Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 8



Category:Breakup albums

 * 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  L ondon 17:37, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting breakup albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. Something of interest to incorporate into each of the articles for these albums (with reliable sources, of course) but not a defining characteristic for any of them. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 19:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * delete Besides the "not defining" aspect, what this comes down to is the notion that making music is all about expressing your personal life. Given the number of break-ups we probably don't know about, however, he accuracy of the categorization is always going to be questionable, and never mind that the theory itself is doubtful. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Vague category, OR, could also be interpreted as albums with songs about breakups. Also, what about bands who frequently change members, and bands who get back together? -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:25, 15 July 2014 (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.

Female economists

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:44, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename Category:Female economists to Category:Women economists
 * Nominator's rationale This is the only sub-category of Category:Women social scientists that does not use women. In general we seem to have tended to use women in cases where the vast majority of notable people in the field are adults. This clearly applies to economists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Question -- Is economics a field where women perform differently from men? I suspect not. In sociology the gender of the researcher may be significant, but I doubt it applies in economics.  If so, merge Category:Economists.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * The issue is not whether they perform differently, it is whether it is an intersection that has received enough coverage that we could write a reliably-sourced, more than just a list article on Women economists. I do not actually know the answer to that question, but I suspect it would be a yes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Support to match parent structure. A quick google suggests women economists as a topic is getting some attention, so deletion is not an obvious choice. SFB 21:28, 20 July 2014 (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:David Crowther

 * 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  L ondon 17:26, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting david crowther


 * Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a person who doesn't have the volume of spinoff content necessary to warrant one; all that's filed here is his own biographical article and one book he wrote. Delete as an WP:OC violation. Bearcat (talk) 07:51, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete – he didn't even write the book ... Oculi (talk) 08:52, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT really. Really just 1 article. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2014 (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.

Merge Category:Concepts by field and Category: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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:54, 17 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Concepts by field to Category:Terminology
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. This proposal is my attempt to deal with the mess illustrated by the individual case discussed at . This is a problem with numerous categories from Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology, both of which are rather problematic as they are containers for articles that people just wanted to remove from the parent categories but couldn't figure out where they should go. To be honest, I'd probably support deleting both categories (as a sociologist and Wikipedian, I don't really see why all articles from Category:Sociological terminology shouldn't be in Category:Sociology, pending a more meaningful categorization). But for now, instead of proposing the nuclear option, let's at least deal with a mess of having two container categories for "stuff people don't know how to categorize and thus call foo-ian concepts or terminology". A number overlap in a similar way to the Biology example discussed, consider for example Category:Philosophical terminology and Philosophical concepts‎  - is just one of several. Another problem is illustrated bt arbitrary choices: why do we have Category:Engineering concepts‎  but no Category:Engineering terminology? Or Category:Sociological terminology‎  but no Category:Sociological concepts? For a perfect illustration of the arbitrary system, consider the prior sociology example - and the reverse in psychology: we have Category:Psychological concepts‎  but no Category:Psychological terminology. I hope I make a clear case that those categories are about the same type/level of concepts. Let's merge them - probably to terminology as it is more popular. Once that happens we can have another discussion about the merits of keeping or deleting the resulting category. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here  08:51, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories. Greg Bard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. Many/most articles that are currently in terminology categories are categorized inappropriately (e.g. the Fishing trawler article does not belong under Category:Linguistics) - see my essay for more details.  This proposed merge would bring even more articles about topics that have nothing to do with linguistics under Category:Linguistics. DexDor (talk) 21:35, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:50, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Note: Category:Concepts by field was not tagged at the time of the original nomination. It is now. – Fayenatic london
 * Oppose per strong consensus against merging these in the opposite direction, at the last great discussion on Terminology categories at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_22. At least one of the redlinks in the nomination does exist under a slightly different name: there is no Category:Psychological terminology, because it is named Category:Psychology terminology. I think some of the sub-cats should be renamed on a case by case basis, e.g. to terminology, but some are a lot better as "concepts", including those that have "concepts" in the name of the lead article. Perhaps others could usefully be split.  – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:25, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose – Category:Concepts by field is a coherent subcat scheme for Category:Concepts. Merging it anywhere else makes no sense whatever. (Gregbard makes the same point - "the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia".) Oculi (talk) 09:14, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note Am I correct that there is actually some consensus about the wish to remove the entire Category:Terminology tree? To add, I would support that as well. Then why propose a merger and not a delete? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Note The merge template at says that a merge of Terminology to Concepts by field is considered rather than the other way around. Could someone please correct this? Paradoctor (talk) 20:19, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I've done that now, and added a notice at Talk:Concept. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:50, 18 July 2014 (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.

Merge Category:Biological concepts and Category:Biology 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: no consensus, and DexDor has provided strong reasons for not deleting this category alone while it has "terminology" sub-categories. I will add "see also" links between these two, and this close is of course no bar to cleaning up the contents. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:05, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Biology terminology to Category:Biological concepts
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is no significant difference between concept and terminology in those cases, articles are added to one or the other - or both - more or less at random. I am not sure which direction we should merge things, but I am leaning towards terminology and Category:Terminology is more widely used than Category:Concepts by field. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 08:43, 2 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Strong support - I could not support this more strongly! Everything is "terminology" and therefore a completely useless name for a category. Whereas the concepts category is well defined, and fundamental to the organization of Wikipedia. I would support abolishing all "terminology" categories. Greg Bard (talk) 13:07, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This category contains several subcats that are (or at least claim to be) about terminology (e.g. Category:Biological nomenclature‎, Category:Ecology terminology‎ and Category:Evolutionary biology terminology‎). E.g. an article like this does belong in a terminology category.  The subcats should be considered first or together with the parent category. DexDor (talk) 21:48, 3 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I have trouble seeing how anything but articles clearly labelled "foo-ian terminology" belong in that category; and for those articles I see an AfD as they appear to be a hybrid of "OR" and "move to Wiktionary". --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus&#124; reply here 10:56, 5 June 2014 (UTC)
 * These categories contain articles like Synonym (taxonomy), Homonym (biology) and International Code of Zoological Nomenclature. If you think articles like that shouldn't exist then delete them by AfD and then take the category to CFD. As long as Category:Ecology terminology (for example) exists then it should have a terminology parent category. This CFD proposes deleting a mid-level terminology category - a CFD to delete lowest-level terminology categories would probably get my support. DexDor (talk) 21:08, 5 June 2014 (UTC)


 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:53, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * I wish it were possible to nominate categories as "automatically clean category except the following few articles". Because a nomination like that would certainly be applicable to most or all Terminology categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:40, 9 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Actually, would my previous thought be entirely impossible to realize? Wouldn't it be possible to delete the category, and then re-establish the category from scratch with only the before-mentioned content? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:19, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It can be done, and I have done it once. If the decision is "purge", we can automate the hard work by making a bot empty and delete a category, then manually undelete and selectively repopulate it. Can you list your proposed contents here? – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * , I think meanwhile for biology it's too late now, this CfD has been posted too long ago and (knowledgeable) people will no longer check this discussion. My question was actually more like a fundamental question, of which the answer could be applied to every terminology page. At least I'm glad the answer is yes! Marcocapelle (talk) 15:57, 19 July 2014 (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:Rail transport book citation 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: keep. It's not a categorisation of books, but of templates. – Fayenatic  L ondon 13:26, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting rail transport book citation templates


 * Nominator's rationale: Similar to Ship book citation templates, it is an odd categorization to call it "rail-related transport books." This isn't so much of a category for "rail transport-related books" but a category for "templates for rail transport-related books that are used on Wikipedia rail transport articles" to me. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:16, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep. I don't understand the proposal. This is a category of citation templates for books about rail transportation. That's a useful function. If there's a better name then let's use that. This is a subject matter-specific subcategory of Category:Specific-source templates and I don't see how removing it makes any sense. How is this different from, say, Category:Mathematics source templates‎? Mackensen (talk) 15:20, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not a subject matter categorization. It's a categorization not of books regarding rail transport but of books regarding rail transport 'used in Wikipedia articles' that 'we have templates'. We don't categorize the sources of articles by the article topic, categorizing the templates used for the sources of articles seems like a strange organizational scheme. It would be an upmerge to the main single-source category. I guess I could list all the subtemplates categories if that makes my view clearer. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * I don't follow your argument. Please keep in mind I'm not a CfD regular so if you're using CfD short-hand I'm going to need it spelled out. It says right at the top of the category page that the category is "...part of Wikipedia's administration and not part of the encyclopedia." That's the purpose of the parent category as well. What's the proposed benefit of an upmerge, besides making it more difficult to find similar subject-matter templates, when both parents are also administration/maintenance categories? Mackensen (talk) 11:21, 10 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep What Mackensen said. I sometimes use templates like, and occasionally need to see if a similar template has already been created for a different book that I'm currently referring to. this cat makes it easier to locate the template, if it exists. -- Red rose64 (talk) 16:59, 8 July 2014 (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:Bands with numbers in their name

 * 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  L ondon 19:10, 18 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bands with numbers in their name


 * Nominator's rationale: Category is an example of overcategorization by a non-defining, trivial characteristic: WP:OC. Y2Kcrazyjoker4 (talk &bull; contributions) 04:59, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete Classic example of trivial inclusion.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:42, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * delete trivial shared-name element cat. Mangoe (talk) 18:05, 8 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete This is classic trivial intersection based on the name, not the thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
 * comment where is the content of this category? Hmains (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Neutral Can't evaluate without any content. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:33, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * DElete -- utterly trivial. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:46, 14 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom. Next thing you know you'll have Bands whose member count doesn't match their name. -AngusWOOF (talk) 01:19, 15 July 2014 (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:Yueju opera

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:49, 19 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Yueju opera to Category:Yue opera (Zhejiang)
 * Nominator's rationale: Only former category member, Zhejiang Yueju Troupe, refers to the opera of Shaoxing, Zhejiang, which was last moved to Yue opera (Zhejiang). TLA 3x &#x266d;  →  &#x266e;  01:08, 8 July 2014 (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.

USU Eastern Golden Eagles baseball
<div class="boilerplate cfd vfd xfd-closed" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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 to Category:Utah State Eastern Golden Eagles baseball. – Fayenatic  L ondon 12:16, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball to Category:USU Eastern Golden Eagles baseball
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. The College of Eastern Utah became Utah State University Eastern in 2010; athletics at the school compete as "USU Eastern" . Same should go for subcategories category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball players & category:Eastern Utah Golden Eagles baseball coaches Arbor to SJ (talk) 00:21, 8 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Alternate Rename to Category:Utah State University Eastern Golden Eagles baseball Category:Utah State Eastern Golden Eagles baseball. I'm afraid using "USU" will be confusing for casual readers. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Or just "Utah State Eastern" for every USU Eastern athletics category like category:USU Eastern Golden Eagles men's basketball players‎, since athletics categories should exclude "University" or "College" most of the time. Arbor to SJ (talk) 19:50, 11 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Good point. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:02, 13 July 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: Considering that Wikipedia has articles titled UC Davis Aggies and UNC Greensboro Spartans in accordance with their respective schools' athletic identities, I prefer "USU Eastern" for Utah State University Eastern athletics. Arbor to SJ (talk) 06:34, 15 July 2014 (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.