Trichome

thcscience_admin
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2[edit]

Category:War (U.S. band)[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (Talk)
Nominator's rationale: War (band) was renamed by request to War (U.S. band) because of War (Swedish band). Convention is to use "American" not "U.S." when disambiguating band names (e.g. Anthrax (American band)), so I moved the article to War (American band). Due to the recent name change, category renaming doesn't qualify for speedy. Requesting move of these categories to match article name and naming conventions mentioned herein. Thanks. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:57, 2 February 2019 (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:Flora of the Middle East[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:31, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Middle East is not a good region to categorise plants by as it is transcontinental (it includes Egypt which is mostly in Africa) and it is not a region in the WGSRPD scheme which the Plants Wikiproject has adopted.  For info: The WGSRPD categories include Category:Flora of the Arabian Peninsula and Category:Flora of Western Asia.
Note: these categories were created by the now blocked User:Look2See1.  In the longer term the equivalent fauna/fungi/biota categories could also be deleted for similar reasons, but the argument for deleting these is stronger. DexDor (talk) 21:36, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: After deletion should check that categories such as Category:Flora of the Arabian Peninsula and Category:Flora of Iraq are still in Category:Flora of Asia. DexDor (talk) 12:12, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support Another clear example of non-consensus and unnecessary categories created by this banned user and/or their sockpuppets. Peter coxhead (talk) 10:52, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 9 February 2019 (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.

Classes of the Order of the Pleiades (Iran)[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. Timrollpickering (Talk)
Nominator's rationale: Parent Category:Recipients of the Order of the Pleiades (Iran) uses more clear and encyclopedic wording, so the subcats should follow suit. Whether the class numbers should be spelled out is TBD. Brandmeistertalk 20:18, 2 February 2019 (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:Districts of Balochistan Province[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:30, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A recently created category that duplicates Category:Districts of Balochistan, Pakistan. – Uanfala (talk) 14:18, 2 February 2019 (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:Cold War II[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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 14:32, 27 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is used for events relating to Russian–US tensions. However, the whole article "Cold War II" (diff) currently does not mention any events categorized as part of "Cold War II". Also, very few or no reliable sources mention the connection between "Cold War II" and the categorized events, like "Annexation of Crimea by the Russian Federation", "Group of Two" (which is treated as a mere "see also" link in the parent article) and war in Donbass. The "Cold War II" article briefly mentions the poisoning of Sergei and Yulia Skripal but not in substantial detail and does not connect the term and the event. I fear that the category would be misused to (mis)categorize other events that no reliable sources would connect to. George Ho (talk) 07:17, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, almost nothing in this category is specifically about the tensions between Russia and the US. There is some content about Russian foreign policy and there is some other content about American (or NATO) foreign policy, but linking any of that to Cold War II remains a matter of subjective interpretation. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Stated rationale for deletion does not make any sense at all, even at second or third reading. Could you please clarify on your fears of miscategorization and subjective interpretation? Ceannlann gorm (talk) 09:03, 3 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ceannlann gorm: To me the "Cold War II" has been mistaken to be actually happening. Well, no sources at this time refer it as a "hoax" or nonexistent; indeed, many news articles refer it to either tensions between Russia and the West or tensions between China and the US. However, we can't be certain whether the categorized events are part of "Cold War II". I believe they are (mis)categorized just because they are part of either tensions between the US and Russia or foreign policies of Russia. To clarify my "fears of mis-categorization", I shall say that Russia-related events were (mis)categorized just because Russia was part of the original Cold War when it was part of the Soviet Union and just to re-heighten fears of Russians. Maybe I'm wrong. Why couldn't China-related events be categorized? For sure I don't know. However, I can see that reliable sources haven't yet categorized the events as part of "Cold War II". George Ho (talk) 21:04, 3 February 2019 (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:Textile mills in Saratoga County, New York[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: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:48, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCLOCATION
Much of the Mohawk River is almost lined with former mill sites, including the stretch through Saratoga County, so there may be growth potential here. But we don't categorize any other US mills by county, these mills are defined by river not county, and the expanded category could pull a number of articles from Category:Textile mills in the United States including Globe Woolen Company Mills, Harmony Mills, West Brothers Knitting Company and Wild's Mill Complex. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The present category is too specific. If they are all water-powered, the next split would probably be by river catchment, of we need to split. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:23, 9 February 2019 (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:Lists of fictional gangs[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:54, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT
We have one list article for fictional gangs unsurprisingly named List of fictional gangs and that's the only thing in this narrow category. That article is already well categorized under Category:Fictional gangs, Category:Lists of fictional organizations and Category:Lists of gangs and the category has limited room for growth. - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 2 February 2019 (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:Male guitarists[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: keep. There is no support for deleting these specific categories. The more general issue of occupation-based categories split by genders is beyond the scope of this single CfD, but an RfC about their usefulness may be in order. Regardless, there is consensus to keep these categories. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:53, 10 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Guitarists aren't defined by their gender. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 02:24, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - These are fine - there are many thousands of other categories which are split under male and female. It is useful to list occupations separately into male and female categories eg. so many subcats under Category:Men by occupation / Category:Women by occupation. So there would be no need to have this specific occupation deleted; and also, Category:Female guitarists exists. Hiddenstranger (talk) 03:02, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I created the first two, as well as some other "male X" categories, because there were corresponding female categories. If these are deleted, the categories for female guitarists should be deleted as well. Both or neither; only one makes no sense and creates bias. ♫ekips39 (talk)❀ 04:00, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, music artists are often split by gender and discussed in that context. It's useful for encyclopedic, specifically historical and research purposes. Brandmeistertalk 20:28, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep So I what I have to write? User:Lucifero4
  • Presumably just deleting guitarists by gender does not make too much sense. However, I really wonder why we would distinguish musicians by gender at all, except we should of course distinguish singers as (mezzo-)sopranos, tenors, baritones, basses, which usually coincides with gender. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Distinguishing is useful in some encyclopedic fields, particularly history, music history, gender studies and cultural anthropology. For Wikipedia which, as a general reference work, combines these fields it's equally useful. Brandmeistertalk 17:34, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • On the other hand we also have WP:EGRS which - translated to this case - says that we shouldn't categorize by gender unless the intersection by gender is a notable topic in its own right. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 6 February 2019 (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/2019_February_2

Leave a Reply