From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 29 May 31 >

May 30

Category:Portable furniture

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:12, 23 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:OR? Hardly defining, as all furniture is portable, it's just a matter of need and effort. Contains pretty random stuff, such as Litter (vehicle) (a vehicle, not furniture) or Poäng (a chair that is not more portable than any other chair). Sandstein 21:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I take your point that anything can be moved with enough effort, Sandstein. We have Category:Portable buildings and shelters, Category:Portable stove manufacturers, Category:Portable electronics, Category:Portable audio players, Category:Portable media players, Category:Portable bridges, even Category:Portable roller coasters. We have articles on Portable computer (but not Portable typewriter), Portable water purification, and so on. So I guess the distinction in scope is for things that are designed to be portable, and to be moved regularly.
I was a bit unsure about "litter", which I got to from sedan chair; maybe not a good call, I'd be fine with removing that. Poäng is a CKD furniture design and I believe the assembly is reversible; it packs flat. Perhaps CKD furniture should be its own category; some of it is not designed to be taken apart again.
Some cultures put furniture away and take it out over the course of the day to change the use of a room (parts of East Asia and the Middle East, for instance). Generally these are cultures that sit on or near the floor, so the furniture is smaller and lighter than if it was made for sitting half a meter above the floor. Then there's cultures that are nomadic or semi-nomadic, and pack furniture up to move it from place to place; medieval European rulers, who travelled around their domains, had such furniture, as did soldiers ( campaign furniture). Movable folding furniture of various types generally folds so that it can be easily packed away or transported, so it is included. Such folding furniture might also go in Category:Space-saving furniture, which has been around for years. Generally, Category:Furniture is not very well-categorized, and I'd be delighted if someone with more experience with categorization had a go at it. HLHJ ( talk) 22:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • I'd be in favour of a cat for folding furniture, but it wouldn't be logically equivalent. Metamorphic or mechanical furniture usually folds; wall beds may be built into the wall and thus very non-portable, and folding seats are generally bolted to something, but they fold up. A chabudai (1800s-modern type of Japanese table), on the other hand, is designed to be stowed away in a closet and taken out again at least once a day, and is likely to be transferred between rooms, or even hauled out to a garden. But it may or may not have folding legs; the legs are so short that they don't make it very unwieldy or bulky. Ditto for much Japanese furniture, including traditional beds; they get packed away each morning, but aren't exactly folding in the hinge-or-pivot sense. The same goes for Middle Eastern and Central Asian furniture, which we have much less content on, and most nomadic furniture. Some medieval progress-through-the-realm furniture, like the Glastonbury chair and trestle tables, readily dismantles to pack flat, but doesn't actually fold. Other medieval European designs, like a desk on a chest or a portable desk, don't fold (unless you count the lid), but are designed to be moved around. Most campaign furniture disassembles or turns itself into chests; only a small amount of it folds; a quick skim of the photos in that article will show what I mean. HLHJ ( talk) 15:03, 31 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • It is not equivalent indeed, but it might be an alternative to deletion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:09, 31 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Apologies, Marcocapelle; you didn't imply that it was equivalent, indeed you clearly implied the contrary. I didn't mean to suggest otherwise, but I did; I should have written and posted my reply in less of a hurry. I think about a third of Category:Portable furniture might go into Category:Foldable furniture, assuming that sometimes-folding things like the chabudai would be in-scope. Plus some folding furniture that isn't portable. I'm unsure if the scope would include mechanical furniture, step chairs and mechanical desks and the like.
CKD furniture is a common industrial classification and possibly sufficiently unsubjective. CKD furniture is a bit borderline as it is made to be shipped to the consumer, then assembled, but not necessarily moved more than once. I think any cat for CKD furniture should exclude things like Glastonbury chairs, since they are designed to be repeatedly moved by the consumer, but I'm open to argument.
All buildings can also be moved with enough effort; even the temples of Abu Simbel, cut into the living rock. Portable building says "A portable, demountable or transportable building is a building designed and built to be movable rather than permanently located." I don't think that's too subjective for buildings. Distinguishing furniture designed to be moved about from furniture not made to be moved is, in my direct experience of furniture, fairly clear: if you want to move it, you build in characteristic design features, so that it takes less space or weight or doesn't break in transit (I have no experience of sedan chairs).
With sedan chairs, and presumably hibachi and shichirin, and maybe Japanese-style futons and zabutons, possibly even portable desks and Bible boxes, the question might be more "Are they really furniture?" (a non-portable sedan chair would be pretty useless ). The article definition is "movable objects intended to support various human activities", which would include, say, dishes of food, bike trailers, outboard motors, haystacks, firehoses, and towtrucks; but it is hard to define. Is anyone worried about this, or does everyone think it will be pretty easy to get consensus on whether a thing is furniture?
Would adding categories for folding furniture (overlapping with portable furniture) and CKD furniture (either as a subcat of portable furniture, or a separate cat, but with no overlap), resolve enough of the subjectivity here? Are there any other things in Category:Portable furniture which don't belong there as they are only debateably portable, or furniture? HLHJ ( talk) 01:07, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete not all that defining. Especially since many furniture terms refer to many sizes of things. Is a table protable? Probably all are if you are willing to, but there are some tables I can pick up with little effort and move around my house, and there are some tables like the one in my dining room, that I generally would remove the leaves from before trying to move, and still want at least one other person helping me. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:37, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Absolutely defining. Most furnitures are stationary and are rarely shifted (except for room renovation or cleaning). Some other are designed to be portable -> these have to be in this category. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • keep per Nussbaum. Clearly different from ordinary furniture. Hmains ( talk) 23:45, 20 June 2021 (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:Songs about the boys being back in town

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Single member, unlikely to be expanded. Richhoncho ( talk) 16:56, 30 May 2021 (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:Sawmills in Wisconsin

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. I populated Category:Sawmills in the United States with 32 articles taken from Category:Sawmills. Two were in Wisconsin. I don't think it's a big enough category to break down by U.S. state at this stage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: 1-article state category is too specific when there's no national category. Upmerge for now with no prejudice to creating it again if required. Creator might want to have a look at existing categories before creating new ones - and categorise all new categories in turn. Le Deluge ( talk) 12:25, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Rename or Delete I'm not sure the 1 article, Cedarburg Wire and Nail Factory, is even defined as a sawmill. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 13:29, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Comment I'm absolutely sure there are lots and lots of sawmills in every US State (except e.g. Washington DC which is mostly urban). But nearly never they get relevance rating. And on what criteria? Historical relevance? No idea what for. -- Just N. ( talk) 19:59, 6 June 2021 (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:Irish theologians

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: do not merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:25, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: They are all Christians. Rathfelder ( talk) 09:54, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose:
  1. Both categories are part of an established series, per WP:SMALLCAT.
  2. This is a proposal to downmerge a category to its subcat. That destroys the parenting. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:42, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose also. I have told Rathfelder many times that a category with one subcategory is not a problem, and have pointed out that Rathfelder has created thousands of such categories (eg Category:Omani physicians, sole subcat Category:Omani surgeons, 1 article in all, both created by Rathfelder). I have also stated several times at cfd that downmerges are problematic. Oculi ( talk) 12:16, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    The theological categories are a mess. Even the term theologian is a bit contested for some religions, but it seems pretty obvious that religion is the primary characteristic of theologians. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:07, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Rathfelder, what on earth are you on about? Nobody disputes that religion is the primary characteristic of theologians. That's why theolgians are subcatted by religion. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 13:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Majority arent. Most are categorised by nationality. So Category:Tunisian theologians and Category:Argentine theologians, for example are not connected to a religious subcategory. Rathfelder ( talk) 13:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
    • I see that indenting is still beyond Rathfelder, although all other contributors to cfd have mastered the technique, many on their first day. Category:Tunisian theologians should not be connected to a religious subcat, obviously. Someone like Boubaker El Akhzouri should be in a religious subcat as well as a national one, eg Category:Muslim theologians (if he is one). This does not require the creation of endless intersections. It is this sort of edit which makes a mess of category trees. Oculi ( talk) 20:35, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per @ Oculi:. Plus I find the indenting issue really annoying. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:16, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • There are things about you which I find annoying, but I dont go on about them because it does not encourage an ethos of collaboration. Please stop making personal remarks. Rathfelder ( talk) 20:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC) reply
    • @ Rathfelder, your long-term failure to avoid many errors big and small has been raised at CFD many times, by several editors. If you want to encourage an ethos of collaboration please learn from the criticism instead of complaining about it. You could start by fixing the indentation. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 07:02, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose Some one sub-category container categories work. When we categorize by religion intersecting with nationality this happens lots of times. This is a liveable set up. We want to categorize theologians by both nationality and religious belief/philosophy/whatever the right word for that is. We want to be exact in our description. The way things are works, a few oddities in tree formation is doable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:41, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose -- If the subject had any articles in it, it would probably be appropriate to move them down a level, but it is appropriate to keep the present structure, as we may possibly get one from another religion. Peterkingiron ( talk) 14:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose per Oculi and BrownHairedGirl. -- Just N. ( talk) 20:02, 6 June 2021 (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:Indian Orthodox church buildings

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/merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: WP:C2D, as Indian Orthodox Church redirects to Malankara Orthodox Syrian Church and these are two names for the same organisation. Prefer church buildings to churches to make it clear that these categories contain articles about local church buildings, not independent church organisations. Place Clichy ( talk) 09:31, 30 May 2021 (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:Unofficial leaders

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT and WP:POV. The category is apparently meant for heads of state or prime ministers who are facing an opposition that disputes the election result. Just as an illustration how POV such a category is, people might argue that Joe Biden belongs in here and others would be strongly against it. The category was nominated at CFDS for renaming to Category:Disputed leaders but that does not solve the issue. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:02, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
See also this earlier discussion, @ Tartan357: pinging nominator of that discussion. The creator of the category has already been notified via Twinkle. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:17, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Support: this category shouldn't have such an ambiguous name, and failed speedy renaming for the above reasons. ―  Qwerfjkl |  𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂  (please use {{ reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 07:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. Ambiguous and a honey pot for POV and COATRACK. Consensual democracy is probably the exception on this planet, both in space and time, so undisputed leaders are probably a rarer occurrence. Place Clichy ( talk) 09:21, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete The two people in question are long serving political leaders, who without question are in actual power. This category also suffers from extreme presentism. There are lots of people whose leadership was way more questioned than either of these people. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 12:44, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. -- Just N. ( talk) 20:07, 6 June 2021 (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:Articles using template 'Track gauge' with unrecognized input

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. This doesn't preclude a RfC to formalize a convention. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: To match other tracking categories whose name refer to a specific template, such as Category:Articles using Template:Episode table with invalid colour combination. Contested CFDS ( permalink). – LaundryPizza03 ( d c̄) 15:28, 22 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus
Please add new comments below this notice. As noted, this was contested at CFDS. Thanks, Marcocapelle ( talk) 06:44, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
@ RevelationDirect: can you please link to that naming convention? I'm not seeing it at Category:Tracking categories Van Isaac, MPLL cont WpWS 04:50, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
@ Vanisaac: It's a huge category but you go to the ones that start with "Articles using template..." it's clearer. The vast majority use a colon format ("Category:Articles using Template:") including Category:Articles using Template:Australian television episode ratings with invalid colour combination, Category:Articles using Template:CGNDB without feature name‎, Category:Articles using Template:Cite bcgnis without a feature name, Category:Articles using Template:Episode table with a visible caption, Category:Articles using Template:Infobox ethnic group with deprecated parameters, Category:Articles using Template:IPNI with missing parameters, Category:Articles using Template:Medal missing an expected parameter‎, Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with empty start date‎ and Category:Articles using Template:Series overview with only one row‎. In that section at least, there are no others are putting the template name in quotes although a few use a space instead of a colon. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 18:34, 3 June 2021 (UTC) reply
So there are some general trends, but not a naming convention per se. This might be a good time to just run an RfC to actually make a formal convention. FWIW, I would standardize on the "Template:" format, as it allows a user to directly copy part of the category name into the search box and see the template involved. I wonder if there's an argument for using an underscore "_" for spaces in the template name to avoid ambiguity, which is the virtue of the quotation marks in this CfD. Van Isaac, MPLL cont WpWS 18:58, 3 June 2021 (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:Simultaneity

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:15, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: While I understand what the creator of this category is trying to do here, I think the result is inevitably a set of concepts too disbursed to be a coherent category. As it stands, it includes such things as Simultaneous death, Simultaneous game, and Glocalization, which have no relation to each other beyond the happenstance of describing two or more things happening at once. BD2412 T 04:45, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Oppose "two or more things happening at once" is a defining feature of many concepts. Are you going to nominate for deletion Category:Sequences in time, too? fgnievinski ( talk) 05:01, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I suspect that your bringing it up here multiplies that chances that Category:Sequences in time will be nominated for deletion. BD2412 T 05:37, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
I can't imaging having Category:Earthquake clusters, swarms, and sequences‎, Category:Serial killers, and Category:Film serials in the same category would aid reader navigation. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 09:39, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
Why stop there -- why not delete Category:Periodic phenomena, Category:Temporal exponentials, or Category:Synchronization, too? I'm genuinely trying to understand why you folks think that time quality cannot be a defining feature of a subject. WP:DEFINING trumps everything. fgnievinski ( talk) 03:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC) reply
" WP:DEFINING trumps everything." That's it, exactly! - RevelationDirect ( talk) 23:03, 1 June 2021 (UTC) reply
That DAB page does note the primary topic (the relation between two events assumed to be happening at the same time), though. fgnievinski ( talk) 03:51, 31 May 2021 (UTC) reply
WP:SHAREDNAME gives an important caveat, though: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject" [emphasis added]. So, assuming the definingness of simultaneity is not being challenged, an eponym category seems reasonable. fgnievinski ( talk) 03:51, 31 May 2021 (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:Spacecraft by launch system

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 June 8#Category:Spacecraft by launch system

Category:Organisms associated with Nepenthes

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. The only parent category for Category:Nepenthes infauna was Category:Organisms associated with Nepenthes, so I have placed it in Category:Nepenthes. If users want to move it out of there to a more suitable place, that is fine. There is no Category:Infauna and I'm not familiar enough with the categorization scheme to know where it should go. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:04, 10 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:SMALLCAT & WP:OCASSOC)
Nepenthes is a carnivorous pitcher plant and there are a number of Nepenthes infauna that live nearly exclusively on this plant, so there is a subcategory of this one that is well populated and defining. In contrast, the only article directly in this category is List of Nepenthes endophyte species, which contains species that live many places including this plant. Organisms that live many places are not defined by this association so there's no growth potential past the 1 list article. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:04, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:28, 30 May 2021 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose We shouldn't merge apples and pears! Nepenthes infauna don't belong into Category:Nepenthes. -- Just N. ( talk) 20:46, 6 June 2021 (UTC) reply
  • If that would be an issue then the category should be deleted instead of merged, after manually checking that the articles are interlinked. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:05, 7 June 2021 (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:Streets associated with the University of Cambridge

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 8 June 2021 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING ( WP:OCASSOC)
Many of the streets in Canberra go past government buildings, may of the streets in Detroit go past auto factories, and many of the streets in Cambridge go past university buildings because it's a college town. This is not a workable way of categorizing streets because of the category clutter it would eventually create. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 00:04, 30 May 2021 (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/2021_May_30&oldid=1073193184"