882 | talk 15:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Micromesistius is incorrect. Categories are for the grouping together of articles via defining characteristics, and we have upmerged many such categories. It is ridiculous to categorise an organism by every country it can be found in (unless endemic to 1 or 2). Oculi (talk) 16:44, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge as vertebrates are not defined by lines drawn on maps by colonial powers, for by any other humans, for that matter. Mangoe (talk) 20:35, 24 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories are navigational aids. According to WP:CAT, "The central goal of the category system is to provide navigational links to 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." Country where an organism occurs is such characteristic, even though it may not be unique. From a point of view of an average reader not interested in taxonomy, it is certainly more defining than "year of formal description", another category type that is not challenged because it is unique, even though it is addressing a lesser practical need. Removing these country-based categories makes it difficult to find what animals exists in a country, apart from few exceptions where there are list articles. These exceptions are primary birds and mammals, two groups with stable taxonomy and relatively large editor base. This does not apply to amphibians and reptiles, groups that I am most familiar with in Wikipedia – few editors, and taxonomy in flux. Even where list articles exist, they do not need to annihilate categories ("these methods should not be considered in conflict with each other. Rather, they are synergistic, each one complementing the others" – from WP:CLNT). It is also worth noticing that we do have Category:Flora of Benin and similar, and also Category:Trees of Benin (though the latter is almost empty). Micromesistius (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge categories should be defining to the contents. The specific countries in their range is not defining for animals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:22, 28 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Plant and animal species are not generally confined by national borders, but by broad climatic regions — so categorizing them by individual country leads to extreme category bloat: a species found in 14 countries gets added to 14 separate categories for each individual country, which is not helpful or useful. So we have extensive prior consensus and precedent stating that we categorize flora and fauna by broader groupings, such as continent or continental region, and not by individual country. Bearcat (talk) 18:42, 29 April 2018 (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:11th-century Norman 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.
Propose renaming Category:11th-century Norman people
Nominator's rationale:Rename in order to clarify the scope of the category.
Option A: rename to Category:11th-century Normans, aligned with Normans; in that case the scope is 11th-century descendants of Vikings who settled in Normandy and gave their name to the region.
Option B; rename to Category:11th-century people from Normandy, aligned with Category:People from Normandy; in that case the scope is everyone who lived in what we currently call Normandy.
Option A The main article about the ethnic group is Normans. Dimadick (talk) 12:38, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option A it's the people, not the place per se. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:05, 22 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Option A. Option B would be incorrect as many Normans in the late 11th century were born, raised, or lived in England. Even before that time, it would include people from Jersey and Guernsey, as well as southern Italy. Grutness...wha? 00:29, 23 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely Option A if it does need changing at all. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 26 April 2018 (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:AfC submissions with discussion pages
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.
Propose deletingCategory:AfC submissions with discussion pages (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: I believe this category is a relic of the days when AfC pages were subpages without talkpages. It is no longer useful as far as I can tell. Legacypac (talk) 05:12, 21 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is correct. It is populated by Template:AfC submission discussion page which is also unused. It was occasionally useful but did not get widely used. Can be deleted. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:54, 21 April 2018 (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.