Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 22



Category:History of management

 * 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 10. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:56, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:History of management to Category:History of business
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently just one article. Correct me if I'm wrong but Category:History of business seems to be a more suitable merge target than either of the two parent categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Double merge as the current parent Category:Management science also seems relevant to me. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be an anachronistic categorization though, Scientific management, the topic of the article, is much older than Management science, and the terms are also less closely related with each other than you would expect based on their names. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment: Perhaps we need a Category: History of commerce as well. And/or a re-write of the article Business, which Wikipedia defines almost exclusively as relating to individual firms. But management, of course, operates equally in the non-commercial sectors - in government and in not-for-profits. - Jandalhandler (talk) 02:20, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I understand the concern, but creating Category: History of commerce would not solve this problem, as it would merely function as a synonym of Category:History of business. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 23 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Management does not just happen in businesses. It happens in public and not for profit organisations too. Rathfelder (talk) 19:28, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The one article in this category is about business. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:40, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Notably in its discussion of Taylorism in the Soviet Union and in East Germany. - Jandalhandler (talk) 12:19, 27 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support nom -- Business history is a recognised academic subject, distinct from economic history, though they are of course related. One of the objectives of business history journals is producing case studies for business schools, whose object is to teach management.   Commerce may (as suggested) be slightly wider, but is not treated as an academic subject in its own right.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:10, 27 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Shame about all those Bachelor of Commerce degrees. - Nevertheless, apart from academic respectability, applied management may have a history too... - Jandalhandler (talk) 12:27, 27 December 2017 (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 Númenor

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: delete. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:26, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting rulers of númenor


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, nearly all items in the category are redirects to the same article List of rulers of Númenor. If the category is deleted, move the two articles List of rulers of Númenor and Tar-Aldarion to Category:Númenóreans. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:56, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep – a perfect example of how to categorise redirects. A redirect to a section in an article should be categorised as if it were a self-standing article, exactly as here. Oculi (talk) 19:05, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete no reason to have a category for a bunch of redirects that all point to the same page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Full upmerge  - Apart from the main article everything (except one case) is a redirect.  However the target should be Category:Fictional rulers not Category:Rulers, as we should not be mixing history and fiction.  At least one more item needs purging from Category:Rulers.  Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 27 December 2017 (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:Actors with disabilities

 * 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 as part of a series, without prejudice to any wider discussion of disability categories. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:33, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting actors with disabilities


 * Nominator's rationale: "Disability" is far too vague to be used as a catch-all category. Is nearsightedness a disability? Mild arthritis? A decreased sense of smell? Skin cancer? Presumably most fatal illnesses would be disabilities, so lots of now-dead actors at one point or another were disabled. If someone had corrective surgery (bone spur, LASIK, braces) does that count? Disability says it is "an impairment that may be cognitive, developmental, intellectual, mental, physical, sensory, or some combination of these. It substantially affects a person's life activities..." That covers a lot of ground, far too much to be a defining characteristic. Sum mer PhD v2.0 16:52, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * comment I've created Category:Actors with Down syndrome‎ which took more than half of the previous membership. There are probably enough actors with cerebral palsy to make a similar subcat. Mangoe (talk) 17:58, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * "Actor's with (specific condition)" cats are likely to be discreet enough and I doubt anyone will create "Actor's with nearsightedness" and such. - Sum mer PhD v2.0 21:55, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Keep we have disabilities cats for many occupations such as Category:Royalty and nobility with disabilities Category:Artists with disabilities Category:Lawyers with physical disabilities Category:Musicians with physical disabilities Category:Politicians with physical disabilities Category:Models with disabilities Category:Sportspeople with disabilities Category:Scientists with disabilities. JDDJS (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Keep User:JDDJS has demonstrated this is part of a larger category tree, and it seems easy to source. Dimadick (talk) 00:51, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * JDDJS has demonstrated that other categories exist. I would posit that FDR's inability to walk and Clinton's use of eyeglasses means both of them are presidents with disabilities. Helena Bonham Carter had a bit of bladder leakage after giving birth. Is that a "disability"? She said it substantially limited her wardrobe choices ("substantially affects a person's life activities"). As far as I can tell, there is not a bright line between "disabled" and not. (As for the other categories, the list of musicians is clearly very poorly added. Drug addiction is clearly a disability, but the distinction between drug addiction and cigarette smoking is blurry at best. It's actually rather hard to think of a band that doesn't have at least one member that would belong on that list.) - Sum mer PhD v2.0 02:39, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * If you want to have a much larger conversation about all the cats, then by all means have it. However, I strongly feel that one way or another we need to be consistent. Additionally having separate discussions would be redundant because the same arguments would apply and the only way it could end differently is if different people show up to the conversation. I highly recommend that you withdraw this nomination and instead start a new discussion that includes all of the occupations with disabilities cats. JDDJS (talk) 17:08, 24 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Containerize, classifying someone as having a disability 'in general' is too subjective, but a container category for deaf actors, blind actors etc. should be allowed. Of course this also applies the same way to the sibling categories that haven't been nominated (yet). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete This is a horrible plan that mixes all sorts of things, and brings up issues like if the disability was hidden, should we categorize by it. That we have other such equally bad categories does not mean we should keep this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 26 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Should we not be constitent one way or the other? I'm all for having a much larger discussion about all of these categories. However, I strongly feel that it would be wrong to just delete this single category. JDDJS (talk) 19:46, 26 December 2017 (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:Second Yugoslavia

 * 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 Category:Second Yugoslavia to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:29, 10 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose move to Category:Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. In line with the main article and, for example, Category:Socialist Republic of Romania. It can still cover the same topics. J 1982 (talk) 09:37, 22 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Speedy rename per WP:C2D, the main article is at Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:44, 22 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Speedy rename per WP:C2D, the main article is indeed at Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia. Oculi (talk) 01:54, 23 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I meant "Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia". Changed that now. J 1982 (talk) 10:30, 23 December 2017 (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.