Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 July 7



Categories by administrative unit of Pakistan

 * 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) 16:03, 15 July 2012 (UTC) Revised to Leave as is following this conversation and this one. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming
 * Category:Categories by administrative unit of Pakistan to Category:Categories by first-level administrative subdivision of Pakistan
 * Category:Buildings and structures in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Buildings and structures in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * '''Category:Pakistani cuisine by region to Category:Pakistani cuisine by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani culture by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani culture by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Economy of Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Economy of Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Education in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Education in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Geography of Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Geography of Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Languages of Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Languages of Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani media by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani media by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Military in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Military in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * '''Category:Music of Pakistani subdivisions to Category:Music of Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:People by administrative unit of Pakistan to Category:Pakistani people by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani people by occupation by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani people by occupation by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani businesspeople by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani businesspeople by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani musicians by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani musicians by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani sportspeople by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani sportspeople by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani writers by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani writers by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Organisations based in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Organisations based in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Pakistani musical groups by administrative unit to Category:Pakistani musical groups by first-level administrative subdivision
 * '''Category:Pakistani society by province to Category:Pakistani society by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Politics of Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Politics of Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Religion in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Religion in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Christianity in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Christianity in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Hinduism in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Hinduism in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Islam in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Islam in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Schools in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Schools in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * '''Category:Social groups of Pakistan by province to Category:Social groups of Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Sport in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Sport in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision
 * Category:Tourism in Pakistan by administrative unit to Category:Tourism in Pakistan by first-level administrative subdivision


 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Administrative units of Pakistan at its highest level is very diverse, with four provinces, one federal capital territory, two autonomous territories and a group of federally administered tribal areas. As the term Administrative unit is applied in these categories it refers to the highest tier only, i.e. that of first-level administrative subdivision. Since there are also administrative units at lower levels the current naming scheme is incorrect. Renaming per my nomination will clear the ambiguity and introduce a term which is already standardized in Wikipedia's category structure. __meco (talk) 20:50, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment I think "administrative units" is quite clear actually and not ambigous. The term is inclusive of provinces and all other administrative territories, which is what these categories are for. What would be the distinction of renaming to "first-level administrative subdivision"? Unless you are confusing Administrative units of Pakistan with the second-tier Districts of Pakistan? Districts are not administrative units, rather "administrative units" refers to first-tier subdivisions only. So I am unclear over the purpose of renaming.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 10:40, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You are right. I have misapprehended the situation. Would it then be appropriate to rename all the nominated categories to adhere to the existing standard then, as I notice there are a few that doesn't use this scheme? __meco (talk) 12:44, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * No worries. Yes, it would be ideal that all categories should follow the same scheme. Could you point out though the ones which do not?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 15:37, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have added bold emphasis to the four categories for which this applies. __meco (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question in Pakistan are they called "first level administrative subdivisions", or is there some word, such as maybe "Province" that in actual usage is seen to have this meaning, such as Canda's provinces, or India's states. The US, Brazil and Mexico also all have states.  Yet in Mexico they have two territiories and a Federal District, but by overwhelming usage we could put those three non-states under "states" because they function like states.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Aha! You fell right into that trench as well! "first level administrative subdivisions" is a generic term we use on Wikipedia as a placeholder name that (probably) isn't used by any country referring to its domestic hierarchies. At the beginning of this nom I detail all the different entities which Pakistan has as its first-level subdivisions. "Provinces" are in there, but there are several others also on the same level And Pakistan has decided to use the odd name "administrative unit" as an umbrella term to refer to all of these. Are you with us now? __meco (talk) 19:08, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Instead of administrative unit, why not just use "Category:Categories by province or territory of Pakistan", similiar to the way it's done for categories pertaining to States and territories of India and Category:Categories by state or territory of Australia? After all, the provinces are considered as the main subdivisions. There are four other subdivisions which function as territories: Islamabad Capital Territory, Federally Administered Tribal Areas and the two regions of Kashmir - Gilgit Baltistan and Azad Kashmir. The problem with "First-level administrative subdivision" is that it is not an officially used term. "Province or territory" makes more sense. Your thoughts?  Mar4d  ( talk ) 06:26, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree and leaves no difficulty of interpretation.Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:17, 10 July 2012 (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.

Category:Globalization 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: keep. The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Globalization terminology to Category:??
 * Nominator's rationale: This is an interesting cat. It proposes to contain terminology, but a lot of these articles are more than terminology, e.g. they are not just articles about defining a term, but are rather serious articles in their own right (e.g. Democratization or Human trafficking. I don't really have a proposal on what to do with this category, except perhaps merge to the parent (I've also proposed merging, and many of the articles here seem like globalization issues as well. KarlB (talk) 12:46, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * *Oppose - This category is one that falls under the purview of the newly created WikiProject_Globalization as an upper level category. Several articles have recently been added by a project member that may need re-categorization, but that is not a reason to delete the category.  Please allow the new WikiProject some time to get better organized before nominating its' major categories for deletion. Meclee (talk) 15:59, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now this is a developing categorization scheme, and knee-jerk deletion before lines of categorization have settled does not seem to be the right response.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep Perfectly fit in the scheme Category:Terminology by ideology. Stefanomione (talk) 14:00, 10 July 2012 (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.

Category:Globalization issues

 * 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 for now, although the case is weak at the moment. Category:Globalization itself is currently within Category:Social issues, and that weakens the case for keeping an "issues" sub-cat. The WikiProject itself should review after a while whether this is needed after all. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:58, 17 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Globalization issues to Category:Globalization
 * Nominator's rationale: Overly specific. I would expect globalization to contain issues and articles related to globalization, so this sub-cat is not needed. KarlB (talk) 12:43, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose - This category is one that falls under the purview of the newly created WikiProject_Globalization as an upper level category. There are several "issues" categories within other social science areas.  Under the proposers' rationale, these should also be deleted.  Please allow the new WikiProject time to get better organized before nominating its' major categories for deletion. Meclee (talk) 16:00, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The existence of other issues categories is not under discussion here. Some are valid I think, and some should also be deleted. But in this case, the word globalization as commonly understood subsumes all of these various issues; indeed, the head article covers many of them. --KarlB (talk) 16:17, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This category's description has now been modified to read: "This category includes social, political, cultural, economic, environmental and other issues related to globalization that are not otherwise included under sub-categories of Category:Globalization aspects of or that cross between several aspects of globalization." Meclee (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That means that it covers everything but exceptions. That is not considered defining and this type of category is generally deleted.  Vegaswikian (talk) 19:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, it means it only covers exceptions. Now reads "This category includes issues related to globalization that are not otherwise included under sub-categories of Category:Globalization aspects of or that cross between several aspects of globalization." Meclee (talk) 00:22, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * think about it this way; categories are supposed to be both WP:DEFINING, and help the user in navigation. If I'm a user, I'm not going to troll through dozens of sub categories to get the article I'm looking for; I should be able to find it immediately. As it stands, I don't know whether to look for it in globalization, globalization issues, globalization terminology, globalization aspects of, or any of the other globalization cats. There aren't that many articles, why don't we start with a simpler category structure, until such time as we come up with good names and a good split. For now, these splits aren't defining enough, and it's not clear why something would be in one category and not another. For example, global climate change - where should that go? Is that an issue? it's also a terminology. It's also an aspect of globalization (under environment); it's also just plain related to globalization.--KarlB (talk) 00:31, 8 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep for now this is a developing schema, and we should wait until it is settled to take any drastic actions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. As part of the new WikiProject Globalization, one category is not nearly enough -- it would quickly become way too large. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 05:40, 14 July 2012 (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.

Category:Globalization aspects of

 * 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. A topic category, such as Category:Globalization, can directly contain content pertaining to aspects of the topic. I took into account the argument that this is part of an effort by WikiProject Globalization; however, while WikiProjects are free to organize their project as they see fit (for the most part), the same level of discretion does not extend to the organization of content intended for readers. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Globalization aspects of to Category:Globalization
 * Nominator's rationale: This just seems duplicative of parent cat. I don't see the purpose of an aspects of category underneath the parent. The parent should suffice. KarlB (talk) 12:41, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * *Oppose - This category is one that falls under the purview of the newly created WikiProject_Globalization as an upper level category. This is not duplicative of the parent cat; it is a sub cat that contains other cats that are aspects of the very broad "Globalization" cat.  It could be shortened to 'Globalization aspects'. Please allow the new WikiProject time to get better organized before nominating its' major categories for deletion. Meclee (talk) 16:04, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is, for an editor attempting to categorize an article, such as Human trafficking, is that an 'aspect' of globalization, or is it a part of globalization terminology, or is it a globalization issue? Or all 3? I'm still not sure why this isn't duplicative of the parent cat. Categories by their nature contain sub-cats that are 'aspects' of the parent. That's the point of categories in the first place.--KarlB (talk) 16:08, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * All sub-categories of a category are self-reflexive of the parent category; that is also the nature of categories. I understand the concern, but the 'Aspects' category is primarily a container category.  Human trafficking is certainly an 'Issue' that is much under discussion.  Again, a Project member became a bit over-enthusiastic adding articles to the 'Terminology' cat (which existed prior to the formation of the new WikiProject), it may take some time to sort-out some of these additions.  Better category explanations have already been proposed,  Again, please allow the new WikiProject more time to get better organized before nominating its' major categories for deletion. Meclee (talk) 16:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. At this point, I'm hard pressed to see how the current name meets Category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:21, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge I remain unconvinced that there would ever be a need to seperate "aspects of x" from the general "x" category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom and JPL. - The Bushranger One ping only 00:12, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, Rename. As part of the new Wikipedia Globalization, this category is still developing. Project plans include several new, related articles. I agree with the suggestion to rename this to Category:Globalization aspects. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld (talk) 05:54, 14 July 2012 (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.

Category:Marburg-Biedenkopf

 * 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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:00, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Marburg-Biedenkopf to Category:Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf or Category:District Marburg-Biedenkopf
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is no location called Marburg-Biedenkopf. Landkreis Marburg-Biedenkopf is the official name. Q.v. interwikis and commons. Hydro (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep this is the name of the article. We follow the rules of "common name" not "official name" here.  What next will someone want to rename Category:Rhode Island to Category:Rhode Island and Providence Plantations because at some level that is the official name?John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per WP:COMMONNAME and WP:COMMONSENSE. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 10 July 2012 (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.

Category:Populated places in Boka Kotorska

 * 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 C2C/D. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:50, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Boka Kotorska to Category:Populated places in Bay of Kotor
 * Nominator's rationale: To match the main cat (Category:Bay of Kotor) and the article (Bay of Kotor). —  AjaxSmack   02:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 9 July 2012 (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.

Category:German-speaking ex-regions

 * 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. While Peterkingiron has a point that some form of categorisation is likely desirable here, this is not it. The Bushranger One ping only 00:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:German-speaking ex-regions to Category:
 * Nominator's rationale: Ugghh. What is an ex-region? Maybe "Former German-speaking regions"?.  —  AjaxSmack   02:55, 7 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete the whole notion of cateogizing places for having once been "German-speaking" opens up more problems than I think we want to face. At some level World War II was excused by different views between the German and Polish governments on what regions had ever been German speaking.  This also strikes me as a generally discoraged present/former splitting of categorization, which we avoid in almost all cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete (former) region by language (formerly) spoken is ripe for problems. And what is the benefit? If anyone cared to decipher the instructions on the category page, and figured out why that subset is significant, please let us all in on the rationale. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:20, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Distribute contents then delete -- This is a horrid name, but the category (though broad) has a definition, possibly an over-complicated one. Former princely states need to be categories as such.  19th century reforms (I think) subsumed many small states inot larger ones.  Then we have areas outside Germany and Austria that were formerly under their rule with a significant German-speaking population, which left voluntarily (or in some cases under threat) at the end of WWII.  This applies to areas between the pre- and post-WWII German borders, which were poipulated by Poles displaced from the east.  Peterkingiron (talk) 23:52, 10 July 2012 (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.