Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 April 26



Category:Arthropods by century of formal description

 * 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 08:43, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging as follows:
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods by century of formal description to Category:Animals by century of formal description
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 1904 to Category:Animals described in 1904
 * Upmerge Category:Ecdysozoa by century of formal description to Category:Animals by century of formal description
 * Upmerge the following:


 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1776 to Category:Animals described in 1776
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1809 to Category:Animals described in 1809
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1813 to Category:Animals described in 1813
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1819 to Category:Animals described in 1819
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1844 to Category:Animals described in 1844
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1845 to Category:Animals described in 1845
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1846 to Category:Animals described in 1846
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1881 to Category:Animals described in 1881
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1884 to Category:Animals described in 1884
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1889 to Category:Animals described in 1889
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1897 to Category:Animals described in 1897
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1909 to Category:Animals described in 1909
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1985 to Category:Animals described in 1985
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 1998 to Category:Animals described in 1998
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 2004 to Category:Animals described in 2004
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 2010 to Category:Animals described in 2010
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 2011 to Category:Animals described in 2011
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 2015 to Category:Animals described in 2015
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 2016 to Category:Animals described in 2016
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 2017 to Category:Animals described in 2017
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in 2018 to Category:Animals described in 2018
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in the 18th century to Category:Animals described in the 18th century
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in the 19th century to Category:Animals described in the 19th century
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in the 20th century to Category:Animals described in the 20th century
 * Upmerge Category:Arthropods described in the 21st century to Category:Animals described in the 21st century
 * Upmerge Category:Ecdysozoa described in the 19th century to Category:Animals described in the 19th century
 * Upmerge Category:Ecdysozoa described in the 20th century to  Category:Animals described in the 20th century
 * Upmerge Category:Ecdysozoa described in the 21st century to to Category:Animals described in the 21st century
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 1909 to Category:Animals described in 1909
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 1969 to Category:Animals described in 1969
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 1998 to Category:Animals described in 1998
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 2014 to Category:Animals described in 2014
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 2015 to Category:Animals described in 2015
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 2016 to Category:Animals described in 2016
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 2017 to Category:Animals described in 2017
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in 2018 to Category:Animals described in 2018
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in the 18th century to Category:Animals described in the 18th century
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in the 19th century to Category:Animals described in the 19th century
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in the 20th century to Category:Animals described in the 20th century
 * Upmerge Category:Protostomes described in the 21st century to Category:Animals described in the 21st century


 * Nominator's rationale: In 2014 I proposed (successfully) the upmerging of 'arthropods described in YYYY' and 'invertebrates described in YYYY' created by User:NotWith: see cfd, 26 Nov 2014. NotWith is now not with us, mercifully, but their zeal for the creation of unnecessary categories (often recreating ones previously upmerged at cfd) has been passed on unmitigated to user:Caftaric. Putting endless intermediate category layers between Category:Species described in 1900, Category:Animals described in 1900 and say Category:Moths described in 1900 hinders navigation (and will take ages to set up, as there are species categories annually from 1740). Compare the subcat trees of Category:Species described in 1900 with Category:Species described in 2018: which is the more comprehensible? Oculi (talk) 21:17, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Strongly support it is totally unhelpful to readers and editors to have unnecessarily complicated category hierarchies, particularly when they involve groups like "ecdysozoans" or "protostomes" which are understood only by specialists. It's also totally unhelpful to have radically incomplete sets of year categories, so that an editor has to search around to find a "Xs described in YEAR" category that exists, with the result that organisms of the same kind are scattered over many different categories. There has never been any consensus to create all the additional categories. Peter coxhead (talk) 09:42, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Object -- Some of these are adequately populated. I fear my taxonomy is weak, so that I am not fully qualified to comment, but I would have thought that merging everything straight to animals was going rather too far.  Merging to broad classes (probably an imprecise term) would be acceptable.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:27, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * These categories are about broad classes already, the problem is that they are so broad that hardly anyone understands what they mean. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:58, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Exactly. If we look at Metapenaeus stebbingi, categorised as a Protostome (by a |banned user, user:R567, who also created Category:Protostomes described in 1904 - apologies to Caftaric), there is no mention of protostome in the article (or infobox). Equally, the article Araeolaimus elegans does not mention Ecdysozoa. Oculi (talk) 10:08, 1 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Support - Without prejudice to recreation should there be consensus from a relevant wikiproject and a plan to propagate the change consistently through all years in a timely fashion. William Avery (talk) 21:14, 1 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support changes that reduce unnecessary use of specialist terms. See related CFDs such as Deuterostomes_of_Asia. I'm also not sure that this whole categorizing of species by year isn't a waste of time. DexDor(talk) 19:10, 2 May 2018 (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:People from Indiana in World War II

 * 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. There seems to be no need to merge; I checked the first 5, and they are in appropriate other categories for Indiana, and 4/5 were in categories for US military – for the other, this was not mentioned in the article. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:39, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people from indiana in world war ii


 * Nominator's rationale: A category for people either from Indiana who served in WW2 or who moved to Indiana after serving in WW2. There appear to be no categories for other states, and our articles seem to indicate that the military by WW2 (unlike during the Civil War) was integrated among the various states (i.e., there weren't separate formations for people "from" a particular state. If this is kept, there will be 49 others, no doubt, and it should be purged of people who moved to Indiana after serving in WW2, otherwise one may expect the retirement hubs of Arizona and Florida will be brimming with people whose association with WW2 and such state is very attenuated. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete since WWII was not directly experienced in Indiana, this is not a defining intersection. Also since units were not in general organizaed by state, it was not defining in that way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename and repurpose and purge target: Category:Military personnel from Indiana serving in World War II. I sampled three articles.  All related to military personnel, ranging from a cadet to an admiral.  Those merely living in Indiana in 1942-5 should be purged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
 * Delete, the issue is not whether the category can be populated, the issue is that this is a trivial intersection. If Category:American people of World War II needs to be further diffused, the articles may better be put in Category:American naval personnel of World War II‎ and siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:50, 3 May 2018 (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:American rappers

 * 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) . Marcocapelle (talk) 06:43, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merger or deletion Category:American rappers
 * Category:American rappers seem to be redundant to Category:American male rappers and Category:American female rappers. Most articles have one tag or the other between the two ('American rapper' and 'American male rapper') but not all have both categories listed on their articles. It feels very redundant and one that will continue to be overlooked (to add both categories on articles). It should theoretically be merged, but since we're dealing with two existing CATS, it may need to be deleted instead. But I would like to hear others' opinions on this, I'm not sure what notification template to use on the article page. DA1 (talk) 09:50, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - it's a parent category for various other subcat schemes such as Category:American rappers by city. An article in Category:American male rappers should not also be in Category:American rappers. Oculi (talk) 13:18, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, and that's how it should be. But as you can see its full of articles (biographies) that have been tagged with it instead, or both that and subs. Wasn't there a template to put on a CAT page that described it being only for collecting sub-categories? DA1 (talk) 22:43, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Category diffuse would be the one to use in this case. Grutness... wha?   00:21, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Or Container category. Oculi (talk) 08:29, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * , : Does that mean we should start deleting the category from individual bio articles? DA1 (talk) 20:44, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * not so much deleting as replacing ti with the male and female categories. Deleting pure and simple should only be done if it's already in those. Grutness... wha?   01:10, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, that's what I had meant. Since it seemed the CATS applied were getting redundant. DA1 (talk) 04:52, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Yes, the contents should be sub-categorized in various ways, but that can be done by normal editing and does not justify deleting the parents category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:34, 28 April 2018 (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:Christian ethics in the Bible

 * 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. ℯ xplicit  07:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Christian ethics in the Bible to Category:Ethics in the Bible
 * Nominator's rationale: Initially posted as a speedy rename proposal per article Ethics in the Bible but rejected. In addition I would rather expand the scope of the category such that it can also contain Old Testament ethics, but then the category can no longer be named Christian (since part of it will also be Jewish). In fact that would also be perfectly in line with the sibling categories in Category:Biblical topics, none of which is restricted to Christian or New Testament topics. Final remark: if renamed, the parenting of the category need to be changed accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Category:Christian ethics in the Bible to Category:Ethics in the Bible, C2D per Ethics in the Bible, while the possibility of C2E has expired for a long time. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:37, 22 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose. The category's contents are wholly New Testament, and 2 of the 3 parent cats are "Christian foo".  So while the (poor) article Ethics in the Bible may be an OK choice as head article, it covers both Jewish and Christian  topics but the cat is Christian. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 01:04, 24 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Support -- In theory there could be an equivalent Jewish category, but I doubt if Christian and Jewish theologians are coming up with different results from the same source book, even though the New Testament is purely Christian. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose – most of the articles are wholly about Christian ethics, and two of the three that overlap with Jewish perspectives are substantially about Christian ethics. I do not see scope for a useful category combining both, but if there is such scope then let it be created as an additional parent category. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:36, 4 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Fayenatic london and per my comments at speedy. -- Brown Haired Girl (talk) • (contribs) 07:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Left a request for closure at the admin noticeboard. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:17, 22 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete. All Christian ethics is going to be connected to the Bible in some way, some more directly or elegantly than others. It's an inappropriate judgement on the part of Wikipedia editors to decide which aspects of Christian ethics are truly "biblical", and this will surely be substantially swayed by the temporary state of how much current article contents emphasize biblical arguments rather than the true article subject and scope. Daask (talk) 03:10, 7 July 2018 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting comment in the sense that the category is not about Christian ethics at all, it is about sections about ethical behaviour in the Bible. This is an unintentional support for renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2018 (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:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa

 * 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: purge and rename to Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa seasons. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:56, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting jhalak dikhhla jaa


 * Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT -- wooden superman  07:58, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 26 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep. The individual series of the show have articles which belong in that category. I also note that this may be one of the exceptions to the rules of PERFCAT, in that there are for Dancing With The Stars performers, and similar ones for other reality TV series, so a separate subcategory is probably the best outcome. Grutness...  wha?   01:17, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Purge of performers, whose inclusion is prohibited by WP:PERFCAT: we do not allow performance by performer categories. The need to parent the series articles might be dealt with by renaming the purged category as Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa series.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Support alt purge and rename to Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa series or Category:Jhalak Dikhhla Jaa seasons. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:12, 3 May 2018 (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.