Trichome

thcscience_admin
< May 10 May 12 >

May 11[edit]

Category:Coalition of the Radical Left[edit]

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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 20:51, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: C2D per Syriza. Charles Essie (talk) 21:26, 11 May 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:Members Elect of the Legislative Assembly of Alberta[edit]

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. MER-C 12:49, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't see this as a useful point of categorization. It contains just two people, one of whom was initially declared the victor on election night by a margin of just eight votes but then found to have lost on the automatic recount — so his initial "seemed to have been elected" status was a media call, not a "formally declared elected by the election authority" matter. Which means it has no legal standing, and is thus undefining of him. This is by no means an unprecedented event, but actually happens fairly frequently in federal, provincial or state elections in many countries — I can personally recall at least three similar incidents in Canadian elections alone just within the past six or seven years, with the possibility of one or two more landing in the next couple of weeks as a result of recounts in the two provincial elections that happened last week. So this is about as rare and noteworthy, in and of itself, as rocks — but it's not a point on which we categorize the affected people in any other jurisdiction (if they even have articles to categorize at all.) And once Chris Kilbermanis is accordingly removed from the category, it will be left as a category of one — and while Lucien Dubuc technically has a stronger case for inclusion here (actually went to court over it) than Kilbermanis does, he can still be easily transferred to the existing Category:Independent candidates in Alberta provincial elections without needing this WP:SMALLCAT violation alongside it (Kilbermanis is already in his appropriate party-equivalent category). Delete. Bearcat (talk) 14:52, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The two articles relate to people who were elected, but whose election was subsequently declared void. I cannot support an Alberta-specific category, but we might conceivably have a wider category for persons whose election is overturned. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:57, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It isn't a thing that we need a category for at all. A list, maybe — but even then, Kilbermanis' circumstances (a media call that got reversed on an automatic recount, and thus was never certified as an official victory by Elections Alberta) wouldn't actually put him on it. Bearcat (talk) 23:42, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept In US elections, Senator-elect, President-elect, etc. means someone who has won an election but has not yet been sworn into office. (It does not mean they will not be sworn in although they could die, there could be a recount, etc.) Obviously I don't want to impose American terms into a Canadian context but, if kept, I think the title could be clearer. If we can't come up with a clear and concise name, that may be an indication the category itself is faulty. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:08, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Category is inherently transitory, and does not meaningfully aid in classification or navigation. Neutralitytalk 03:41, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are more useful ways to categorize people involved. I know there have been in the US cases of people elected who died before taking office, although they are extremely rare.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:30, 19 May 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:Scripting languages for text editors[edit]

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: upmerge to Category:Scripting languages and Category:Text editors. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:36, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has one notable article. Other langs used as scripting languages for editors are indistinguishable from general purpose programming languages (Python, Perl, Lua etc)
What about TECO (text editor) ? Apokrif (talk) 18:08, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
a 3 page category? what others are there? how are any of these languages notable outside of the text editor they're dedicated to? there might be a case for elisp being notable because of GNUS, dired etc. but not the others.
If you think Vim script is not notable, you should propose it for deletion. Apokrif (talk) 19:26, 11 May 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.

ISIL categories[edit]

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: procedural close as none of the category pages were tagged with notification of this discussion. Aside from this, the outcome from those who somehow found it anyway and commented below would be keep for now. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. As per the titles of related main articles: List of terrorist incidents linked to ISIL , Killing of captives by ISIL, List of wars and battles involving ISIL, Persecution of Christians by ISIL, Persecution of Yazidis by ISIL, Human rights in ISIL-controlled territory, Timeline of ISIL related events Perhaps a merge of the wars and battles contents might be considered if this is thought relevant. GregKaye 14:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Khestwol: Both links goes to Wikipedia:Article titles which states in the beginning "This page explains in detail the considerations, or naming conventions, on which choices of article title are based. (This page does not detail titling for pages in other namespaces, such as categories.)" Christian75 (talk) 11:17, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Christian75, I apologize it seems I cited a wrong link. However, still, many article titles already use "ISIL". "ISIL" is far more recognizable and WP:COMMONNAME, even the main article about ISIL itself mostly uses "ISIL". So I think the categories should use the acronym too. Khestwol (talk) 19:07, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The articles themselves fail CONSISTENCY. And it's been discussed in the requested moves at the main article about how problematic the subarticle naming is. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:05, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Support With long organizational names, we often use the full name for the parent category but an acronym for subcategories so as to be WP:CONCISE. For instance, see Category:National Collegiate Athletic Association and most of the "NCAA" subcategories. This nomination personally makes sense to me but I don't see a clear policy endorsement, thus the weak support. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The main article is called Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant. All other articles should use the same name. Mbcap (talk) 05:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We have a problem over what to call the so-called Islamic State. I understand the Arabic acronym to be something like DASH; I wonder whehter that might be a NPOV alternative. I certainly favour shorter category names, where the abbreviation is not too obscure. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:49, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I certainly favour Da'esh or some variant thereof (there are a variety of spellings); it's used in English, French, Arabic, other languages as well, so is multilingual. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 14:03, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the guideline at Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories gives clear indication that categories should reflect the cat main article that they cover. Can someone please explain any justification for the categories not to be moved? GregKaye 18:15, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The current name happens to inform readers of the geographic scope of the would-be state. ISIL signifies what exactly? Dimadick (talk) 20:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I actually think I have heard ISIS more than ISIL, and I have also heard IS, all from various reliable sources. I have seen some try to argue against ISIL as pushing a specific Point of View. Considering that the group has adherents in Libya, its current use of the name Islmamic State may come to wider acceptance. However, as long as the article is at Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant we should leave the category name there and let rename debates go on at the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:33, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick It conveys exactly the same but in abbreviated form. It presents a clear and readable designation for the group that provides consistency with the main articles. GregKaye 04:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
John Pack Lambert both of the ISI~ designations are widely used. GregKaye 04:31, 20 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the difference here is that Category:Irish Republican Army campaigns does not in have its own related and linked main article. There are a number of ISIL titled articles that directly correspond to related categories. GregKaye 11:09, 11 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as nominator. We continue to use related article titles as follows:
Wikipedia P & G is for categories to reflect the content of their main articles as per Eponymous categories. GregKaye 10:49, 11 June 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:Wikipedians who use Google Wave[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 21:32, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category (only two members) with no prospect for growth, since Google Wave is now defunct. —me_and 13:46, 11 May 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:Wikipedians who participate in the European Union collaboration[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 21:29, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Th associated collaboration, Wikipedia:European Union collaboration, is marked as inactive, and the only users in the category haven't edited since 2007. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:00, 11 May 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:Mosques in HimachalPradesh[edit]

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/delete as nominated. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (or rename to Category:Mosques in Himachal Pradesh). Correct name (insert space). DexDor (talk) 06:25, 11 May 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:American Curators[edit]

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. MER-C 08:18, 18 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains a lot of text, incorrect capitalization, no parents, one member (which is at AFD). DexDor (talk) 06:12, 11 May 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.

Flora of Northern and Southern America[edit]

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. In the absence of consensus for renaming, I suggest that approach (2) outlined by Peter Coxhead at the end, below, would be the best way forward. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. When considering America, the combination of North and South America, it is more appropriate to use the terms Northern and Southern as the floristic affinities do not correspond all that well to the traditional definition of the continents. For example, the World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions includes the Category:Flora of the Caribbean and Category:Flora of Central America as levels under Southern America. The flora of these two regions traditionally thought to be part of North America are more allied to that of South America. It would be sufficient to leave soft redirects behind with an explanation and map to illustrate our usage. Rkitko (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose we categorize by continent. You can add additional categories for bioregions, but the existing category structure by continent should remain -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:38, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
May I ask where such a consensus emerged that we categorize by continent? What is the rationale for that? It seems much more useful if we categorize by areas with similar floras. And if Central America and the Caribbean is more similar to Southern America, then shouldn't we include those together? There is support for following the WGSRPD, which is also used by reputable sources like GRIN and Kew's World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. I suppose the alternative is to keep the names North and South America, but clearly define their boundaries per the WGSRPD in the category description. Rkitko (talk) 12:44, 11 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
All geographic categories have base divisions by continent, some have additional categorization schemes, your proposal is an additional categorization schema, and should not redefine the meaning of the continents since it is to be consistent with all the other continent categories to make sense. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't quite see it that way. This isn't an additional scheme. This is how we (and others like GRIN and WCSP) describe plant distributions. This is not a proposal to redefine the continents, but to shift their names -- the northern and southern parts of the American landmass -- to match their existing usage for flora categorization. Rkitko (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree it would be nice to have this settled. Fortunately, the WGSRPD provides a structure for that purpose. The purpose of the Wikipedia article on the WGSRPD is not to reproduce their system (I've been working on that here: WP:PLANTS/WGSRPD) but to describe the system, its usage, and relevance. If you want to read more about it, check out the pdf provided in the article. Rkitko (talk) 21:27, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose straight renaming as that would place Southern America categories (including Caribbean etc) under Category:South America which (as defined by its reference to the South America article) does not include the Caribbean. If the WGSRPD category structure is extended up to the continent level (and I'm not convinced there's a need to do that) then it should mesh correctly with the existing categories. DexDor (talk) 21:56, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Easy solution -- shift the parent category to Category:Natural history of the Americas for both. The point of using the WGSRPD, and the reason it was created, is that existing traditional definitions of regions or continents isn't sufficient for describing and categorizing plant distributions. The WGSRPD is a compromise between the phytochorion approach and strict adherence to political boundaries. Rkitko (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No, that would leave Category:Biota of South America without a subcategory for flora of South America. DexDor (talk) 06:16, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If we're going to admit that the categorization needs of flora and fauna are different, then why is that a problem? Why is there a container category for biota when it will only ever contain a few categories that could be found in the higher category structure? Rkitko (talk) 19:27, 15 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Acioa and Belloa, for example, belong in (below) Category:Biota of South America. What you are proposing would remove them from that category. DexDor (talk) 05:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The WGSRPD category structure uses a continent scheme reflecting major botanical divisions. Southern America captures the botany of tropical America within a single continent-level category. North and South America results in a dividing line across the tropics between Panama and Colombia. Declangi (talk) 12:46, 14 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
But, it would be wrong for Category:Biota of South America (which excludes the Caribbean) to have a subcategory Flora of Southern America (which includes the Caribbean). One solution would be to create one or more new categories (e.g. "Flora of the Americas" and "Flora of Southern America") and then take some of the existing categories (e.g. Category:Flora of South America) to CFD. That way you transition to categorizing flora of Southern America without causing incorrect categorization. DexDor (talk) 19:28, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that having Category:Flora of Southern America under Category:Biota of South America would be incorrect. However Category:Biota by continent currently contains Category:Biota of the Caribbean islands‎, treating the Caribbean as a continent. So a new category may be required somewhere, maybe Category:Biota of Southern America, a container for Category:Biota of the Caribbean islands‎, Category:Biota of Central America‎ and Category:Biota of South America? Declangi (talk) 10:41, 21 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
A Biota-of-Southern-America category would be ok (assuming it's correctly categorized). Having Category:Biota of the Caribbean islands directly under Category:Biota by continent is a much lesser issue as it doesn't cause any articles to be miscategorized. DexDor (talk) 08:45, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — too esoteric and confusing for the average/predominant wikipedia user, because: 1.) All the other 'in North America' and 'in South America' scientific and other categories use North America and South America, botanic flora should not be a nonintuitive lone exception. 2.) All the other Category:Flora by continent categories use the Continents' actual names, America is not a continent with Northern and Southern regions. 3.) Northern and Southern America are already vernacular names in U.S. English for the Northern and Southern United States, used in geography, biogeography, and history (e.g. American Civil War). 4.) Altering the existing Category:Flora of southern South America to [Category:Flora of southern Southern America] would be absurd and confusing, along with [Category:Flora of northern Southern America] & [Category:Flora of western Southern America].
    The WGSRPD has some inherent limitations, as any (botanical) organizing system does. One system's approach does not fit all scientific needs. I do not support warping the names of continents' categories just to fit the WGSRPD scheme. Deal with floristic affinities, which are important, by placing articles at the highest subcategory levels instead with an explanatory lede as necessary. We are not a scientific plant database, but a public encyclopedia. Look2See1 t a l k → 23:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Look2See1: Your examples of what would be "absurd and confusing" are simply wrong; these are not the WGSRPD categories. I have now listed down to Level 2 at World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions#Levels 1 and 2. It's can't be "confusing" to use precisely defined geographical regions as the basis for categorization. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you Peter coxhead, for explaining the resolution of my concern in my Point 4 above.
Strongly oppose — I continue to strongly oppose both changes per my points 1, 2, and 3 above (13 June 2015) − and revise: The WGSRPD has some inherent limitations, as any (botanical) organizing system does. One system's approach does not fit all scientific needs, and it is not the sole internationally recognized system for recording the distribution of plants (e.g. by biomes and ecoregions, floristic provinces). I support using WGSRPD as the primary organizing scheme currently, but do not support warping the names of 2 continents' flora categories just to fit that one scheme, explanatory geophysical vs. WGSRPD ledes for the 2 North/South America flora categories are quite sufficient. Address the WGSRPD floristic affinities criteria, which are important, instead by placing articles at the highest subcategory levels below the 2 continents (e.g. Category:Flora of Central America and Category:Flora of the Caribbean, both already with clear geophysical (re: North America) vs. WGSRPD (re: South America) explanatory ledes). Using the terms Northern and Southern America for 2 'uber−parent' categories is too esoteric. We are not an academic/institutional scientific plant database, but a general public encyclopedia, serving an exceedingly diverse spectrum of people that begins with 'entry level' kids and novices.
Let's keep the flora of the Americas accessible to many, via the 2 current categories using 2 internationally recognized continent terms. Thank you Look2See1 t a l k → 20:41, 12 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The confusion arises from erroneously calling the category "Flora of North America" instead of "Flora of Northern America". It's not "esoteric" to name something correctly instead of by an incorrect name. What's "esoteric" is expecting people to understand that the category called "Flora of North America" does not include the flora of North America, but only the flora of part of that continent, namely the part the WGSRPD calls "Northern America".
I am very open to any solution that gets round the difficulty we have at present. However, I don't understand your suggestion – are you proposing never using the category "Flora of Northern America" (whatever its name) and only using the Level 2 regions? How would you categorize a plant found almost everywhere in the WGSRPD Northern America? Only by using all the regional categories? It would be very useful if you could give some examples of how you would categorize species that occur widely throughout the WGSRPD's "Northern America". Peter coxhead (talk) 08:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly support There is a standard, internationally recognized scheme for recording the distribution of plants. It is used by the most reliable databases and similar sources (e.g. the World Checklist of Selected Plant Families. Categorizing other than by those used in such sources is likely to be inconsistent and unreliable. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:04, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The worst of all possible solutions[edit]

The present situation seems to me the worst of all possible solutions. We are using the WGSRPD definitions of "Northern America" and "Southern America" but calling them by the names of differently defined continents "North America" and "South America". This is confusing to readers and confusing to editors trying to use the categories. There are two solutions, either of which is better:

  1. Use the WGSRPD definitions and change the names of the categories to make it clear that they are not North and South America.
  2. Don't use the WGSRPD botanical continent definitions for the Americas. Use the WGSRPD Level 2 regions, but combine them into the traditional definitions of North and South America.

I favour (1), as is clear I think from what I've written above, but (2) is a viable alternative. The present muddle is not. Peter coxhead (talk) 08:11, 13 July 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:British Jewish businesspeople in retailing[edit]

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. – Fayenatic London 20:22, 31 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: *Delete not a significant intersection of Category:British businesspeople in retailing and Category:British Jews. Pichpich (talk) 01:20, 11 May 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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_May_11

Leave a Reply