Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 7



Category:SI base quantities

 * 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, but OK to re-create and to categorize the articles, but not the categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting si base quantities


 * Nominator's rationale: It may be correct that temperature (for example) is an SI base quantity. However, the topic of temperature is not a subtopic of SI base quantities - for example the Poikilotherm article belongs under Category:Temperature, but does not belong under Category:SI base quantities (and hence under Category:International_standards etc).  Another example is that this category causes Category:Units of length (and hence, for example, the Inch article) to be under Category:International System of Units which isn't correct categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep and recategorise pages ch: keep unchanged. I understand that the article temperature should be in this category, not Category:Temperature. Same for the other six base quantities (including length). That should solve the issue. This follows from the first nom sentence, so I am a bit puzzled why deletion is proposed instead of recategorising. -DePiep (talk) 23:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I altered my !vote. While SFB and Oculi endorsed my earlier !vote reasoning, see below, I change it into: keep unchanged. is eponymous for the article. It lists articles for the physical temperature, as is the article's topic. That is, the topic (concept) of temperature is the physical quantity, and so belongs in there. And that physical quantity is the SI quantity. Even the example nom mentioned (Poikilotherm) actually is about temperature as the physical (& SI) quantity, and so is in that category correctly. Note that SI quantity does not decide upon how to measure it, or which unit to use ( &deg;C, &deg;F, K ).
 * There could be a better falsifier (i.e., one that supports the nom's point better). In theory, by example: an article/topic like "the temperature of a discussion" could falsify the physical meaning of temperature, but then it may not belong be in that Category:Temperature at all. That article should link to its topic Temperature (emotion), and its category.
 * I also note that has parent Category:Physical quantities. It is outside of this TfD of course, but I wonder how the same categorisation principles would apply to that one. Can anyone enlighten me?
 * Further, I'd like to hear from nom whether any of my two reasonings leads to a different conclusion for them.
 * -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * I still reach the different conclusion that just the article should be present, not the category, as the topic area of temperature (which is what the category is) is almost exclusively unrelated to SI base quantities. A boiling point is not a form of SI base quantity. Neither are Hardening (botany) or Oven temperatures or thermometers. I don't see why any reader would expect to navigate to those types of articles from the SI category, or why anyone would logically think such content was a sub-type of SI base quantity (which applies exclusively to the named topic itself and not it's related topic area). SFB 19:27, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * To simplify matters: I do not oppose this article-only step. Deletion I do oppose. -DePiep (talk) 09:24, 14 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support categorising just articles, not categories, per DePiep. A good example of where an article fits in a category, but its own category does not. SFB 13:40, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep and recategorise pages – DePiep is was spot on. Of course less competent editors will put Category:Temperature back again and remove temperature, but such is life (cf Lennon/Beatles). Oculi (talk) 13:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. From the Poikilotherm link, opening line: "A poikilotherm is an organism whose internal temperature varies considerably" (like a frog). This is a physical temperature, so it does qualify for SI capture. We need an better falsifying example, like "temperature of a conversation". -DePiep (talk) 23:50, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * This lead me to change my statement, see above. -DePiep (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Try Nostalgia for size. (If a frog is a base unit then I am a Martian.) Oculi (talk) 19:39, 9 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 1. Never confuse "unit" with "quantity". Quantities are not units at all (your length is a quantity. We don't need a unit to state that). 2. A frog is not a temperature either. He must be in the category for by other reason. -DePiep (talk) 23:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
 * So why is Category:SI base quantities a subcat of Category:International System of Units? And is Nostalgia, an article contained in both via subcats, a unit or a quantity, or neither? Oculi (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * (this is OT, but alas). The 'International System of Units' is a name for the standard. Could also have been named The French Paper On Things. That standard, also called SI, defines at top level: "quantity = number &times; unit" (btw, it is an algebraic formula). So that is where the word 'unit' sits. Now that standard can also define the use of numbers (e.g., it be decimal not hexadecimal). Still the word 'numbers' is not in the name. Same for quantities: it is in the standard, but not in the name of the standard. -DePiep (talk) 17:40, 11 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete could just as easily put all these articles into a Category:Items measured in the Imperial System or any other system of measures. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Recategorise per DePiep's original argument, or delete. This is a good example of how eponymous categories are generally systemically overcategorised. Also, I don't really think that being a SI base quantity is really a WP:DEFINING quality, hence the delete option. --Paul_012 (talk) 07:51, 12 November 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:Historic parishes in England

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting historic parishes in england


 * Propose deleting Category:Historic parishes in Surrey
 * Propose deleting Category:Historic parishes in London
 * Nominator's rationale: Articles like Abinger are already in Category:Civil parishes in Surrey so what's the point in placing them also in Category:Historic parishes in Surrey ? In fact, what does "historic" mean in this context ? These categories are currently under a "Former" rather than a "Historic" parent category.  See related discussion at Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_4. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Point taken. It may well be that where there is a successor it is a nonsense. However what about keeping it for those without a successor?  For instance the article on Eltham which I have not written goes on ad nauseum I am sure you would think about what was in the (dissolved civil parish at its abolition) and what was not.-  Adam37   Talk  20:01, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * A "Former parishes" category might work (e.g. like Category:Former parishes of Portugal), but I don't know how many articles we have about former London parishes and I'm not sure that WP:SPLITting off a "Parish of Eltham" article from Eltham would be a good idea. DexDor (talk) 20:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Hence historic, which implies their historic boundaries still have a relevance. See the hidden description in edit under 'Historic parishes in England'.  There is still much they do.  Don't ignore or suggest siphoning off the reams already on wikipedia written about them.-  Adam37   Talk  21:17, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete all 'historic parishes' is meaningless. MRSC (talk) 14:41, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * In which case you can go around clearing mention of it in prose, as I have not put it like that. Also someone else has created a category of Former Civil Parishes in London.  It clearly means Ancient Parish or former Civil Parish.  But why leap to the obvious meaning when you could do what so many articles do and just muddy the waters about what is a proper district and what is not.-  Adam37   Talk  20:25, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * 'Former civil parishes' is clear. It tells you what type of parish it is (civil and not ecclesiastical) and that it has ceased to exist. Historic parish and ancient parish are not synonymous. Historic means 'in the past', whereas 'ancient parish' has a defined/technical meaning of a parish that was identical for ecclesiastical and civil purposes and was undivided for either purpose. MRSC (talk) 21:28, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Ah so the sources that I have used to populate the category, referring to both these types of entity, mean that you could use the information I have uploaded to populate one category or the other. Which is it to be.  I guess former civil parishes in London?  As to Surrey, etc. where there is no civil parish perhaps 'Ancient Parish' although that term is in terminal decline as it does make the place sound like it no longer exists.  I might hasten to add, regardless of whether that is a good thing, that is the strong connotation of xxx is an 'ancient parish'.  Hence you can see my, misguided, reasoning. -  Adam37   Talk  19:22, 9 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete not sure what "Historic" is supposed to add. If they're defunct, say so; if they show up in the Domesday Book, not sure that's defining; if the little building on the corner is a listed building, we already have cats for that and is not defining for the parish. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:25, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * The obvious point is that most English settlements are/were parishes. A tiny percentage of the new civil parishes bare no resemblence to historic boundaries, but these do shape institution names and education catchments in urban and suburban areas - here the parishes are abolished.  Of course what your comment alludes to is quite right, there is an over-emphasis in History on Domesday, both in wikipedia articles and categorisation as well as in the national curriculum.  To be able to clearly find out what was little populated a while ago and has, by all accounts, no real history of its own is a boon.  OK move if you will to an existing category former civil parishes and so if you were to that then fine.  By the way separating off 'parish' content i.e. pre-1965 history this can lead to multiple competing 'history' articles on what is the very narrow encyclopedic topic of local history.  This I would discourage as much as possible; vast amounts of history are interwoven in the current status and national psyche of places and a proper history section, where possible, in each district instantly confirms this.  That aside, I am no critic of Milton Keynes or Canary Wharf, nor Saltaire or Ellesmere Port for example, it is just some alleged, vaguely verifiable districts have virtually nothing to say about them.-  Adam37   Talk  16:42, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Surrey -- most modern civil parishes are also hisotric (medieval) ones. Accordingly in perhpas 90% of villages would be in both categories.  No objection to a list, outside London.  A category might have merit as all ancient London parishes were abolished in 1965 or 1974 (not sure which).  Recently there has bene a means of creating new parishes, but they will have no continuity with ancient ones.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 15 November 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:Plume moths of South America

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Butterflies and moths of South America (Pterophoridae) to Category:Pterophoridae of South America
 * Propose renaming Category:Plume moths of South America to Category:Pterophoridae of South America
 * Nominator's rationale: These are the same creatures; parent category is Category:Pterophoridae (the article is Plume moth, but all subcats of use Latin names). An alternative would be to upmerge both to Category:Moths of South America, a very recent creation of Notwith's. (The hierarchy here is Category:Moths, Category:Pterophoridae.) Oculi (talk) 19:33, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Note: The proposed new names may be more obscure to many readers, but in context (in the category tree or at the bottom of a moth article) that's not a problem. DexDor (talk) 20:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Merge to Plume moths of South America: the main article is Plume moth. As the topics are identical, I think Category:Pterophoridae needs to move, or perhaps the main article should move to match instead. SFB 13:43, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * It is more important that categories should match parent categories in name, and follow the convention in category names, ie Latin names in this case. If the article names are a hotchpotch it doesn't matter (as we have redirects) but let us choose consistent category names. Oculi (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * I have requested a move as the article names are not a hotch-potch, apart from this one. Oculi (talk) 16:21, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Article move was successful: now at Pterophoridae. Oculi (talk) 01:47, 16 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Definite merge of the first category into the second, neutral on renaming the second. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:51, 15 November 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:Arctiid moths of South America

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:19, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Butterflies and moths of South America (Arctiidae) to Category:Arctiidae of South America
 * Propose renaming Category:Arctiid moths of South America to Category:Arctiidae of South America
 * Nominator's rationale: These are the same creatures; parent category is Category:Arctiidae and the article is Arctiidae. An alternative would be to upmerge both to Category:Moths of South America, a very recent creation of Notwith's. An intermediate alternative would be to upmerge both to Category:Noctuoidea of South America (since the hierarchy is Category:Moths, Category:Noctuoidea, Category:Arctiidae). Oculi (talk) 17:35, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support as speedy rename to match main article title. SFB 17:42, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename to match cat and article.-- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:52, 12 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Definite merge of the first category into the second, neutral on renaming the second. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:52, 15 November 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:Wander Over Yonder

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wander over yonder


 * Nominator's rationale: Previously empty cat that has been repopulated today, but with only 3 members, including one non-free image, and there is little chance of expansion. This category previously had more members, including subcats, but all of the articles and subcats have been deleted at AfD or XfD leaving only 2 articles.  Aussie Legend  ( ✉ ) 16:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Delete The named topic + list of episodes is not sufficient reason to create a category (which should be used for navigating a larger variety of content). SFB 17:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete not happy about the category being emptied and then nominated for speedy but, procedures aside, this category isn't aiding navigation. No objection to recreating later if more (and better) content reappears. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:45, 7 November 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:Italian bishop stubs

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:57, 16 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Italian bishop stubs to Category:Italian Roman Catholic bishop stubs
 * Propose merging Category:French bishop stubs to Category:French Roman Catholic bishop stubs
 * Propose merging Category:Polish bishop stubs to Category:Polish Roman Catholic bishop stubs
 * Nominator's rationale: These bishops can only be Roman Catholic, even if not explicitly mentioned in the stub. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:28, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment what about Italian and French Protestants? The two ideas don't seem identical to me (although I agree Catholicism dominates). SFB 13:47, 8 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not only does Catholicism dominate, but Protestantism just hasn't any bishops in these three countries. Not in France, because Calvinism dominates within French Protestantism (and has no bishops), not in Italy and Poland because the Protestant communities are just too small. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 8 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose -- These are overwhelmingly RC countries. I suspect that there are very few if any bishoips of any other denomination.  If a stub cat is needed for these it does not harm for any non-RC bishops tom be included.  "Roman" is in any event redundant.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 15 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Would you then support an upmerge instead of a downmerge? I would be okay with that too, it's mainly that it's not useful to have two categories per country for nearly the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:39, 19 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose: the non-RC stubs/categories are used for bishops of ancient and medieval eras, who should therefore not be described as Roman Catholic. The RC bishop stubs are in multiple parents (e.g. Italian Roman Catholic bishops, Italian bishop stubs, Italian Roman Catholic clergy stubs, European Roman Catholic bishop stubs) and it therefore makes sense not to reverse merge either. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:51, 29 November 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:Rulers of Ayutthaya

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Rulers of Ayutthaya to Category:Kings of Ayutthaya
 * Nominator's rationale: The Ayutthaya Kingdom was pretty much a sovereign state throughout most of its existence (as far as the term can be applied to Southeast Asian history), and its rulers are referred to as kings in historical contexts. Category:Monarchs of Ayutthaya is an alternative, though monarchs is probably unnecessarily inclusive since Ayutthaya had no queens regnant. Category:Ayutthayan kings or Ayutthayan monarchs would be more inline with the parent cat Thai monarchs, but the adjective form feels rather unfamiliar and awkward. Paul_012 (talk) 13:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Support The parent Category:Royalty of Ayutthaya already covers well the non-King elements that could possibly be excluded. As a historical state, this will not be subject to change. SFB 22:58, 12 November 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:Lists of Futurama characters

 * 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 contents to Category:Lists of animated science fiction television characters, Category:Futurama characters, Category:Futurama lists and Category:Lists of characters in American television animation. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Lists of Futurama characters to Category:Futurama characters (edit: and other parent categories).
 * Nominator's rationale: There are only two entries. Just sort one of them with a space and another with " Recurring". —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:13, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Sweet Zombie Jesus! Upmerge per nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 07:58, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Dual Upmerge List of recurring Futurama characters should also be upmerged to Category:Lists of characters in American television animation by series. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Not the "by series" one – that is used for categories by series, not lists by series. – Fayenatic  L ondon
 * Multiple upmerge to Category:Lists of animated science fiction television characters, Category:Futurama characters, Category:Futurama lists and Category:Lists of characters in American television animation. Justin, I accept that the "sitcom characters" parent is not needed, but why would you remove the contents from any of those other parents? – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Pure oversight. Good point. Thanks. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:31, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All right, I support your more thoughtful upmerge. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:52, 7 November 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.

Organisations based in Egypt

 * 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 23:17, 14 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Educational organizations based in Egypt to Category:Educational organisations based in Egypt
 * Propose renaming Category:Student organizations in Egypt to Category:Student organisations in Egypt
 * Propose renaming Category:Non-governmental organizations based in Egypt to Category:Non-governmental organisations based in Egypt
 * Propose renaming Category:Defunct organizations of Egypt to Category:Defunct organisations of Egypt
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename these categories to match the parent category Category:Organisations based in Egypt. Egypt uses British spelling due to its links to the UK. The categories do have some parents that use the z spelling (e.g. Category:Educational organizations by country) but these are only by country categories, the contents of which use s or z as appropriate. (This was a speedy nomination but opposed; see here.) Tassedethe (talk) 01:59, 7 November 2014 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. These certainly do meet the speedy criteria, in my opinion. As the nom says, the controlling spelling is that used for, which is the "s" spelling; the other parent categories aren't particularly relevant in this case, because each subcategory of those is a "by country" category which adopts either spelling as appropriate from its own "Organi[z/s]ations in COUNTRY" parent. And in any case Egypt generally uses UK English. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Look like speedies to me. Oculi (talk) 11:29, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename I think the reticence to have any WP:ENGVAR be speedy is that it was misused in that fashion long long ago and 2 days may not be sufficient to all eyes to see a speedy. And we hold our ENGVAR's dear(ly). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. -- Lenticel ( talk ) 03:43, 11 November 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.