From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26

Category:Flora of Cornwall

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 08:56, 17 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: For a species (e.g. Pinus radiata) being found in Cornwall/Scillies is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. Listifying (e.g. into Flora_and_fauna_of_Cornwall#Flora) could be considered, but may not be appropriate for those articles that make no mention of Cornwall/Scilly. Note: Ultimately most of these articles should be upmerged to Category:Flora of Northern Europe. Note: British NVC community H5, British NVC community H6, Darley Oak should also be upmerged to Category:Environment of Cornwall. DexDor (talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Merge (with no objection to listifying). Except in cases where species are unique to a place, over-specific categorisation of species causes category clutter, in the same way as OC#PERF, the performance consisting in occuring in that place. Peterkingiron ( talk) 16:54, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Listify Useful as a list, but not as a category type as the majority are not endemic and thus categorisation quickly becomes exhaustive at this level. SFB 21:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Flora of Great Britain. The World Geographical Scheme for Recording Plant Distributions, used for our flora categories, only acknowledges the island of Great Britain and does not use any subdivisions. The island's flora is largely similar across the island. Note that I agree with this merge for an entirely different reason than the nominator and strongly disagree with any "defining" rationale. Listifying doesn't make much sense unless the list would be much more comprehensive; as it stands now, the list generated from the category would just be a start. Rkitko ( talk) 16:52, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Such a merge would be ok with me as I expect a further CFD discussion to upmerge from the England/Wales/Scotland level to the GB level. However, it could be argued that as the England category currently exists that is the correct target category for this CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:47, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply

Merge per nom. If the category Category:Flora of England is itself questionable, it certainly does not need subcategories. Dimadick ( talk) 15:50, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply

@ DuncanHill, do you think that being found in Cornwall is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of, for example, Cystopteris fragilis? The nomination proposes that the H5/H6 articles stay in a Cornwall category. DexDor (talk) 22:30, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Pioneers by field

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:25, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category is not useful as it is too subjective. While related categories like discoverers, founders and inventors can be definitively attributed, the idea of a "pioneer" can cover a wide variety of circumstances and can also be disputed on a subjective basis. Such articles are better grouped in the relevant occupational category for the field. SFB 14:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per above, quite vague. Category:Inventors and Category:Innovators with subcats would suffice. Brandmeister talk 15:25, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose deletion of just the 1 category because of the 11 subcats all of which are named "... pioneers". I suggest you either CFD all the pioneers categories in one go or start at the bottom of the pioneers tree and work up (note: upmerging may be needed in some cases). I'd probably support such a nomination. DexDor (talk) 19:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Innovators. The subcats here are segregated just because of the word "pioneers", which is against our guideline – see WP:SHAREDNAME. (Note: "Innovators" was kept as a container category following a 2-month discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 6#Category:Innovators, which I closed). – Fayenatic L ondon 10:17, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep or at worst merge. I regard pioneers as slightly broader than innovators. An innovator is the first; pioneers will be among the first, but probably follwing along behind the innovators, spreading out the achievements of the innovators. I approeciate that this is a fine distinction. Furthermore, plain deletion would lose useful categorisation data and may leave subcats orphaned. The scope of container categories is often a little fuzzy, but that is not necessarily harmful. Categories should certainly be parented according to their occupational field, but that is no reason for not having them all in a different tree too. If SFB likes to start at the bottom of the tree with a series of piecemeal merge noms, I may be willing to support that, but we need to discuss them all and see how many of the children can be merged or renamed satisfactorily. If this leaves a category, largely of (say) innovators, we can have another CFD to merge it then. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
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.

Horror film series

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/delete as specified. MER-C 04:13, 24 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The first two categories were manually renamed from Category:Lake Placid film series and Category:Anaconda film series to these nonstandard names. I tried moving the categories back, but was reverted by the mover without explanation. The third category should be deleted as a single-article category. - Eureka Lott 14:31, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support In line with usual standard and gets rid of non-standard hyphen usage. SFB 18:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support per nom and SFB. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:34, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Adding "film series" is redundant and messy, and "franchise" (or "films") is a more fitting wording. The LPVA-category is very likely to receive sequels soon to be announced. TurokSwe ( talk) 08:37, 29 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support. The unspaced "-franchise" is the messy option, following our usual naming conventions is not. These are not franchises as they are not mixed media. -- Rob Sinden ( talk) 13:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    • A less "messy" option (such as simply "film" or "franchise") does not need more words and spaces than one. They are franchises consisting of mixed media (i.e. films, books, soundtracks, and video games). TurokSwe ( talk) 20:21, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename the first two, delete the third. The category names are too idiosyncratic. There should never be a random hyphen in the category name. Per Rob Sinden, "film series" seems most appropriate, but I'd support anything that gets rid of that hyphen. I don't think it's incredibly important whether they're called a film series or franchise. The third category looks like a completely uncontroversial delete per WP:CRYSTAL. NinjaRobotPirate ( talk) 18:43, 12 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. These are film series, not multimedia franchises. Dimadick ( talk) 15:53, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename as proposed. Delete the crossover category, unless multiple additional crossover films are made. bd2412 T 16:12, 20 May 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:Islamic dress (male)

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 as nominated, and purge. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:50, 16 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. More natural name, but still doesn't preclude something like Islamic male clothing. Similarly, at Category:Islamic dress (female). Brandmeister talk 14:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Alt rename to Category:Men's Islamic clothing. There is an absence of a broader gender-divided clothing tree ( Category:Men's clothing) which is surely needed. Another example of a non-male-tradiontal subject in need of some work. SFB 15:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Note: the sibling category is being discussed at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 21#Category:Islamic dress (female). – Fayenatic L ondon 10:25, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Question is much of it actually "Islamic", rather than a merely cultural tradition in an area that happens to be Islamic? Does it differ significantly from the clothing of Christian inhabitants of the same lands? If not, we do not need the category. I see people walking around in Birmingham in ethnic attire, but it is Pakistani dress, not specifically Muslim, being appropriate to the climate there, and noit really appropriate in the colder climate of UK. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:01, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Much of Pakistan is far colder than Birmingham in the winter. I think your concerns are needless. Johnbod ( talk) 19:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename more neutrally, perhaps to Category:Middle Eastern male dress. Far more than the equivalent female category, few or none of the items here are specifically Islamic - Thawb may be an exception. I don't like the implications of this name at all! Johnbod ( talk) 19:47, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I was not aware we categorize fashion items by religion. I am not sure this articles have much to do with Islam.
    • Bisht (clothing) is Arabic in origin and has spread to East Africa.
    • Blangkon is from Java, but there is a theory it was based on Indian clothing.
    • Boubou (clothing) is West African in origin and its connection to Islam is that it was introduced in Medieval Muslim empires. No religious significance.
    • The Fez was introduced as both civilian and military uniform in 19th century Ottoman Empire. It was also used by the Christian populations of the Empire and is still used in Greece and Cyprus.
    • The Hejazi turban is a variation of the turban indigenous to Hejaz, Saudi Arabia. Genuine Islamic connection in that the white version is reserved for religious figures.
    • Jellabiya is a traditional garment of Egyptian farmers. No religious significance.
    • The Karakul (hat) is Turkic in origin and widespread over Asia. Not limited to Muslims. It seems to have political significance in Afghanistan, Pakistan, the Soviet Union, and certain African states. It used to be popular with African-Americans.
    • Keffiyeh is Middle Eastern in origin and popular with Arabs and Palestinians. But it is also used as a fashion item by Jews and foreign cultures.
    • The Sirwal is a type of pants of Persian origin. It was widely used in Muslim countries, but also by Christians in the Balkans. It was also used as part of French military uniforms in the 19th and 20th centuries. An imitation of the French military uniform was also used by certain units of the American Civil War. I doubt that it has religious significance.
    • The Taqiyah (cap) is traditionally Muslim dress for times of prayer. It is probably one of the few genuine items in the category as foreigners wearing the cap are typically converts to Islam.
    • The Thawb is Arabic in origin. It has some religious significance as it typically worn by those visiting mosques.
    • The Turban is widespread in both Asia and Africa. It predates Islam and seems to have originated in Phrygia. It was popular in the Byzantine Empire. It is still in use by Ethiopian Orthodox Christian priests, non-Muslim Indians, and men from Crete, Greece. Dimadick ( talk) 16:38, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete or purge and merge with female equivalent. We have categories for religious clothing, but this has ranged too broadly incorporating items with no religious meanings. If there is a group that wears turbans as a religious mark it is Sikhs not Muslims. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:09, 19 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename per nom and purge per Dimadick. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:00, 17 June 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename per nom and purge per Dimadick. The category is a mess as it stands. There are special items of men's clothing identified with Islam or being Muslim (the Indonesian baju koko comes to mind, though we don't have an article), but too much of this category consists of secular clothing from majority Muslim areas. I've preemptively removed blangkon, for starters. I know several non-Muslims (including me) who got married in one. —  Chris Woodrich ( talk) 00:09, 6 July 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Politicians of the Republic of China on Taiwan

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:Politicians of Taiwan. This close is sufficient precedent to nominate the like-named sub-cats for speedy renaming. – Fayenatic L ondon 15:47, 25 July 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear what purpose this category is serving and it also has a self-categorised relationship with the target. Typically, politicians are categorised by nationality. Note that we already have Category:Political office-holders in the Republic of China on Taiwan which covers politicians by country of their office. NB: There are also many county-level subcategories, but I'm unsure how to proceed on those (maybe to the usual "politicians from foo"?) SFB 12:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC) SFB 12:44, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. Please see Category talk:Politicians of the Republic of China on why this category (and its subcategories) came about. As the descriptors at Category:Politicians of the Republic of China and Category:Taiwanese politicians explained, these categories are intended to be intersecting, but not identical. Perhaps there are better ways to simplify the Venn diagram nature of these trees, but I believe that if merged without properly thought through, the previous mess will return and be harder to untangle. However, I will note (perhaps arguing against myself here) that since then, People's Republic of China has been renamed to China and Republic of China to Taiwan by a purported consensus (I did not support the decisions in question, nor do I think there was actually a sufficient consensus, but I will concede that the determination that there was a consensus was not an unreasonable one), and therefore the nature of the mess prior to the creation of the tree structure may have changed. Also note, Category:Political office-holders in the Republic of China on Taiwan is not identical in meaning - many politicians do not actually hold (appointed or elected) political office. I do not oppose a reorganization, but the reorganization has to be logically thought out and sufficiently robust to deal with ROC/Taiwan historical/geographical intersectional issues. -- Nlu ( talk) 14:54, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nlu: The crux of my argument depends upon the the office holders category covering all eventualities. Forgive me, but can you give me an example of a non-office holder politician in Taiwan? Also, is there a historical element to Republic of China I haven't considered (i.e. in line with Category:Politicians of the Republic of China)? The category could probably do with a description that clarifies the purpose and questions raised in past discussions. SFB 18:14, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Sillyfolkboy: Until he was actually elected late last year, Ko Wen-je would be an example. A similar example would be King Pu-tsung - until current president Ma Ying-jeou was elected as the mayor of Taipei, King was clearly involved in politics so much that he should be considered a politician, but never had any political office until he was made deputy mayor by Ma. As for current examples - I'd say that the leaders of the Sunflower Movement - of whom Lin Fei-fan appears to be the only one who currently has an English Wikipedia article, but a number of whom have Chinese Wikipedia articles and probably eventually should have English Wikipedia ones. If you don't consider Lin a "politician," Chung-Ming Wang was put into that tree, not by me, as well, and would certainly count, I think, under any definition. I would consider city/county party chairs of the KMT and the DPP to all be notable enough to have articles, and most of them had not had political offices (at least, I would not consider local party chairs to be political offices). -- Nlu ( talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nlu: That is a good point about candidates. I've read your category talk page proposal and I'm struggling to identify either a clear problem (beyond "it's a mess") or a clear desired outcome. Presumably the things we want to avoid are (a) non-Taiwan politicians ending up in the tree, (b) PR China politicians getting in a Republic of China-limited category, and (c) a way to include PR China politicians appointed to the shadow Taiwan government within a non-ROC category. Maybe we're looking at this the wrong way round and the problem is actually Category:Taiwanese politicians – your proposal of this category as a complete history of politics on the island is much more amenable with the title Category:Politicians of Taiwan. So we have:
What role is the nominated category trying to fulfil? Should it be something like "post-civil war ROC politicians"? The given description ("This category includes politicians of the Republic of China during its existence on the island of Taiwan and its surrounding islands.") appears to be semantically identical to the concept you proposed for the "Taiwanese politicians". Can you explain the difference, if not post-civil war? SFB 22:57, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
The intersectional category was in fact supposed to be basically for "post-Chinese Civil War ROC politicians." It is unfortunate that while articles have edit histories, the edit histories of the categories do not provide "snapshots" of what the categories looked like in time, but if I remember correctly, what exasperated me at that time was that effectively, at that time, instead of being definitionally complementary of each other, Category:Politicians of the Republic of China and Category:Taiwanese politicians were effectively "competitive" category trees to each other, such that you have some intersectional subcategories and articles belong to one and some subcategories and articles belong to the other which logically should also fit in the other tree, and you also have some non-intersectional subcategories and articles that landed in the "wrong" tree. (ROC politicians who were never in Taiwan belonged to subcategories that were only in the "Taiwanese" tree, or Qing/Japan-rule era politicians who ended up in categories that were in the ROC tree, &c.) That was what led to my proposal to reorganize them into definitionally complementary trees rather than "competitive" trees. The Category:Politicians of the Republic of China on Taiwan was intended to maintain the clarity that these are complementary rather than "competitive" trees by making it clear that it was a subcategory of both trees. Eliminating it, I believe, will bring the confusion back between the two trees such that they become "competitive" trees again. Remember that "China," "ROC," and "Taiwan" are all potentially politically-loaded terms, and unless it is made clear what is the scope of each of the trees - which I think the intersectional category, as perhaps inelegantly titled as it does, does so - such confusion and "competition" will rise again.
But as to what you are suggesting, I fail to see how Category:Politicians of Taiwan is an improvement over Category:Taiwanese politicians, naming-wise. However, I am open to a less-cumbersome reorganization if one can be proposed that would not open itself to the return of the status quo ante. -- Nlu ( talk) 00:49, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nlu: That makes some sense, to narrow down to a ROC+Taiwan definition to avoid missing out in the tree or wrong placement, but it sounds more like a maintenance issue than a truly definitional one. It also doesn't work as a definition for "post-Chinese Civil War ROC politicians", as there is no reason why you wouldn't expect pre-war ones in there. The benefit of going from "Taiwanese politicians" to "Politicians of Taiwan" is that one need not be a Taiwanese person to be placed there. This is very useful for the inclusion of people like Zhang Zhijun (the PRC's minister for Taiwan) who currently isn't even in the Taiwan structure at all. SFB 21:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I don't think Zhang Zhijun belongs in a Taiwanese tree. I have conceptual difficulty considering him a "Taiwanese politician" or "Politician of Taiwan," and I think most other editors would, too. He's really more of a "Diplomat to Taiwan" (even if Taiwan is, arguendo, not considered a sovereign state, which I consider it to be even though I do not support "Taiwanese independence" as such), which doesn't make him a politician of Taiwan. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ Nlu: Currently there's a category loop which shows there's something wrong with this category structure. Unless that's fixed I'll be !voting to merge. DexDor (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
@ DexDor:I will be removing the loop; whoever put the loop in didn't understand the structure (which was explained on top of each of the three categories). -- Nlu ( talk) 22:11, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename to Category:Politicians of Taiwan. We had long discussions a couple of year back, when we decided that WP's short name the polity ruling Taiwan as Republic of China should be called Taiwan. I prefer that form as it would cover mainland KMT politicians who retreated to Taiwan when PRC took over the mainland. They were Chinese, rather than Taiwanese, if there was any ethnic difference. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:05, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
    Category:Politicians of Taiwan may have gotten past that definitional issue (current geographic/political scope), but it has another one: a historical geographic/political scope, in that has the question of whether to include Ming-/Qing-/Japan- era politicians, none of whom would be part of the "polity ruling Taiwan as Republic of China." But as long as definitional issues are dealt with beforehand and does not again open up the "competitive rather than complementary tree" problem, I am not necessarily going to be against it. -- Nlu ( talk) 02:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Support rename to Category:Politicians of Taiwan. Not all are Taiwanese in origin and the category should be inclusive. As for the argument about Japan-era politicians, I doubt there were many article-worthy ones only associated with this island. Dimadick ( talk) 16:47, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Named state highways in Oregon

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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 11:55, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING and the spirit of WP:SHAREDNAME. According to the main article, state highways in Oregon have alternate names that "are not signed, and are rarely used by the public." In other words, they are not defining. In any case, this category primarily groups redirects to highway articles, not the actual articles. No need to listify as these alternate names are already well grouped in a list article. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified NE2 as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Highways. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:48, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose—actually, these are defining characteristics for Oregon. That state has numbered routes and named highways for each roadway in their state highway system. They many not be used much, but they are in use in official context. Also, RevelationDirect, I'm not sure why you notified WikiProject Highways instead of the U.S. Roads WikiProject, the project that would actually maintain the category and related articles. In any event, USRD was automatically notified already through Article Alerts. Imzadi 1979  → 08:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Imzadi1979: Do you think we should move this category so it applies to the actual articles then? (Today it contains the "named" redirects to the actual "numbered" articles.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:23, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
      • No, the status quo is the appropriate way this should be handled. The fact that many of the entries are redirects does not matter by my way of thinking. Imzadi 1979  → 09:02, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose as proposed per Imzadi1979. I seem to remember there being some issue with the system (though sadly I can't remember what it was), and something may need to be fixed, but deleting the category outright is not the way to go. -- Rs chen 7754 04:30, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
    • @ Rschen7754: How about purging it of all redirects? Or reassigning this category to the actual articles instead of the redirects? (I don't think this category is defining at all, but maintaining it to house redirects really baffles me as far as aiding navigation.) RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:10, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
      • No, because that destroys information. -- Rs chen 7754 13:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose - Per Imzadi1979. Dough 4872 13:58, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Withrdrawn by Nominator I suppose this category is defining for the named redirects pointing to route numbers; indeed that's all that they can be defined by. (The underlying articles are another matter.) I'm not convinced redirect only categories aid navigation but neither do I see any clear support for disallowing them under WP:OC. I'll think on this and either learn to live with these categories or propose a change to WP:OC to reach consensus. Thanks for the input from the editors above even though my nomination might fall under WP:IDONTLIKEIT. RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:20, 7 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Main roads with Norwegian terminus in Kristiansand

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 05:25, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING. This category groups long highways together if they happen to end in Kristiansand, Norway. Kristiansand is a city at the end of a peninsula so these roads have nowhere else to continue on to. None of these roads exclusively or even primarily serve Kristiansand. RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Note: Notified Timrollpickering as the category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Norway. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 11:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
I'm not the creator - User:Carsten R D is. I just nominated it for a speedy rename to fix the capitalisation back in the day. Timrollpickering ( talk) 13:58, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Thanks, I notified Carsten R D RevelationDirect ( talk) 15:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • For your information, continue E39 in Denmark, while E18 continued overnight in Newcastle, England. Kristiansand is located furthest south on the Norwegian part of the Scandinavian peninsula. I see the information value as an argument against deletion of the category. User: Carsten R D
Okay, so 2 of the 5 roads in the category don't technically terminate in Kristiansand. Are you thinking they should purged? RevelationDirect ( talk) 18:19, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Categories aren't supposed to be for "information value" - that's what the text of the article is for. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. If kept then should be purged of routes that do not end in K'sand. IMO this isn't a good form of categorization. For one thing there may be routes (e.g. roads in developing countries, cycling routes) that are being extended so the end locations wouldn't be a permanent characteristic. For another thing this categorization scheme wouldn't be able to categorize all roads (unless, for example, you can find the ends of the M25). IMO the E-roads should be in Category:International E-road network and nothing else. DexDor (talk) 19:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - Trivial and unneeded category. Dough 4872 13:59, 4 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. For what it's worth, I wouldn't delete per WP:NONDEF in this case, since I think Kristiansand is a defining yet trivial characteristic of these roads. Marcocapelle ( talk) 03:59, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not a good use of a category. -- Rs chen 7754 04:01, 6 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Taxi seasons

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 07:16, 23 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The only article here is not a season. Fuddle ( talk) 03:43, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Schutterstukken

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 seems to be the consensual outcome.-- Ymblanter ( talk) 07:30, 15 June 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: There is a well established English term for these (Rembrandt's The Night Watch etc.) which we should use. Johnbod ( talk) 02:26, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Not any more! I think the plural redirected there already. If you want evidence that "Militia goup portrait" is the normal term, see this search, with 10,700 ghits, including Gardner’s Art Through the Ages etc, versus 3030 for "schutterstuk", the great majority in Dutch. The articles need changing; there are many Dutch editors in this area (and very useful they are too...), including the ones who created this category and also translated Schutterij, which should be renamed. Johnbod ( talk) 20:01, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry about the typo, now adjusted! It is a Dutch phenomenon, almost entirely. As the google link above shows, and the nom says, "militia group portrait" is a very well-established term, and is what English textbooks use. There's no need to trouble ourselves to invent alternatives. As I've said, Schutterij should be renamed, and one day militia group portraits should have their own article, under that name. Johnbod ( talk) 12:38, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename, but lose the "militia" part of the name Thinking this over, I have no problem with changing the category to "17th-century group portraits from the Northern Netherlands" and putting all the regent portraits in there as well (there is also lots of overlap in the people or family members portrayed per town). There are not that many of articles yet about individual paintings of them, and I think it would be useful to also include 16th- and 18th-century categories eventually. My problem with the word militia is this:
  • One of many examples on Commons of a "militia group portrait"
    One of many examples on Commons of a "militia group portrait"

I don't want the Dutch schutterstukken to be re-categorized before this subgenre to Dutch Group portraits is fleshed out more on English Wikipedia. I like the term schutterstuk because it is so specific. The problem with "group militia portrait" is that the term is exceedingly broad, with lots and lots of possibilities, including photos. This problem is amplified by the popularity of the Dutch civic guard portrait as a yearly tradition through the centuries up to today (now a club thing, see for example this club website, just one of many). The point of a category is to make things easier to find, not more difficult. These things we are talking about are like the Nightwatch, but represent a painting tradition that was not specifically Dutch (they exist in Germany and France as well) and not specifically militia (sometimes the roll call of the officiers was deliberately switched around to enable the full council to be represented. By Rembrandt's day, most militia members were no longer members of the Amsterdam city council, but this was still the case for smaller towns. Jane ( talk) 07:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Jane, "schutterstukken" is certainly very specific, but is in Dutch and almost no English-speakers know what it means. It is not one of those foreign terms that have been adopted in art history in English. WP:USEENGLISH is a strong policy here; foreign language category names should be avoided where at all possible. Please look at the google searches above; "militia group portrait" is in fact also very specific and almost never used for anything except "schutterstukken" in English - find me an example if you can. The photo you pick above is described as "Informal group portrait of members of the militia". A note on the category page should clarify the scope, keeping stray items out. Remember this is an article category, & such photos are most unlikely to be notable. You say: "The point of a category is to make things easier to find, not more difficult" - EXACTLY! This should not just be for Dutch-speakers. I have no problem with adding some disambiguator at the end, but this is not necessary. English art history treats "militia group portrait" as a synonym for schutterstukken. Category:Dutch group portraits could be set up now, with this as a sub-cat, and perhaps 5 other members, which no doubt will grow. But I think it's good to keep the militia group apart. Johnbod ( talk) 13:44, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Believe there are lots of these and you really don't need to look hard at all
    Believe there are lots of these and you really don't need to look hard at all
I noticed "militia group portrait" is not used by the AAT ( see this link) and so we shouldn't either. As I said, my problem with the term "militia" is that many of the portrayed were not members of any militia. I don't really care how they are categorized on Commons. If I had time, I would change it there, because those categories definitely need cleaning up. My vote goes with Category:17th-century group portraits from the Northern Netherlands, not "Dutch", which is a term generally reserved for the period of the state of the Netherlands after the Belgian secession. Jane ( talk) 16:50, 30 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Well I don't agree with that at all; most people like Seymour Slive do use it. AAT just don't have a term that specific. By the way, you are thinking in Dutch if you believe that term is "generally reserved for the period of the state of the Netherlands after the Belgian secession" - that is 100% not true in English. Johnbod ( talk) 03:50, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Sorry, I stand corrected - it IS in the AAT and I was barking up the wrong tree ( see this link). Please don't accuse me of Dutch thinking, you sound like my mother! Jane ( talk) 09:09, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Interesting! They prefer "militia pieces", which I don't think would work as a category name at all. They take from an important group of reference sources, but a limited range. If I have time I might survey my books on this area to see what they use, & give results here, which I would expect to confirm my nom above. Sorry if I sounded like your mother! Johnbod ( talk) 14:13, 1 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Well I suppose I have to just accept the fact that I have lived longer in the Netherlands than any other country, so I guess it's not your fault (or my mother's!). I still don't like the word "militia" at all, but I will concede the point in favor of the Getty's recommendation. I guess their "militia piece" is a literal translation of schutter=militia man & stuk=piece, in the sense that flower paintings are flower pieces (bloom=flower & stuk=piece) and so forth. Those are also very old terms that go back to early estate inventories. In the same section I was also very surprised to read that these are only considered prevalent in the Netherlands in the 16th and 17th century and I know that's not true, because I have seen them in Germany and France. Perhaps they have only *kept* them in the Netherlands. They are quite large and of course complicated and expensive to restore, which by the way wasn't even attempted until the 1920s. I can imagine the French throwing out somber black canvases that take up a whole wall. Jane ( talk) 05:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Ok. I would have thought the French kings were very anti anthing like a civil guard or militia! One large council group portrait by Philippe de Champaigne got cut up into several heads, & I can't think of others before the Revolution, outside the clergy. Johnbod ( talk) 06:17, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
One more using "militia group portrait" is: MacLaren, Neil, The Dutch School, 1600–1800, Volume I, 1991, National Gallery Catalogues, National Gallery, London, ISBN  0947645993, in bio of f hals, vol 1, p.154. Johnbod ( talk) 22:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Rename per nom. We should use the English term used in written sources. Dimadick ( talk) 16:54, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
For the record, I withdraw my objections. renaming to something with "militia" is fine. Jane ( talk) 16:35, 21 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Song cycles by Arthur Sullivan

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: Deletion after upmerge of the article to its two parent categories. Ricky81682 ( talk) 22:02, 22 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Arthur Sullivan only wrote one song cycle, so the category can never have more than one member. Per WP:SMALLCAT, can an admin delete it and return the the one member of the category to where it was? All the best! -- Ssilvers ( talk) 01:47, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Dual Upmerge to both parents per WP:SMALLCAT. RevelationDirect ( talk) 12:03, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge -- This reflects a common problem with musical categories, where we get a lot of categories related to the work of one person or band - songs by, albums by, works by, band members, and then a eponymous category to parent them all. Except for the most prolific, I wonder whether the nom should not be one eponymous category into which the rest are merged. I suspect I will get howls of protest that this will disrupt a lot of other trees. However for film and TV franchises, I frequently note on the basis "one franchise, one category", and I so not see why something similar should not apply to music. In this case it may mean that an article is directly in a song cycles category, whereas other composers have theirs in sub-cats, but does that matter. Peterkingiron ( talk) 10:45, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Dual Upmerge as per RevelationDirect's suggestion. Dimadick ( talk) 16:56, 17 May 2015 (UTC) reply
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:Buddhist monasteries in Ladakh

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. Marcocapelle ( talk) 15:28, 8 May 2015 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The rest of Category:Buddhist monasteries in India falls under Category:Buddhist monasteries in India by state or territory which should be under the state of Jammu and Kashmir as opposed to the Ladakh region within the state. Ricky81682 ( talk) 00:00, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Oppose We have 38 monasteries in the Ladakh area, many of which are historically strongly associated with Ladakh. We have articles on buildings and structures for districts and municipalities within regions, this is no different. You'd have a point if it was just 2 or 3, but 38 articles, perfectly fine.♦ Dr. Blofeld 09:28, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply

Well, creating the category kinds of making my argument odd but, still every monastery in the Ladakh area is also within the Jammu and Kashir state, correct? The question is then whether to use the official states as the final level of organization or to go even further into the administrative districts one of which Ladakh (which is not a general, vague area like 'region'). I suggest using the state level (I don't think 'territory' refers to below state) for consistency as the others there are for the states of Arunachal Pradesh‎, Himachal Pradesh‎, Sikkim and West Bengal‎ and not broken down further. -- Ricky81682 ( talk) 10:10, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
It is, but Ladakh is important as historically when these monasteries were mostly built it was very much a region I believe, and I'm sure many of our readers interested in this topic will be grateful of a category linking them. The Jammu one can hold this sub category. I'll see if we can create some monasteries outside of Ladakh in the wider Jammu region to populate it a bit. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:24, 26 April 2015 (UTC) reply
Ladakh is certainly at present considered part of the Indian state of Jammu and Kashmir politically, but this is only a relatively recent arrangement. It has always been recognised as a unique region, and still is. It is geographically, culturally, linguistically, and historically clearly separate. The people refer to themselves "Ladhaki," and I have never heard them referred to as "Kashmiri." For many centuries it was an independent kingdom, and culturally and has been an integral part of the Tibetan cultural sphere for well over a thousand years.
Ladakh is dramatically separated from the rest of the state by forbiddingly high and rugged mountain ranges, and the environment and lifestyle of the people are vastly different from those in the settled and mainly lowland regions of Jammu and Kashmir. The many important and active Buddhist monasteries, in particular, bear witness to the vast cultural differences between Ladakh, which is mainly Buddhist with close cultural ties to Tibet, and the rest of the state, which is mainly Muslim with close cultural ties to the rest of the Muslim world and with, historically, a significant Hindu minority. I have visited Jammu and Kashmir, including Ladakh, several times, travelled throughout the region, and lived next to it for several years. I can certainly say that I have never heard anyone question the uniqueness of the region and its people despite of its present recent inclusion in the state of Jammu-Kashmir. I think, therefore, the article should reflect this status and give precedence to the cultural, religious and geographical differences rather than its recent political inclusion in Jammu and Kashmir. John Hill ( talk) 21:55, 27 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per those above. The merge would mess up other Ladakh categories too. Johnbod ( talk) 00:53, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
  • Keep -- Ladakh is a Buddhist region, and (I think) geographically separated from others parts of Kashmir. Historically, I think it was one of a number of petty kingdoms within this part of the British Raj. Chitral (now in Pakistan) was another. Provided that we can define an area with definite boundaries there is no reason why we should not keep this. I would not suggest removing the target, even if it ends off with no other population or creating siblings for other parts of Kashmir that are destined to remain largely empty. Peterkingiron ( talk) 09:54, 28 April 2015 (UTC) reply
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.


Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_April_26&oldid=1138408291"