Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 28



Category:American torturers

 * 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. Timrollpickering 21:41, 19 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:American torturers to Category:American people convicted of torture
 * Nominator's rationale: There doesn't seem to be a good reason for both of these to exist. Per WP:BLP we shouldn't be using this category on anyone currently living who hasn't been convicted anyway. I realize a deletion/merge was previously discussed, but I was hoping to get more eyes on this (and it has been 4+ years).   20:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment most people in this category are serial killers who also tortured their victims. The category should either be kept or deleted - but not merged, since these people were convicted of murder rather than torture. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete the various things serial killers did to their victims is not as defining as their convictions for murder (and the usually ensuing death sentences). To the extent that torture was an element of the crimes of which they were convicted they can be placed in the proposed merger target; absent that, it's more of a trivia category like Category:Murderers who took trophies from their victims or such and adds nothing of value to the encyclopedia. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:31, 30 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- The majority of the articles relate to serial killers; and most will have been convicted of murder not torture (which might only warrant a conviction for assault or wounding). If anyone can find articles relating to people convicted only of torture, I would reconsider.  I suspect that we do not have articles on CIA operatives who engaged in water-boarding as a form of torture.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Note: If this is deleted, the sub-category should be added into the parent categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:46, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Further comment, most likely Category:Torturers, Category:Austrian torturers and Category:Italian torturers should be nominated as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 6 June 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:Ambedkarites parties

 * 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:Ambedkarite political parties. The last comment of User:Peterkingiron has not been further discussed but this addition of "political" may well be treated as an unopposed case of WP:C2C. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:15, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Ambedkarites parties to Category:Ambedkarite parties
 * Nominator's rationale: The cat name refers to a "philosophy", for want of a better word, based on the thoughts and teachings of B. R. Ambedkar. I can't think of a reason why it should be pluralised other than due to a typo. Sitush (talk) 19:59, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * At User talk:BrownHairedGirl, I suggested WP:CFDS, not WP:CFD. CFDS is much quicker and easier. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Ah, misread you. I've never seen CFDS before. Still, it's here now and will happen. No rush. - Sitush (talk) 20:40, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Comment - should it not be Category:Ambedkarite parties? Oculi (talk) 20:55, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * That's my fault, too. It is what I intended and mentioned in the thread Redrose linked. Sorry, it has been a long day. I've fixed the nom. - Sitush (talk) 20:58, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Speedy support per WP:C2A. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 22:15, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Oculi (talk) 09:07, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Support but Category:Ambedkarite political parties would be even better. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:58, 31 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:Frequency domain analysis

 * 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 without prejudice to future nominations. The singular/plural question is unsettled but the MOS:HYPHEN issue has not been contested. Timrollpickering 22:37, 20 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Frequency domain analysis to Category:Frequency-domain analysis
 * Nominator's rationale: Per MOS:HYPHEN, a hyphen in Frequency-domain analysis is conventional, makes it easier to parse by indicating that frequency domain is a compound noun modifying analysis. Dicklyon (talk) 16:24, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Why not simply Category:Frequency domain per main article Frequency domain? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:24, 5 June 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting that Frequency domain talks about analysis in the first sentence, but Frequency domain analysis is a completely different page. In any case, I vote for Category:Frequency-domain analyses (that is, plural) with or without the hyphen. Gah4 (talk) 23:05, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Question why plural? I think we do not have any analyses category in plural (e.g. Category:Regression analysis is in singular, and many others). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 26 June 2018 (UTC)
 * I first noticed this when someone changed Category:Transfer functions to plural.
 * But more specifically, there should be at least Fourier analysis and Laplace transform analysis, though the latter seems not to exist. It seemed as much plural to me as Transfer functions. (Though there seems not to be a redirect for Transfer functions.) Gah4 (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2018 (UTC)


 * I just found that there is a Category:Fourier analysis which includes Laplace transform. Seems to me that many pages in Category:Fourier analysis actually belong in Category:Frequency domain analysis, or whatever new name it has. I was wondering why Laplace transform wasn't in Category:Frequency domain analysis where it obviously should be. Gah4 (talk) 23:17, 19 June 2018 (UTC)
 * If you think the two categories should be merged, you can obviously submit a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:10, 1 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:Norman religion

 * 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:Norman Christianity without prejudice to further discussion. This has been a complicated discussion with a lack of clarity about the contents of the category that appear to have changed mid-discussion. The renaming suggestion at the bottom seems the best way forward to get clarity though a further straight deletion may be in order. Timrollpickering 20:43, 21 July 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting norman religion


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, there are currently no articles about Norman religion. The category is merely populated with biographies of Christian Normans, who are already in Category:Normans by occupation. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:00, 27 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - 'Norman religion' is merely a descriptive phrase and no specific article is required. Moreover Category:Norman architecture was strangely adrift from any 'Norman' tree and contains many cathedrals, now categorised within 'Norman religion'. Oculi (talk) 10:50, 27 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Normans were either 'pagans' or Christians, so what does the descriptive phrase describe? This is an odd category with no similar sibling in Category:Religion in Europe. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:00, 28 April 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete not a workable intersection of nationality/ethnicity and religion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:35, 28 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep -- This refers to the period 1066-1154 in England (and perhaps Normnady). The main content is a category on Norman churches, referring to the architectural style of the period.  The rest is clergy of the period.  Perhaps rename to Category:Christianity in Norman England.  I hope this does not cause difficulty over the contents including Scotland, Wales, or Normandy.  If it does, perhaps someone can devise an alternative title that is sufficiently comprehensive.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 29 April 2018 (UTC)
 * Just for information, we already have Category:Christianity in medieval England, so the question is whether we need to diffuse that to Norman. In fact this is a discussion about creating a new category, because I understand the nominated category to be about the Normans in Normandy. If it would be about England, the category should have been named Anglo-Norman. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 29 April 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * delete The lack of a main article is indicative: there is, to some extent, Anglo-Saxon Christianity (or more precisely, lingering Celtic influences), but there's nothing really differentiating Norman religion from that of the rest of the medieval continent except the political affiliations of certain figures. Mangoe (talk) 20:12, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete per deleters. Not useful. Johnbod (talk) 02:19, 20 May 2018 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ xplicit 04:44, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * (changed vote) Merge to Category:Christianity in medieval England, but purge subcategories. Substantially all the bio-content relates to the realm of William I and his successors until c.1205, who were kings of England and Dukes or Normandy.  Many were born in Normandy (which suggests a new category) perhaps Category:Clergy born in Duchy of Normandy.  Most also belong in Category:Clergy in Norman England, a subset of Medieval English clergy.   However, there are 1-2 monks in monasteries in the Duchy of Normandy, who will not fit into an English category and must be purged into something else.  The alternative is that we should treat the Norman realm (England + Normandy) as a single entity, which it probably was in practice, though not in theory.  Having eliminate the monks of monasteries in Normandy, the potential merge target pointed to by Marcocapelle becomes viable.  Implementation -- My suggestion in fact involves amending various subcategories.  It is not kind to ask the closing admin to do this.  Perhaps the target categories need to be added and then the existing subcategories deleted.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:03, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * For the clerics, you might revisit Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_April_30, where my proposal of Category:Norman clerics given benefices in England has got some support, but could use more. Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I supported Category:Norman clerics given benefices in England already in the other discussion, just want to point out that this is much more accurate than Category:Clergy born in Duchy of Normandy. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:07, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep per Peterkingiron. The contents of the category make sense in relation to the pagan/christian religions and artifacts of a time and place. Dicklyon (talk) 19:48, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete there was no Norman religion different to that of its neighbors; its god(s) were the same. If we need a parent for the Category:Norman architecture; we have one in the Norman tree: Category:Norman culture, with siblings akin to most nations of the period. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:29, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Plain deletion would leave content orphaned. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Two of the 3 sub-cats are the subject of other discussions here. Of the remaining one, the monks, only Étienne de Rouen does not fit in the proposed "Norman clerics given benifices in England" - but yes, that should probably be deleted, though it will not exactly be an orphan, being in monks by nationality, & Normans by occupation. Johnbod (talk) 16:09, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Whatever the member pages were, they have been removed; when this is done during the course of a CFD discussion, it would be helpful to document such changes here on the CFD page. The category now only contains three sub-categories. I suggest we should rename it to Category:Norman Christianity, similar to the existing Category:Anglo-Saxon Christianity. – Fayenatic  L ondon 14:40, 5 June 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:Electronics terminology

 * 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.  you were discussing reclassification of some articles but it is not entirely sure whether all 8 articles are covered in this discussion - so it would be helpful if any of you would double-check this and would actually implement the reclassification. For reference, the articles in this category were: Bogey value,  Coupling (electronics), Gain (electronics), Magic smoke, Passivity (engineering), Sensitivity (electronics), Transconductance, Wetting current. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:37, 5 June 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting electronics terminology


 * Nominator's rationale: "Terminology" categories are often a bad idea. Wikipedia is not a dictionary; articles are generally supposed to be about things, not terms. "Terminology" categories tend to collect mis-categorized articles because anything can be categorized as a "term". It's not a good way to organize Wikipedia articles. Only one of the articles in the category—Magic smoke—is about a term as such. The others are all articles about concepts or quantities that got categorized as "Electronics terms" because editors weren't able to come up with a better categorization. Let's kill this category and find better categorization for these articles. Srleffler (talk) 02:46, 28 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom, but some articles (e.g. Transconductance) should be upmerged rather than left uncategorized. DexDor(talk) 08:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I added Category:Electrical resistance and conductance there, which is the best I could come up with. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I looked in the most closely related articles (which I think are Transfer function, Two-port network, and Single-input single-output system) for ideas on how to categorise it. None of those articles have a single category in common between any two of them.  The category system isn't really working for us here.  I think a new one needs creating. SpinningSpark 16:04, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe something like Category:Circuit theory would be good. Dicklyon (talk) 16:21, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I've created Category:Transfer functions, but I'm surprised your suggestion doesn't exist already, although I don't think this is entirely theory. SpinningSpark</b> 16:33, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Not everything (like Wetting current) there goes into Circuit theory. Category:Circuit theorems has things like Port (circuit theory), and others that are not theorems.  Maybe just retitle it to Circuit theory? Dicklyon (talk) 16:42, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * I don't think we should retitle Circuit theorems. That's a perfectly good category, even if it does need some cleanup. It could still exist as a sub-category of Circuit theory.  <b style="background:#FAFAD2;color:#C08000">Spinning</b><b style="color:#4840A0">Spark</b> 17:52, 28 May 2018 (UTC)
 * Yes, I support doing that. Dicklyon (talk) 01:20, 29 May 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – only 8 terms anyway; not likely to ever be a useful category. Dicklyon (talk) 15:33, 28 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.