Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 November 28



Category:Types of library by subject area

 * 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. MER-C 21:02, 9 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Types of library by subject area to Category:Libraries by subject
 * Nominator's rationale: More precise distinction from Category:Libraries by type and Category:Types of library Themightyquill (talk) 22:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment -- I cannot see a clear distinction between Category:Libraries by type and Category:Types of library: should they not be merged? Most of the Category:Types of library by subject area seem to be in Category:Libraries by type.  Is there not a case for merging them all together?  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * As for your first question, yes. But I think it's worthy of having a "By type" category and a "By subject" category. Things like National library, Academic library, Public library, and Mobile library would fall under the former category, whereas things like Botanical and horticultural library, Category:Medical libraries, Category:Art libraries, and Category:Music libraries would fall under the latter. - Themightyquill (talk) 22:26, 29 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support - makes sense, it's a more concise, less ambivalent name ('area' could be misconstrued as geographic). There definietely seems scope for keeping the 'type' and 'subject' categories. Sionk (talk) 15:02, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support; they do sound rather redundant. The distinction between "libraries by type" and "types of library" is the nature of the articles contained therein: the former holds articles about individual libraries (one subcategory of digital libraries such as California Digital Library, another of law libraries such as Jenkins Law Library, etc.), while the other holds articles about library types, e.g. green library and one-person library.  The contents slightly overlap, so a little cleanup is needed, but they're still different.  Nyttend (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2015 (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:PPL Montana dams

 * 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) sst✈(discuss) 14:36, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Renaming Category:PPL Montana dams to Category:NorthWestern Corporation dams
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and the spirit of WP:C2D
 * The ownership of these dams went from Montana Power, to PPL to NorthWestern Corporation (source). This rename is just a housekeeping item so that the Wikipedia category keeps up with current events. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Lockley as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Dams. – RevelationDirect (talk) 19:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Sure, and that's good housekeeping, thanks for looking after it --Lockley (talk) 20:07, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.--NortyNort (Holla) 13:56, 29 November 2015 (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:TransCanada Corporation dams

 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈(discuss) 14:44, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Upmerging Category:TransCanada Corporation dams to Category:TransCanada Corporation
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NARROWCAT and WP:SMALLCAT
 * Technically there are 5 articles in this subcategory but only 2 of them are primarily about dams. I just created the parent/target category, Category:TransCanada Corporation, which is broader. TransCanada Corporation is known mostly for pipelines (e.g. Keystone) but it does own some other energy assets so no objection to recreating this category later if we get up around 5 true articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Lockley as the category creator and I added this discussion to WikiProject Dams. – RevelationDirect (talk) 12:04, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose. This category is also a member of a larger category, "United States power company dams", which break out US dams by the companies that own them.  TransCanada is one of 13 of those.  A merge would break that relationship.  BTW many of the dam articles were merged with reservoir articles in a separate round of simplification, that's why those articles are not "primarily about dams".  That's where the dam information is, though.  I think we would lose something with this merge.  --Lockley (talk) 17:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose My thoughts mirror Lockley's. A reservoir article can often be found in a dam category as both are prominent, directly-associated landmarks.--NortyNort (Holla) 14:03, 29 November 2015 (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:Women's association football strikers

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:36, 11 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Women's association football strikers to Category:Women's association football forwards
 * Nominator's rationale: This subcategory is not needed and should be deleted or merged JMHamo (talk) 13:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge - agreed, no need to define positions by gender. GiantSnowman 15:39, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nom is saying strikers should be merged into forwards. Not, I think, that Category:Women's association football players by position should all be merged back into Category:Association football players by position as you seem to be suggesting. We'd need another CFD for that. SevcoFraudsters (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - we have inside/outside forward and striker sub cats at Category:Association football forwards. Plus "not needed" is not a valid rationale. SevcoFraudsters (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, on the basis that forwards and strikers are the same thing (I'm unaware of a difference, and Association_football_positions concurs with that view). Obviously the same merge should be carried out with the general Category:Association football forwards/Category:Association football strikers, but perhaps JMHamo was too timid to try that ;) ...do ping me if the general categories are added to this nom. Sionk (talk) 15:16, 6 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, given that striker sends us to forward (association football) for coverage of the topic. It's one thing to subcategorise articles by topics that are all covered in a single article if they're in a lesser field, a field  that's not as heavily written about, but with something as prominent as football, the absence of a separate article would be truly exceptional if these two positions really were significantly different.  Nyttend (talk) 03:33, 8 December 2015 (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:Association of Indian Universities

 * 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. MER-C 20:52, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting association of indian universities


 * Nominator's rationale: Being a member of this association appears to generally be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of a university (e.g. it is not mentioned prominently in the University of Calcutta article). This could be listified to Association of Indian Universities, but it would be better for any such list to be created directly from a WP:RS. Related CFD.
 * For info this says "The membership includes traditional universities, open universities, professional universities, Institutes of National Importance and deemed-to-be universities ... Associate Membership to universities of neighbouring countries." which suggests that the category which currently contains 2 articles is very incomplete. DexDor(talk) 08:54, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete The group rates non-Indian schools to see what credits Indian schools will recognize per the article. That doesn't seem defining to the Inidan schools that belong to this service. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:16, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete -- We have deleted numerous other university-association membership categories. I doubt we need a category for this at all.  Peterkingiron (talk) 18:42, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete not defining; someone should also nominate Category:Association of Public and Land-Grant Universities; the necessary real category is well-covered in category:Land-grant universities and colleges. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete Categorizes of this type are not defining to the universities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:18, 5 December 2015 (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:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures

 * 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:Academic pressure in Asian cultures. – Fayenatic  L ondon 23:15, 1 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Academic pressure in East Asian cultures to Category:Academic pressure in East, South and Southeast Asian cultures Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures
 * Nominator's rationale: The use of the word East Asian only is incorrect because the pages listed in this category such as Tiger mother, Study mama, Cram school, I Not Stupid and Rote learning for example, relate to concepts that are also and sometimes only found in South Asia and Southeast Asia. (137.147.55.166 (talk) 08:45, 28 November 2015 (UTC))


 * Oppose original nom . We don't have Category:East, South and Southeast Asia etc (to be a parent of the proposed new category). It would be better to stick with existing geographical areas and if articles don't belong in a particular category then remove them from it. DexDor(talk) 09:01, 28 November 2015 (UTC) revised DexDor(talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, it appears to be wrong to lump South Asian and Southeast Asian pages into East Asian, that is politically incorrect. You said remove some of these pages that aren't suitable well that's not the case because many of these pages e.g. Tiger mother, cram school and rote learning overlap with East Asian culture too, meaning it is East Asian, South Asian and Southeast Asian. I also don't understand what you mean by "parent category" the category, Academic pressure in East Asian cultures is not even located in Category:East Asia. (137.147.55.166 (talk) 09:09, 28 November 2015 (UTC)) (I've restructured this as a response rather than a !vote. DexDor(talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC))
 * The normal categorization structure (in en wp) is that, for example, a _in_ category is parented by  and  categories. Note: I've removed the articles about cram school and rote learning from this category as those articles are not specifically about Asia (if that was how categorization worked then such articles would end up in a lot of country categories etc). DexDor(talk) 09:29, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Renamed to Academic pressure in Asian cultures it relates to the parent category Category:Asia and supports the pan-Asian concept. (137.147.55.166 (talk) 09:36, 28 November 2015 (UTC))
 * Support rename to Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures (or even a more general Category:Academic pressure which would mean that articles such as cram school would fit, but that might be better as a separate category). DexDor(talk) 09:41, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I agree with the renaming to Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures since most of the articles there are skewed towards topics found primarily in Asia and Asian cultures. (137.147.55.166 (talk) 09:44, 28 November 2015 (UTC))


 * Strong oppose the suggestion that some disparate Asian category is useful is wrong. If there are also South Asian topics, then create a South Asian category. Just because they fit in East Asia does not mean they cannot have additional categories. Same as how we add multiple country based categories to articles, instead of renaming country categories into some nebulous large geographic region. There is a unifying cultural experience for East Asia, as there is for South Asia, making such categories defining. "Asia" is not such a form, and is not defining, unless it is used as a container for smaller defining categorization, as an organizational level. However, DexDor's suggestion of Academic pressure would remove the cultural problems, and nix the problems with "Asia" as a category name. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 06:20, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Strong support Creating seperate categories is unnecessary as the original user said that many of these overlap with East Asia. Creating such a category will result in almost the same pages being listed in several different categories, that's just ridiculous. For the above user what about Southeast Asians, they are culturally different from East Asians, does that mean creating a seperate category for Southeast Asians too? Grouping them with East Asians is incorrect and to an extent even offensive. Support renaming of the category to Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures, all the pages listed there relate to Asia and a variety of Asian cultures so renaming it is correct. (110.148.163.153 (talk) 02:52, 30 November 2015 (UTC))

Support the rename because it's unnecessary to create Category:Academic pressure in South Asian cultures and Category:Academic pressure in Southeast Asian cultures because South and Southeast Asia are in Asia so it's only right to rename it to Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures, it's not like these regions are on different continents they're in Asia, so there's nothing wrong in renaming the category to "Academic pressure in Asian cultures". (124.180.10.175 (talk) 08:35, 5 December 2015 (UTC))
 * Oppose per DexDor. If there's a problem with this category's geographic scope, create several geography-based categories, or omit the geography entirely, but don't create a "TOPIC in PLACE" category if we don't have an article on or a category for the PLACE in question.  Nyttend (talk) 03:27, 8 December 2015 (UTC)
 * You will notice that all the pages listed there e.g. Tiger mother, Study mama, Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother relate to different Asian countries that is why this discussion was initiated as the other users said before, these pages relate to Asia so creating Category:Academic pressure in Asian cultures is correct. Not all categories have main articles (if that's what you're saying), such categories include Category:Education in East Asia, Category:Malaysia in fiction, Category:Asian horror, Category:Nepali-language films, Category:Films set in a fictional North American country, Category:Adventure films by series and many more. (120.144.180.158 (talk) 06:38, 9 December 2015 (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:Iranians in Caucasus

 * 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:Iranian peoples in the Caucasus. MER-C 19:48, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Iranians in Caucasus to Category:Iranians in the Caucasus Category:Iranian peoples in the Caucasus-Alternative rename is better--Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 00:25, 29 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Nominator's rationale: needs article "the" in English. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 04:18, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 *  Alternative Support rename Category:Iranian peoples in the Caucasus, same format as parent category and avoids the category being mixed up with individual people. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 28 November 2015 (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:Persian language in Caucasus

 * 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: Upmerged to Category:Languages of the Caucasus and Category:Persian language and delete Graeme Bartlett (talk) 04:29, 21 January 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Persian language in Caucasus to Category:Persian language in the Caucasus
 * Nominator's rationale: needs article "the" in English. Kintetsubuffalo (talk) 03:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support rename. Also purge category because most articles aren't about Persian language, but are instead biographies or articles about places. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Update, after purging, the category has become so small that it might as well be upmerged to Category:Languages of the Caucasus and Category:Persian language. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:46, 20 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge articles but not subcat, per Marcocapelle. Category page now says For more information, see Tat language (Caucasus), Tat people (Caucasus), Judeo-Tat, Mountain Jews and Nozhat al-Majales. However, it now contains only, Judeo-Tat and Tat language (Caucasus). The page description may point to an ethnic category which could be created, but the present category is not worth keeping. User:Raayen created it in 2014 but seems no longer to be actively editing. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:51, 2 January 2016 (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.