Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 6



Category:Members of the Castaways' Club

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:00, 14 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting members of the castaways' club


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't think we should categorize by membership in a dining club. It is not defining for those so categorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:40, 7 May 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:International Planned Parenthood Federation affiliates

 * Relisted to: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_22. - jc37 00:20, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Mohajir Wikipedians

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Mohajir Wikipedians to Category:Muhajir Wikipedians
 * Nominator's rationale: "Muhajir" is the correct/commonly used spelling of the demonym instead of "Mohajir" (see Category:Muhajir people and its subcategories). The Wikipedian category should also be renamed to comply with the general naming convention.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:06, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Support as nom.  Mar4d  ( talk ) 05:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Support seems more in line with the rest of the catsRafikiSykes (talk) 17:14, 6 May 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:Philosophy of law

 * 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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Philosophy of law to Category:Jurisprudence
 * Nominator's rationale: The categories are synonymous. I am open to which name should prevail, but I think "Jurisprudence" is well known, accepted, has a nice ring, etcetera. Greg Bard (talk) 04:12, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Result: Proposal withdrawn by nominator


 * Strongly oppose: Philosophy of law is part of jurisprudence and not the entirety of it. Therefore they are not synonymous. Theory of law is bigger than just the philosophy of law.--Sanya3 (talk) 04:16, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to disagree. They are the same subject matter. The "philosophy of law" category was constructed so as to be synonymous with jurisprudence. Greg Bard (talk) 04:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Jurisprudence is the study/theory of law, which is much broader than just philosophy of law and cannot be conflated with it. It is inappropriately reductionist to say that the entirety of jurisprudence consists of philosophy of law. Jurisprudence also includes many other areas of study, such as legal history, comparative law and sociology of law, which don't have anything to do with pure philosophy of law per se. Jurisprudence also includes the theory of each legal discipline (e.g. constitutional law, civil law, criminal law, economic law, etc.). In addition, it studies the structure and organization of the legal system itself. Categories must be constructed in such a way as to reflect reality, not the other way around.--Sanya3 (talk) 05:20, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm open minded about it. However, the "theories of law" category belongs under philosophy of law (every field of philosophy category has a "theories" subcategory), and I look forward to seeing if it will be expanded with subcategories. Greg Bard (talk) 05:42, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. But theories and theory is not the same thing. Traditionally theory implies a branch of science or a scholarly discipline, wheareas theories implies specific theories within particular disciplines. By the way, according to the wiktionary definition, jurisprudence also includes the study of legal decisions as well.--Sanya3 (talk) 07:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No, they are the same, especially for our purposes here. Yes, I understand that it is the title of a field of study, but it also implies a particular set of principles for methodolgy wich together are called a "theory." I will withdraw my nominationGreg Bard (talk) 07:32, 6 May 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:Protected areas established in the 1930s

 * 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 - Feel free to place Geneva State Forest in whatever cleanup category is appropriate, at editorial discretion. - jc37 00:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting protected areas established in the 1930s


 * Nominator's rationale: There are only three of these categories by decade. Assign them to the approp Category:Protected areas by year of establishment and then delete. No need for a by decade and by year. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Problem seems to be that articles only specify the decade of establishment and not the year. Tim! (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Ah! Yeah. I now remember looking at them a while back and figuring that that was why I could not have them deleted. Three possible scenarios I guess: don't delete them, delete them and don't assign a time of protected area establishment, or find the actual year of establishment for the protected areas. I prefer the last option. They should all have a defining year of establishment.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I looked at the first one, and the official History of Geneva State Forest only says 1930s, so I think there is no option but Keep. – Fayenatic L ondon (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you find any sources that say when it was established? Donating land to the state does not establish a park.  It just gives the state the land.  It would take an action of the legislature to actually establish the land as a park.  Without this information, using the 1930s as the time of establishment could be wrong and the article should be reworded to reflect this.  If that was done, the article would no longer support inclusion in Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Decade is more useful than no year a all and there are always things of vague dates.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep where year is unknown but decade is, cat by the later is useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment. I just finished looking through a bunch of Google hits for Geneva State Forest.  Based on that, I have more questions then answers.  None of the sources seen to say when it was established.  The fact for this date as the establishment of the park seems to be based on the statement In the early 1930’s Jackson Lumber Company transferred the lands now known as Geneva State Forest to the State of Alabama. This is from the state website.  The donation of the land is not the same as the establishment of the park.  So what we have with this category is maybe more of a maintenance category where the articles seem to be listed since they need a specific detail provided since they are here pending more specific details.   If kept, this could be the impetus for a template that tags the category as a maintenance holding category for articles that lack a specific piece of information and they should be moved to the appropriate category when this information is found. Or maybe it should be hidden. Otherwise someone may think that any protected areas founded in those 10 years belongs here.  Based on what I saw, this article does not belong in this category since there is no source to when it was founded that I can find, just when barren land was donated to the state. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Some followup. Working through the 1930s category, Little River State Forest's infobox says it was established in 1934 so I moved this article to the more specific category. I also updated Stoney Slough National Wildlife Refuge which was also listed in the 1930s category.  My source was the National archives which listed a specific date, February 3, 1941.  So I'm less convinced that we need these categories.  The 1930s category now has only one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Speedy Delete Category:Protected areas established in the 1950s and Category:Protected areas established in the 1960s. Of the three articles there, reliable sources exist with the exact years, so the three articles that were here have been updated with references and moved to the more specific categories.  So these two categories are now empty and the 1930s category has only one article.  So keeping that is now very problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good work, Vegaswikian! Delete two, keep the 1930s and add a statement that it is a maintenance category as described above. IMHO there is sufficient ground to assume from the source that the actual establishment of Geneva State Forest was also within the 1930s. – Fayenatic L ondon (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. After sleeping on this I'd rather create something like Category:Protected areas missing date established or Category:Protected areas needing established date as permanent maintenance category. Creating temporary decade categories seems like overkill and would require someone to notice the need and to create it.  Likewise, leaving a large number of these that would normally be empty does not seem the best choice either.  Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep all. Decade categories should be retained both as groupings of year categories for navigational purposes, and for articles where the precise year is unclear. If the decade categories end up being container categories holding only subcats, then that's fine too; we have plenty of container categorys, and the help navigation. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s adding to my comment above to delete the other two. Navigation is excellently handled by the century categories and the associated by year category navigation templates.  So either we need a cleanup category or we need the categories for navigation.  I think that the former makes the stronger case.  Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 16 May 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:Archipelagoes of the Republic of China

 * Relisted to: Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_May_22. - jc37 00:17, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Category:Jepara football templates

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting jepara football templates


 * Nominator's rationale: non notable &#42;Annas* (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCK IS JAMMMY ☆★ 13:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete - Given the fact the league & teams involved in the league have now been deleted via AfD the category is redundant. ★☆ DUCK IS JAMMMY ☆★ 19:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. The templates have been deleted, so this can just be C1'd I think. Jafeluv (talk) 16:03, 10 May 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.