Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 4



Musical families

 * 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 all. If any categories are to small to stand on their own, they can be nominated for deletion separately. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:44, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge Category:Musical families to Category:Show business families
 * Rename Category:Pointer musical family to Category:Pointer family (show business)
 * Rename Category:Newman musical family to Category:Newman family (show business)
 * Rename Category:Knight musical family to Category:Knight family (show business)
 * Rename Category:Taylor musical family to Category:Taylor family (show business)
 * Rename Category:Neville musical family to Category:Neville family (show business)
 * Rename Category:Jackson musical family to Category:Jackson family (show business)
 * Rename Category:King musical family to Category:King family (show business)

While I understand what is trying to be conveyed here, there's no such thing as a "musical family" : )

Following the example of Category:Osmond family (show business)‎ and Category:Boone family (show business)‎. - jc37 21:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge/Rename as nom. - jc37 21:28, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support, but with a question. Do each of those categories need "(show business)" as a qualifier? —烏Γ (kaw), 21:38, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Well, hmmm...
 * Category:Pointer family - Pointer family - The Pointer Sisters
 * Category:Newman family - Newman family
 * Category:Knight family - Knight family
 * Category:Taylor family - Taylor family
 * Category:Neville family - Neville family
 * Category:Jackson family - Jackson family
 * Category:King family - King family
 * Based upon the redlinks above (and the targets of the blue links), I'm actually not convinced which way we should go with this. What do you think?- jc37 21:54, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think Taylor and Jackson are too common not to have qualifiers and "King Family" makes me think of MLK's family who has been in the news a lot in the US press (and not for good reasons). RevelationDirect (talk) 00:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename the following, then, adding qualifiers only where necessary:
 * Category:Osmond family (show business)‎ back to Category:Osmond family
 * Category:Pointer musical family‎ to either Category:The Pointer Sisters or Category:Pointer family (if the latter, also include unaccounted members such as Aaron Pointer)
 * Category:Newman musical family‎ to Category:Newman family (show business) as proposed
 * Category:Knight musical family‎ to Category:Knight family (show business) as proposed
 * Category:Taylor musical family to Category:Taylor family
 * Category:Neville musical family‎ to Category:Neville family (show business) as proposed
 * Category:Jackson musical family‎ to Category:Jackson family (show business) as proposed
 * Category:King musical family‎ to Category:King family or Category:King family (show business) (either could work)
 * —烏Γ (kaw), 01:44, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom with all the qualifiers. (There must be thousands of Taylor families, eg Category:Zachary Taylor family, and wasn't there a Martin Luther King? And there is a prominent Neville sporting family in the UK, not as yet grouped into a category.) Oculi (talk) 10:40, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment categories with only a few entries or so (e.g., Category:Knight musical family‎), per WP:SMALLCAT and ought to be deleted. Everything is linked if there's a notable connection or a template would suffice. Just because a few folks from a family are in "show biz" doesn't mean a category is needed. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:29, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep or rename Category:Osmond (show business family)‎ etc -- The only good reason for them being renamed would be if prominent members were not primarily musicians, but (say) actors. Musicians who appear in musicals or films will probably do so because they are musicians.  Renaming to form "King family" is unattractive, because it is liable to collect articles on anyone (like me) with that surname; and there are several notable (but unrelated) families with that name.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:13, 8 October 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.

Centuries in East and West Germany

 * 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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:12, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:20th century in East Germany to Category:20th century in Germany and Category:History of East Germany by period
 * Propose merging Category:20th century in West Germany to Category:20th century in Germany and Category:History of West Germany by period
 * Propose deleting Category:Centuries in East Germany
 * Propose deleting Category:Centuries in West Germany
 * Nominator's rationale: merge/delete, because East and West Germany only existed within the time frame of the 20th century it is pointless to subcategorize them by centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * At second sight a merge to Category:20th century in Germany is not desirable because all content of the nominated categories is already lower in the tree of Category:20th century in Germany. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't Category:History of East Germany and Category:History of West Germany be simpler and accomplish the same goal? The split lasted less than 50 years.   Montanabw (talk)  05:19, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In the end, probably yes. But let's first start with this merge and keep Category:History of East Germany and Category:History of West Germany for a next nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the fact there is only one century applying for those entities doesn't automatically mean we need to delete it.GreyShark (dibra) 06:05, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Reply -- One member categories are a hindrance, not an aid, to navigation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support but we need to ensure that the target is appropriately parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:15, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support The century categories are really container categories rather than direct navigation routes. If there isn't enough content (aka more than 1 century) they should be deleted. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:03, 12 October 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.

Centuries in German states

 * 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. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:57, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Baden-Württemberg to Category:History of Baden-Württemberg
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Brandenburg to Category:History of Brandenburg
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Bremen (state) to Category:History of Bremen (state)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Lower Saxony to Category:History of Lower Saxony
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern to Category:History of Mecklenburg-Vorpommern
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in North Rhine-Westphalia to Category:History of North Rhine-Westphalia
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Rhineland-Palatinate to Category:History of Rhineland-Palatinate
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Saxony-Anhalt to Category:History of Saxony-Anhalt
 * Propose upmerging Category:Centuries in Thuringia to Category:History of Thuringia
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are only a 20th century and (mostly) a 21st century subcategory in each of the nominated categories and there is limited backward growth potential. For example, the establishment of a 19th-century category for Baden-Württemberg is highly unlikely because the 19th century is covered by Category:Grand Duchy of Baden and Category:Kingdom of Württemberg; the establishment of a 19th-century category for Brandenburg is quite unlikely as Brandenburg was part of Prussia at the time. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment: sounds sensible, but are these at all useful for navigation from the parent Category:Centuries in Germany? – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:01, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * After the merge you can still go from Category:Centuries in Germany to e.g. Category:20th century in Brandenburg via Category:20th century in Germany. That is a more natural way of navigating, and doesn't take any extra steps in comparison to navigating from Category:Centuries in Germany to e.g. Category:20th century in Brandenburg via Category:Centuries in Brandenburg. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:13, 6 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - the fact there is only one century (or two) applying for those entities doesn't automatically mean we need to delete it. It is customary to have such categories.GreyShark (dibra) 06:06, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Let's please drop customs like these, per WP:OSE. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:16, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Is there a reason for the custom? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:05, 12 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge most as nom but also to centuries in Germany. I suspect that we should keep the Brandenburg one, because it was a major state and ought to have subcats for earlier centuries, before the Electors acquired Prussia.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * In fact all content is already in Category:Centuries in Germany so there is no need for this second merge target. About Brandenburg, currently there are not too many articles on the older history of Brandenburg, if you want to check you can find most of them in Category:Margraviate of Brandenburg. I'd say let's merge it for now with the possibility to recreate later if suddenly more content appears. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 11 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support The German state histories are complex but this seems like an improvement over the current structure. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:05, 12 October 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:Germany after reunification

 * 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 to Category:Contemporary German history for now and some clean up will likely be desirable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Germany after reunification
 * Nominator's rationale: delete for having a too broad scope. If kept, it should become a container category for Category:1990s in Germany, Category:2000s in Germany and Category:2010s in Germany but I don't quite see why we would need such a container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Not sure: it should be part of Category:Contemporary German history, and holds some articles that could not be moved down to decade categories e.g. Ostalgie. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:08, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Ostalgie could belong to a category Category:Aftermath of German reunification if such a category would exist (and by lack of this category I suppose it's fair to put it in Category:German reunification directly). Other articles in this category aren't related to the reunification, it looks like a mere random collection of history articles regarding the last 25 years. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * By the way, I'm okay with first merging to Category:Contemporary German history and then do some cleaning. Probably in the end we'll reach the same end result. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the last suggestion. This looks like an appropriate parent both the East and West German History categories, mentioned (as targets) in another discussion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 8 October 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:Methods and principles in archaeology

 * 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:Methods in archaeology and purge of inappropriate articles. One weakness of the CFD process is that sometimes categories are nominated and the agreed-upon solution is not straightforward or easily achieved, simply because the category as it was originally named and populated was deficient, but not so deficient so as to justify outright deletion. This seems to be one of those cases. I will place this task at WP:CFDWM, and any user who wishes to take a crack at it can do so. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:54, 4 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Convert Category:Methods and principles in archaeology to article List of methods and principles in archaeology
 * Nominator's rationale: non-defining characteristic of many members, that are also used outside of archaelogy. fgnievinski (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Some archaeological methods may have applications in other disciplines, but that does not invalidate the category, which has a substantial population. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I meant, the cat includes several non-archaeological methods that find applications in archaeology -- WP:NONDEFINING. fgnievinski (talk) 20:02, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Narrow & Rename/Merge/Purge/Question Rename to Category:Methods in archaeology and move the principles over to Category:Archaeological theory. There are some good articles like Wheeler-Kenyon method and Direct historical approach that belong in a separate archaeological category while most the rest like Cognitive archaeology and Feminist archaeology are theoretical approaches. (To Fgnievinksi's point, we may find out more about Matriarchy and Container Revolution through archaeology but they shouldn't be in the Archaeology tree at all but I don't favor just eliminating the category.) My suggestion cannot reasonably be acted upon by a closing admin in CFD though; could the WikiProject take a crack at this? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (Changed vote) Support RevelationDirect. This is a good solution.  Principles and methods are different things.  The fact that methods in other fields have an archaeological application is the very reason why they should appear in this category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Purge (e.g. remove articles such as Metal detector that are not specifically about archaeology) then rename/split into one or more categories - preferably categories that fit into existing category trees such as Category:Techniques and Category:Equipment). DexDor(talk) 18:26, 9 October 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:Healthcare in the United Kingdom

 * 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. I have restored Category:Health in Jersey as a parent to Category:Healthcare in Jersey, since it was emptied out of process by one of the participants of this discussion. For now, the healthcare categories are subcategories of the health categories. They can both exist until there is consensus to merge one way or the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:36, 4 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Healthcare in the United Kingdom to Category:Health in the United Kingdom
 * Propose merging Category:Healthcare in Jersey to Category:Health in Jersey
 * Nominator's rationale: per the result of a previous debate here Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_March_28 Tim! (talk) 07:37, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think that as far as the UK is concerned, its quite possible to make a distinction between articles on health and articles on healthcare, and that the distinction is useful, particularly because healthcare in the UK is now quite different in the constituent parts of the UK. Health is not nearly so different.  The same approach may not be helpful in respect to other countries.  Rathfelder (talk) 07:44, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * The thing is, however, that the distinction between "health" and "healthcare" is not unique to the United Kingdom alone — the same distinction applies equally to all countries, including the ones covered in the previous discussion. There may certainly be a case to be made that we should revisit the whole thing, and consider possibly spinning "healthcare" categories back out as a separate tree again — and I'd even support that argument — but there's no valid case to be made that the UK uniquely qualifies for a special exemption from the existing consensus that applies to everywhere else. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep both UK categories. Healthcare is about the treatment of illness (in hospitals, etc).  Health is more abstract.  The empty Category:Health in Jersey might be redirected to the healthcare one.  Jersey is not a large island and there i8s little merit in having a split there.   Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * keep both this discussion and this distinction between health and healthcare has been thoroughly discussed before. Read the parent categories and main articles. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Related issue: Is it healthcare or health care?Rathfelder (talk) 08:05, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge per nom, but only temporarily. While I absolutely understand and actually agree with the argument that there's a distinction to be made between the health care system in particular and overall health more generally, and I was not at all happy with the conclusion of the previous discussion, there's no serious case to be made that the UK specifically qualifies for a unique exemption from the way health topics are categorized anywhere else, as if the distinction between "health" and "health care" were a uniquely UK phenomenon not paralleled by any other country. I would absolutely favour and support a larger consensus to reestablish a separate health care tree for all countries, but that would need to be handled as a much more comprehensive discussion than what's been put up for debate here — and since the distinction isn't a uniquely British thing, the UK should not get to stand alone as an isolated case while the previous discussion is still a binding consensus that applies to every other country on earth. Bearcat (talk) 18:16, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The argument is not that the distinction is unique to the UK. It is that the nature of the articles about the UK is a bit different.  Rathfelder (talk) 07:33, 19 October 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:Mythological cosmology

 * 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: downmerge for now to Category:Mythological cosmologies. There is no consensus here. However, the nominated category now only contains one article Religious cosmology and Category:Mythological cosmologies, and the latter has no other parent categories. It appears from the discussion below that there were other contents here when this nomination was made, but I have not been able to trace what they were, so I cannot revert those removals. Therefore I will merge and redirect what is currently a redundant layer. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:45, 20 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting mythological cosmology


 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant with Category:Religious cosmologies. Editor2020, Talk 03:15, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, the cosmologies of this category consist of religious cosmologies and esoteric cosmologies that each have their own subcategory already. If the nominated category is going to be deleted indeed, I'd suggest to parent Category:Religious cosmologies and Category:Esoteric cosmology to the top Category:Cosmology in order to not have them disappear from the cosmology tree. Basically this is the same as selectively upmerging Category:Mythological cosmology to Category:Cosmology while deleting stuff that is not about cosmology. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:36, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a great disservice to classify mythology under cosmology. It wrongly lends the appearance of the credibility of valid scientific methodology to mythology. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 08:56, 7 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Downmerge to Category:Mythological cosmologies. such content as we have is probably effectively main articles for that or a parent.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . This all could use some cleanup and clarity though. - jc37 20:48, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * What kind of cleanup do you suggest? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Reverse merge per Peterkingiron; I don't seen a real difference in the two, but "mythological" seems the better adjective, because some cosmologies aren't "religious" as much as promulgated by religious entities, whether the cosmology is "religious" or "sacrilegious" is in the eye of the beholder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I would be okay with this merge as well. It's obvious there is one redundant mythological category, and this merge solves that problem too. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:26, 8 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose - The primary function of this category is to ensure that certain articles do not end up classified in the science category (I.e. physical cosmology). This alone is a worthy reason to keep the category. Youknowwhatimsayin (talk) 08:53, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That isn't really convincing, because it should be parented to Category:Cosmology anyway. By the way, the other parent of Category:Cosmology is philosophy, which makes sense, also considering that religious cosmology is older than physical cosmology. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 7 October 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:Lime sodas

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Dual Upmerging Category:Lime sodas to Category:Limes (fruit) and Category:Citrus sodas
 * Propose Dual Upmerging Category:Pineapple sodas to Category:Pineapples and Category:Fruit sodas
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT
 * Originally there was 1 legitimate pineapple article and 0 legitimate lime ones. I found additional content to get each category up to 2 articles but there's little room for growth and the discussion with Category:Blueberry sodas (here) suggested that 5+ articles should exist for these soda subcategories to aid navigation. No objection to recreating either category if more content appears. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note: Notified Marcus2 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Food and drink. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Background: The nomination for Category:Strawberry sodas (here) established a clear consensus that general articles on bottling companies should not be categorized by every flavor of soda they produce. Accordingly I heavily purged the entire Category:Fruit sodas tree, prior to anticipating these nominations. I always get cranky when someone purges a category and then turns around and claims it's small so here is what I purged for these 2 flavors: Big Red, Concordia, Crush, Fanta, Faygo, Hosmer Mountain Soda, Mirinda, Nehi, The Pop Shoppe, Shasta, Sun Crest, Sunkist, Tango and Vess. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:35, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all. Per above. Neutralitytalk 03:34, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge all per above and previous recent cfd consensus for strawberry sodas on 11 September 2015. Oculi (talk) 13:22, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep as the Lime category has 2 members plus a large sub-cat, and the Pineapple category now has 4 members (I added Lilt and Tiky to the existing Cactus Cooler & Jupiña). Otherwise, rename to drinks or beverages, to include additional pages Caipirinha, Daiquiri, Limeade, Lime cordial, Rickey (cocktail) and Rose's lime juice; and for pineapples, Mary Pickford (cocktail), Piña colada & Tepache. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:57, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding Tiky. The consensus has been that companies that make many flavors, like Lilt, shouldn't be added to each flavor category. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:21, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes, but Lilt is originally and predominantly known as a pineapple and grapefruit drink, even though one variant remains. – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:51, 9 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment whatever happens lime soda cannot remain as is, since both soda and lime have meanings unconnected to beverages, referring to minerals. A lime-soda mixture wold not be potable. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:21, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, if kept, I'll nominate it for a speedy rename to match the parent category's main article, Lime (fruit). There is no main article (Lime soda, Pineapple soda) for these categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:36, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Upmerge only to citrus sodas cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:19, 16 October 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.