From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13

Category:Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute academic journals

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 4#Category:Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute academic journals. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 05:50, 4 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: To match the article, MDPI and the actual name of the publisher. Headbomb { t · c · p · b} 20:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment it would probably be better to split the article. Then we could keep the category name. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:08, 22 January 2018 (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:Fictional characters with extra-sensory perception and communication

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 02:01, 24 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Per article Extrasensory perception, but not quite speedyable. LaundryPizza03 ( talk) 19:25, 13 January 2018 (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.

Estonian military physicians

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:29, 20 January 2018 (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.

Austrian military physicians

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:26, 20 January 2018 (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:Native American fashion designers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 6#Category:Native_American_fashion_designers. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:28, 6 February 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Due to the semantic ambiguity of Native American, i.e. the question of whether it refers to all indigenous peoples of the North and South American continents or only the ones from the United States, Wikipedia has a standing practice of using the term in the latter, uncontroversial sense rather than the former, highly loaded one -- if a category is meant to be inclusive of everyone from Ellesmere Island to Tierra del Fuego, then we use the wording "Indigenous X of the Americas" (as witness parent category Category:Indigenous artists of the Americas and its other subcategories) rather than "Native American". It would also be acceptable to create the proposed rename as a separate category, and then move the four Canadians to it while retaining this as a US-specific subcategory, but with just 15 people filed here so far I'm not convinced that national subcategorization would be necessary yet. But what cannot happen is this category staying at this name, and being filed as a subcategory of US-specific categories, while simultaneously staying inclusive of Canadian Inuit and First Nations people. Bearcat ( talk) 18:10, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Seperate out the First Nations individuals. THe reason this category is not being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is because in fashion design there is just not a long standing, transnational practice of the art in the sense that makes it a logical sub-cat of the generalized indigenous Americas artists category. I have to admit I am less than convinced that this is a case where the intersection of ethnicity and occupation is defining. In a category like Category:Native American potters the people involved often are using or at least highly influenced by ethnic practices, I am less than convinced this is the case in fashion design. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:45, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Well, to be fair, one of the people who's been added here (the one who I was already familiar with, because I created her article in the first place through my work with WikiProject Film) is a costume designer who has worked exclusively on films in which what she had to design was traditional Inuit garb — and I just spotchecked several of the other articles, all of which explicitly stated that the subject incorporated indigenous influences into their clothing design, such as beadwork and fabric patterning. So I'm more comfortable with calling this a validly defining characteristic — and I don't believe the creator actually intended this to be restricted exclusively to Canada and the United States, either: I suspect that the real reason this isn't being used for people from south of the Rio Grande is just that either we don't have articles about indigenous clothing designers from south of the Rio Grande yet or we do and the creator just hasn't found them. I don't see any evidence that the creator intended to restrict its scope to "Canada/US only" — the usage note on the category page, in fact, says it's for designers from North and South America. Bearcat ( talk) 19:02, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
As creator of the category, I must say I intended it to be able to cover native fashion designers from anywhere in North and South America. For me, Native American (see here) is therefore the appropriate term but that may not be the case for North American usage. (I see, you Bearcat, are Canadian.) I just created the category yesterday and have populated it primarily with people from the United States and Canada as I am more familiar with their traditions. At WiR, we are in the process of expanding coverage of fashion designers and I expect that sooner or later we will have biographies of native fashion designers from Latin America too. I therefore have nothing against a change in line with the proposal although I think "Native American" is a more familiar term for users. Furthermore, it allows straightforward inclusion in Category:Native American people by occupation and Category:Native American artists. If it is to be moved to "Indigenous...", then probably all the other Native American occupation categories should be moved too. I note, btw, that there are only 13 subcategories in Category:Indigenous people of the Americas by occupation compared to 23 in Category:Native American people by occupation. SusunW who proposed the category and Ser Amantio di Nicolao who has been involved in earlier discussions may also like to comment.-- Ipigott ( talk) 11:28, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
The sources which refer to the topic clearly use Native American fashion designers [1] with over 3 million hits for the topic. For indigenous fashion designers in the Americas the result is 963,000 hits, but note that the majority are titled Native American fashion designers. A narrowed search with quotations results in 177,000 articles for Native American fashion designers and 0 for indigenous fashion designers (and for First Nations fashion designers 5,540). In researching the article I am writing on the topic, it is very clear that the movement encompasses all of the Americas, with designers from the entirety competing in major fashion centers across the region. In fact, most of the South American designers I have been able to find information about was through the search for Native American fashion and their inclusion in fashion shows. The term "Native American fashion" refers specifically to people participating in haute couture, not artisans producing traditional clothing. Initially all the designers used a pan-Indian focus including recognizable elements of native cultures, to create a broad "market appeal" and acceptance for their work. As they gained acceptance, the trend has been to move away from broad focus and now design as representatives of their individual communities. Their designs may or may not include elements of their tribal heritage, but the defining characteristic is that they must be producing goods for the fashion industry (not craftwork) and must belong to a recognized indigenous identity. As both the museum industry and the fashion industry have recognized that this is a specific subgroup of fashion designers, I hardly see why we would not, to address John Pack Lambert's concerns. The potential for designers in the category is fairly substantial. I understand the logic of Bearcat's proposal and would have no problem with adding an additional category of indigenous designers, but as the sourcing validates the current naming scheme it seems illogical to eliminate it. SusunW ( talk) 15:46, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Ipigott, just to be clear, we have some category trees where there's a more finely developed scheme of subcategorizing indigenous North American peoples more specifically than just one Ellesmere-to-Fuego sweep — "Native Americans" is an entirely appropriate term when the category is US-specific, but not when it's meant to be inclusive of Canadian First Nations, Inuit or Métis or Central/South American indigenous peoples. So we don't necessarily need to rename all "Native American" categories — most of them are already US-specific and parented by a broader continental "Indigenous X of the Americas", and the few that aren't need to be fixed. "Native American" is an entirely acceptable name when the category's scope is US-specific, it's just not appropriate for a category that's meant to include Canadians and Brazilians and Peruvians and Mexicans too. So we need to either rename the category if consensus would prefer keeping everybody all together in one transnational category, or create a transnational parent for it and move the non-USians up to there if consensus would prefer two categories. I'm fine with either solution, just not with leaving Canadians in a category whose name remains "Native American". Bearcat ( talk) 16:29, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
I would support one transnational parent with creation of additional categories for specific groups, based on the rationale presented. As the topic expands, it may well be that First Nations fashion designers, Puruhá fashion designers, etc. will be a large enough group to support their own category as well. SusunW ( talk) 19:16, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
No, it doesn't. Category:Native American people is the country-specific subcat for the ones from the United States specifically, while Category:Indigenous people of the Americas is the transnational parent category for Native Americans and Canadian First Nations/Inuit/Métis and Central and Latin American peoples all the way down to Tierra del Fuego. There's no conflict between that and this; in fact, it bolsters this rather than contradicting it, because it proves that we use the terms the way I described in my nomination statement. Bearcat ( talk) 23:42, 24 January 2018 (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:Pisa-class cruisers of the Hellenic Navy

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: upmerge ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete and upmerge; single-member category of zero value. Constantine ✍ 14:22, 13 January 2018 (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:Pandalapaka

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:06, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: This category only disambiguates two different villages with the same name. That's not something categories are for: we don't, for instance have a Category:Belmont containing all the numerous places called Belmont in the world Reyk YO! 09:14, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. I just converted Pandalapaka from a redirect to a disambiguation page. - Eureka Lott 18:54, 13 January 2018 (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:Bandini Automobili

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 for now. This is related to ongoing discussions about at the topic at WT:WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini_deletions, and about the nominator at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#Ongoing_trolling_by_TenPoundHammer ( permalink). When those those discussions have concluded and the dust has settled, a new nomination may have a different outcome. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:36, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, only 2 articles Ten Pound Hammer • ( What did I screw up now?) 08:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Maybe it's just empty because you've been off on a little crusade to blank all the Bandini articles first? Andy Dingley ( talk) 13:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep At least until the recently started topic at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Automobiles#Bandini deletions has reached a fuller consensus. Eagleash ( talk) 13:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as above --> Typ932 T· C 13:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep also as above. Springee ( talk) 17:52, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The FIA considers Bandini as highly significant amongst Italian sportscars. The articles do require a lot of work, but simply deleting them, then proposing the category is deleted seems more like lazy vandalism than anything else. Mighty Antar ( talk) 21:55, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Question @ TenPoundHammer and Andy Dingley: do I understand correctly that the blanked articles were an issue in the articles in Category:Bandini vehicles rather than in any articles in the nominated category? Marcocapelle ( talk) 23:08, 18 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Conditional support per nom if my impression is right that the keep votes are not referring to anything in the nominated category but rather to its subcat. Marcocapelle ( talk) 17:27, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
If your point is that we need one category here rather than two, I'd be happy with that. It should probably be this one though, Bandini Automobili, as Ilario Bandini isn't a car. However there will almost certainly be someone else who wants to split them, on that same basis. Andy Dingley ( talk) 21:18, 19 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • I think it is sufficient to keep the subcat and list Bandini Automobili as the main article in the header of the subcat. There is no point in keeping a category for a single biography. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:47, 20 January 2018 (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.

Years and decades up to 1500 in Asian countries

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 all per amended nomination, which will merge the Kingdom of Georgia to both Europe and Asia. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 12:15, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Example
The full list of categories to merged/deleted is on the talk page.
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. This nomination concerns China, the kingdom of Georgia, India and Vietnam. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:03, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The Kingdom of Georgia (1008-1490) covered much of the Caucasus, at the borders of Asia and Europe, and coastal areas in Ukraine. It was transcontinental, not simply an Asian country. Dimadick ( talk) 08:54, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge everything for these years in the a general 1034 in Eurasia etc category. The line between Europe and Asia is a matter of political geography and drawn based on assumed cultural borders. It is too hard to fix in this period, and any fixing imposes a world-view developed by European geographers of the 16th-century and later on an earlier time period. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 18:50, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • In that case, we might drop a diffusion by continent in the Middle Ages entirely, because in this period only Europe and Asia are sufficiently populated to have year categories. Note that we already dropped the diffusion by continent in the period before 500, so it's not a completely new thought. But frankly, let's leave this to a fresh discussion. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:14, 14 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support for China, India, Vietnam. leave Georgia for the moment. Oppose Eurasia suggestion. The boundary between Europe and Asia is debatable south of the Urals, particularly as certain Caucasian lands now wish to be called European. My view is that Georgia is Asia; but that is my POV. The answer may be to have Caucasus as a parent and to place it in both European and Asia trees. This is an alternative solution to JPL's issue. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:45, 14 January 2018 (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:Fish of Burkina Faso

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:20, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: That a species (e.g. Hormonotus or Chiloglanis occidentalis) is found in a particular West-African country is WP:NON-DEFINING.  Example similar CFD: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_November_23#Category:Mammals_of_Benin. DexDor (talk) 07:12, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
And example of a previous fish CFD DexDor (talk) 17:57, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment Are all the fish in the Burkina Faso. Mali, and Niger categories freshwater fish? Dimadick ( talk) 08:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Those 3 countries are not on the coast and their categories are already in the freshwater fish category. DexDor (talk) 09:40, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment In some cases, if you look at the articles in the category, the categorization should be higher still. The real problem is the random creation of distribution categories by type of organism (fish, freshwater fish, moths, reptiles, protostomes, etc.) and by geographical location (states or provinces within countries, individual countries, biogeographical regions, politically defined regions, etc.). It's a total mess. However, I support small steps! Peter coxhead ( talk) 09:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Merge per nom. With rare exceptions, plant and animal species are not confined or defined by political borders — they are constrained by broader regions, such as continents and climate zones. So we have a long-established consensus not to categorize plant and animal species by individual country, because that causes extreme category bloat when a plant or animal that's found in 15 countries gets added to 15 categories — we categorize plant and animal species by broad geographic regions such as West Africa, not by individual country within West Africa. And I see no reason to believe that consensus has changed on this — what I do see, however, is a lot of other flora/fauna categories for other West African countries that were also created against consensus and also have to go. Bearcat ( talk) 22:25, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
@ Bearcat: absolutely right. There's been gross over-fine categorization of distributions, and a few editors have been creating categories without displaying any understanding of guidelines and without attempting to reach a consensus. Peter coxhead ( talk) 23:06, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Support -- Biota boundaries do not generally conform to political ones. If we need a split it should be between climatic regions: Tropical Forests, savannah, the Sahel, and Sahara. Peterkingiron ( talk) 20:50, 14 January 2018 (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:Fictional pedophiles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 26#Category:Fictional_pedophiles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 14:11, 26 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: More inclusive; some characters listed are technically not pedophiles. -- Samantha Ireland ( talk) 05:47, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Oppose A bit of the apples and oranges here. Pedophilia is an exclusive sexual attraction towards "prepubescent children", typically younger than 13-years-old. Hebephilia is persistent sexual interest towards children in the early stages of adolescence, typically between 11 and 14-years-old. The study we cite from the Prevention Project Dunkelfeld noted that about 2/3 of those questioned expressed interest in the young adolescents, while interest in the prepubescents was less often. Pedophilia is currently classified as a psychiatric disorder, while hebephilia is not and is considered likely to be far more commonplace in adults. Dimadick ( talk) 09:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
While all of that is true, the problem is that people regularly conflate the two — e.g. while most (though certainly not all) media sources about the Roy Moore allegations were correctly more careful in their terminology, in everyday conversation people just incorrectly called him a pedophile. So articles about non-pedophiles keep getting added to this category, and readded again if they get removed, so we would need to either add "hebephiles" to the name for clarity (libel not an issue given that we're talking about fictional characters here) or create a separate category for the hebephiles. I don't know which of those is the better solution, but we definitely can't just leave the category at its existing name without doing something about the repeated addition of non-pedophiles to it. Bearcat ( talk) 18:18, 13 January 2018 (UTC) reply
  • Comment the ranges "younger than 13-years-old" and "between 11 and 14-years-old" are partly overlapping, that might imply that hebephiles and pedophiles are also partly overlapping. Marcocapelle ( talk) 07:18, 14 January 2018 (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.

Bluefield State Big Blues

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 all. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 11:16, 20 January 2018 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: The athletic teams at Bluefield State College are known as the "Big Blues", not the "Owls". Jweiss11 ( talk) 00:50, 13 January 2018 (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/2018_January_13&oldid=871693137"