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: I understand why this discussion has had little participation, being that it concerns matters which are being debated by expert biologists. The inevitable result of that fact in this case is that there is no consensus for the proposed split. Nevertheless, Justice Aharon Barak has said that a judge can render a decision in matters he knows nothing about, based on judicial reasoning. Therefore, I would like to add, that the best course of action in this case, which is controversial both from an academic point of view as well as in view of the likely confusion mentioned by Fayenatic london, would be to delete Category:Elk and red deer, and upmerge all articles in it to Category:Cervus, which already contains some of the articles anyway. However, since such an option has not been mentioned in the discussion, I leave it up to others to propose it. Debresser (talk) 00:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I see no reason to group these 2 species together in a category, separate from the third species in their genus (Sika deer). It should be noted that while the text of the article refers to them being a single species, the articles on both of them refer to them as being separate species, as does the taxobox of the genus. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu20:30, 9 October 2016 (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.
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 issue here is that these names are mostly contrived, recent names and not widely known. The casual browser will see a category such as People from Babergh and believe that this is a town. I would therefore assert that the addition of (district) makes things far clearer to the casual reader. I think the naming of the district articles in Norfolk are far clearer. I suspect the thrust should be to rename the district articles rather than this particular category. I am happy to let this rename drop, and will raise a discussion on the Suffolk district names instead... GrahamHardy (talk) 20:00, 9 October 2016 (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.
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 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:Main topic classifications and Category:Fundamental categories
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: The result of this discussion is that there is no consensus for the proposed rename, but in this case that lack of consensus comes close to a keep, for the following reasons: 1. the present category is the result of a previous discussion. IMHO, a clear consensus would be needed to move a category from a name which was determined in a previous Cfd discussion. 2. That pervious discussion explicitly rejected "Category:Fundamental topics", a name that comes close to the rename that was proposed here. 3. Especially convincing was the argument that "topic" is not a synonym for "category". I agree that that argument is at odds with "Main topic classifications", but I leave that fight for another time, since "Main topic classifications" is a separate category tree from this one, as specifically stated on that category's page. Debresser (talk) 20:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Mainly [this]. The new names are easier and make more sense. This are categories for topics, they categorize by topic, so give them a name that expresses that. CN1 (talk) 14:04, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
♦ Current rationale As events turned out in the other proposal, required to achieve consensus first, (here), the proposal will change according to input of two people. CN1 (talk) 20:08, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support, adding "classifications" or "categories" in the category name is obviously redundant. By the way I'm afraid I don't quite understand the commonality between the three subcats in Category:Fundamental categories; I do understand keeping "concepts" apart but the other two subcats seem to be just (part of) main topics. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The commonality is that every entity, everything that exists, can be abstracted to one of these three categories: Either it exists in the living world, either it is non living matter, or it is an idea, a thought, a concept. You rightfully just removed Category:Society which is also a concept. However you can argue that living matter is also made out of molecules, which is matter and does not live. CN1 (talk) 16:56, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The category was originally 'Category:Fundamental'. It was changed to its present name by consensus, years ago. I did not object to a more explicit type name at that time. However, a 'topic' is not at the same level as a 'category', which serves as a container for other items. It is arbitrary to split out life from non-life, by the way: the DNA story shows that. The same kind of split between ideas and other items is also arbitrary, as DNA can serve, and has served to encode information. The original 4-way progression of categories was meant to echo the natural history progression from physical items, to biological items, to social entities, to the cultural artifacts of societies. --Ancheta Wis (talk | contribs)06:06, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Since you did not mention 'Main topic classifications', would you support the proposal if I leave 'fundamental categories' unchanged? CN1 (talk) 07:42, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Presumably Category:Main topic classifications is to be regarded as one topic classification (singular) into main topics (plural). (However I'm confused by leaving out "main" in the revised nomination, as it functioned nicely as a sibling of "fundamental".)
- For Category:Fundamental categories, if I understood correctly this is a second possible topic classification (singular) into fundamental topics or categories (plural).
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.
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.
DElete -- most of the content, particularly law, does not belong. Once purged there would be little but the main article, so that a category is unnecessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:05, 10 October 2016 (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.
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: The result of this discussion was delete and upmerge articles and categories as needed (which latter task I took upon myself and completed). The argument of Aleksandr Grigoryev against the proposed deletion was successfully countered by Ezhiki. Although in general there is room for categories that bundle country-specific categories, that is true where such parent categories are either global or locally defined themselves. What I mean to say is that if "cities of district significance" were a term in global use, we could have this category. Likewise we could have the category if it would be defined for example as "cities of district significance in former Soviet Union countries". This it is not, and such a rename has not been proposed here, so there is no justification in this case to have a bundling category. At the same time I think there is room to create categories similar to Category:Cities of district significance in Ukraine for Russia and other former Soviet Union states, and at such time a bundling category, properly named, could be created. Debresser (talk) 01:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Negative: The concept "Cities of district significance" is of Soviet origin and still exists throughout some (not all) post-Soviet countries. Such term exists in the Russian Federation, yet no category for the Russian Federation was created. The purpose of the above mentioned category is to unite all similar entities. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 15:43, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rathfelder, some Wikipedians (i.e. Ezhiki) specialized in the Russian administrative divisions decided to call small cities as towns, see Types of inhabited localities in Russia, Town#Russia, and Town#Ukraine. Please, note that officially no such term exists and all cities called the same ([город] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help), gorod). Unofficially, there is a diminutive form of cities in Russian language ([городок] Error: {{Langx}}: text has italic markup (help), gorodok) that is commonly used. Those Wikipedians whom I mentioned above decided to use term of town for cities with low population, yet as I am repeating myself no official term exists for that purpose and all cities are equally categorized as cities. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 16:36, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's going to be useful, I am quite happy for the category to be preserved. Thank you for adding in the defining articles. Would it help to rename the category "Towns and Cities of district significance?" Rathfelder (talk) 16:42, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I do not entirely understand this concept. Is it cities/towns that are themselves a local government district? Or is it cities/towns that are the administrative centres for districts? Whatever the answer, we need a better explanation in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or upmerge. While using the term "towns" (in the context of Russia) to refer to smaller urban localities with the status of a gorod is a practice that's somewhat arbitrary (albeit rooted in a consensus), I don't see how using the term "city" to refer to all gorods is of any improvement. It's like flipping a coin (swap "cities" and "towns" in Aleksandr's comment above, and the same exact points remain standing; after all, both words are often used synonymously). At any rate, for Russia no category had been created for concepts (as opposed to a category for the actual entities) due to WP:SMALLCAT concerns, and I don't see those concerns resolved by dumping all post-Soviet material into one place. Any country-specific category (such as Category:Cities of district significance in Ukraine) can be a part of the category tree for the administrative divisions of that country; I don't see a benefit of bundling them all in one place across country lines. If there is a logical place to upmerge this to, great; if not, then this category is not very useful.—Ëzhiki (Igels Hérissonovich Ïzhakoff-Amursky) • (yo?); October 18, 2016; 19:41 (UTC)
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.
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: The result of this discussion no consensus. The three editors who commented on this proposal all mentioned that the proposed upmerges are problematic, and there is no point in the proposed deleting without them. In addition I'd like to point out that we have several "Beast by country" categories, like the well-populated Category:Birds by country and less well-populated categories like Category:Dogs by country and others. And since many academic studies are limited to country boundaries, for reasons of financing and other restrictions of a practical nature, the division by country does actually make sense. Even if other animals do not respect country boundaries (as pointed out in the discussion), man does. Debresser (talk) 02:22, 1 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rationale: Spiders don't tend to follow national borders, so it generally isn't WP:DEFINING for them. Note that I intentionally left out all island countries, as biota on islands is frequently different from biota on mainland. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu03:40, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I entirely agree that political countries are not the right unit for categorizing the distribution of organisms, whether animals or plants. Category:Spiders of the United States is particularly inappropriate as it includes Hawaii and Alaska, with very different biogeographical conditions to the contiguous US. On the other hand, "Asia" is too large a unit, in my view; including e.g. the middle East, Siberia, China and south-east Asia in one category is too coarse. For plants, there's an internationally recognized and widely used way of categorizing distributions (see World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions). It can be used for animals, but doesn't seem to be used as much. Peter coxhead (talk) 16:45, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I agree that national categories are generally too small. However continental ones are much too big. Combining the spiders of Siberia and Malaysia into a single category would be odd to say the least. This is a problem we are having repeatedly in biota categories. There may well be merit in applying World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions to fauna, or devising something similar (though that might constitute OR). Peterkingiron (talk) 12:16, 10 October 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale:Eponymous category for a person who doesn't really have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one. There are just six pages here, namely the eponymous BLP and five things he either owned or was associated with -- all of which are already linked from his BLP anyway. It isn't a particularly useful aid to navigation to have an eponymous category for every individual person who happens to have a few related topics -- if there were 20 or 30 things to be filed alongside him in it, then things might be different, but we don't need it for just five. Bearcat (talk) 01:30, 9 October 2016 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. Mayoral candidates aren't notable for that fact in and of itself per WP:NPOL, so the only people who could actually be filed here are those who actually get over a notability criterion for some other reason and oh by the way also happened to have been mayoral candidates. And indeed, the only content here at all is Category:Mayors of Colorado Springs, Colorado itself (and, in fact, until I cleaned it up just now some of the mayors were simultaneously sitting in both categories unnecessarily, but there were zero people in this category who weren't also in the mayors category already.) This simply isn't necessary, if the only people who can actually be added to it are people who won the mayoral elections and are thereby already categorized as actual mayors anyway. (And except for one specific-to-a-single-election category for New York City in 2013 — which quite possibly shouldn't exist either, but will have to be discussed separately — I can find little to no evidence of any other categories existing for mayoral candidates in any other city.) Bearcat (talk) 01:09, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- It is well-established that political candidates (except for potential heads of state) are NN, unless for other reasons. Even when elected mayors may be NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:19, 10 October 2016 (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.
