[go: nahoru, domu]
Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 10

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< May 9 May 11 >

May 10

edit

Category:Johnson Family Enterprises

edit
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: procedural close of discussion, the category has already been deleted per WP:G6 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:25, 11 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The main article for this category was deleted because it appears this entity does not actually exist, so it seems pretty clear that the category shouldn’t exist either. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:45, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. How can a topic be categorized by something non-existent? 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 21:50, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Correct me if I am mistaken, please. Is it not the case that a number of companies are wholly or partly owned by the Johnson family via a holding company, and these are often informally referred to collectively as the "Johnson Family Enterprises"? If that is true, then this might be a legitimate basis for classification, whether "Johnson Family Enterprises" is a legal entity or not. Possibly a change of name or a clarifying edit to the category page would be needed. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 22:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That’s possibly a fair point, although I’m not sure I have seen it used that way myself. However, the current category does not directly contain a single article and has only a subcategory, Category:Samuel Curtis Johnson family, which as the name suggests is mostly articles about the family members, and the use of capital letters suggests a proper noun identifying a real organization. So I don’t think this category really does anything useful as far as navigation and the name suggests an entity that we have established is not actually a real thing. Beeblebrox (talk) 22:43, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am the historian for SC Johnson and an expert on the history and culture of the company. SC Johnson has been privately owned and operated by the Johnson family since 1886. While the Johnson family does own other businesses, they are all independent of one another and are not managed under any sort of parent company. The category is cause for confusion on this issue so I am respectfully asking that it be deleted.Wax86 (talk) 22:47, 10 May 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:Vertebrates of Guinea

edit
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 to Category:Vertebrates of West Africa. As the latter has sub-cats Category:Amphibians of West Africa and Category:Reptiles of West Africa, I attempted to merge the contents to those more specific sub-categories. As it turned out, every page was already in one of those categories. – Fayenatic London 11:12, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining - e.g. White-headed dwarf gecko doesn't mention this country.  Note: this category was inadvertently omitted from this CFD.  Note: Nearly all the articles in this category are already in a subcat of the target category so a manual upmerge might be best. DexDor (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2018 (UTC) All the articles (currently 42) in this category are already in a subcategory of the target (mostly in Category:Amphibians of West Africa). DexDor (talk) 21:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Lists are at Wildlife of Guinea. DexDor (talk) 21:06, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for improving the Wildlife of Guinea article based on Category:Vertebrates of Guinea. Could you now do the same for the list/wildlife articles corresponding to categories that have already been eradicated, i.e., all the other West African countries? Having a list would make loss of a category more bearable, but does not change the fact that categories and lists complement each other. Momentarily, the category and the updated wildlife list give a reader similar access to the set of Guinean amphibian and reptile articles. The key difference is that categories stay automatically updated when the species articles are added or updated, whereas the lists need to be updated manually. The latter is just not going to happen, unless new eager editors emerge. Micromesistius (talk) 08:58, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The best list articles are those compiled directly from a RS (e.g. they are much more complete including redlinks). Lists compiled from a category often only show a small fraction of the relevant species - this especially applies to categories created by editors like Nono64/Notwith who create a category (e.g. Category:Spiders of Great Britain) put a handful of articles in it and then move on to creating another category.
Many articles about species don't list every country/state the species is found in - they say something like "found across <continent>" (although this is probably less common with amphibians as they tend to have more limited distribution than other groups). Thus, the wp category system isn't well suited for use as a species-location matrix (other reasons include that wp category tags are separated from references and don't capture nuances such as "summer only" or "now extinct in this country") - WikiData may be better suited to doing that and for some groups (e.g. fish and birds - I don't know if there is for amphibians) there are other online databases purpose designed to do this. Consider also edits like this that remove a page from categories - by comparison once a species is in a list article it'll probably stay there (and the list can easily be watched). DexDor (talk) 19:31, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that articles based on reliable sources would be the ultimate goal. The trouble is that for groups with fluid taxonomy and relatively high rate of species discovery, such as amphibians, list articles are difficult to maintain, requiring effort from dedicated editors. The beauty of categories is that they are easy to maintain, which is an important consideration for groups with few dedicated editors. E.g., for a widely distributed species, a simple taxonomic change like assigning a species to another genus may necessitate updates in tens of list pages, whereas the categories would simply follow when the page is moved. My experience is that categories see little vandalism or nonconstructive editing (apart from indiscriminate category creation/splitting of the type you mentioned). They would be easier to police if we had agreed guidelines, like Wikipedia:PLANTS/WGSRPD (tailored to the characteristics of different animal groups and the preferences of their editor base). It is true that categories lack detail, although this is often achievable through category intersection (e.g., extinct species, though not regionally extinct ones); migration is an issue for some groups but not for many others. Including such detail in list pages is indeed easy but also makes their maintenance more challenging. It is true that categories are at most as complete as WP itself, and often less. But if somebody wants an authoritative species list for a country, they are likely to use a more specialized website. I see categories as useful navigational aids to the contents of WP, with all its imperfections. Micromesistius (talk) 20:17, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Categories do have an advantage over list articles that if the species is renamed (how common is that?), and hence the article is renamed, then the category automatically shows the new name.  However, a list showing an old name (that links, via a redirect, to the new name) is less of a problem for readers than an incomplete  list.  A category that attempts to list all the species found in a small (on a global scale) country may never be complete because editors may remove the category tags (example) if there are a lot of them (and especially if the article makes no mention of that country).  Some amphibians (e.g. European green toad which has also previously been categorized for Spain) are found across lots of countries (and of course things like birds even more so).  Lists also have other advantages over categories (e.g. showing latin names in italics).  In my experience the editors/bots who create new species articles (not specifically amphibians) don't put a lot of effort into seeing which countries (and smaller regions) that the species occurs in have categories (which can be pretty random); they often choose to categorize just at the continent level. Hence, a fauna-of-country category won't "automatically" update. DexDor (talk) 15:46, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Again, the situation is likely to be quite different for amphibians and reptiles compared to, say, birds. According to the Reptile Database, "212 new taxa have been added or changed their status or name" in May to October 2017. According to the AmphibiaWeb, between 116 and 195 new amphibian species per year were described in 2004–2017. I do not know the numbers of name changes per year, but they are quite numerous, some of them for nomenclatural reasons (e.g., Amietophrynus->Sclerophrys), others for systematic reasons (splitting of Hylarana), still largely unimplemented. Also family-level classification is quite fluid, which is the reason why I endorsed the automatic taxobox system when it was not as orthodox as it is now. I think I could keep myself fully busy bringing amphibian taxonomy to match Amphibian species of the World or AmphibiaWeb, but I am putting more effort to destubbing. It is my experience too that people creating new species stubs tend not to pay much attention to categories, but they pay even less attention to articles that could link to them. What is perhaps most typical is that they add the new species also to the corresponding genus article, but do not update the species list in a systematic way, nor update the sources, leading to lists where the contents and the access date of the source do not match. I cannot recall any example of new amphibian species being added to country lists, but I do not follow many country lists, so I guess it happens from time to time. All in all, I would maintain that new herps are more likely to get properly categorized (with some delay) than to be part of lists. The situation is likely very different for birds and mammals, with few new species and relatively stable taxonomy. As I have said before, the best solutions will vary from group to group. I congratulate the bird and mammal projects for their ability to create and maintain comprehensive country lists. For amphibians, this is a distant dream. Complete amphibian lists probably exist for some European countries and island states with poor fauna, Canada might also be quite complete, but likely not much elsewhere. Micromesistius (talk) 20:26, 21 May 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:Organic farming organizations

edit
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 admin action required (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 6 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To widen the scope of the category. No category for the retail type organic food organisations, but not enough of them for their own category. Rathfelder (talk) 17:36, 10 May 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:Historic Florida architecture 1989 AIA survey

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering 08:06, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All subcategories listed here
Nominator's rationale: The category relies on a single point of reference with no criteria explained and can't verify based on the given information with the ISBN ([1]). I would be ok with this being an article like "List of historic Florida architecture 1989 AIA survey listings" where it's much more manageable versus these categories. I'm essentially looking at 67 categories that can't be verified. – TheGridExe (talk) 15:22, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: All subcats have been nominated...should...I...list...them? Listed above. – TheGridExe (talk) 20:56, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support - agree entirely with nom. Oculi (talk) 22:11, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- As I am not familiar with Florida, I would not want my vote counted. However, I have grave doubts about this category tree. Only 3 of the subcategories have over 10 articles and many less than five. The whole tree appears to be based on the content of a book, which has distinguished compilers but (apparently) no official status. It thus reflects the PIV of the compilers as to what was best. I do not think we have categories for buildings in the county volumes (for England) of Nikolaus Pevsner, which might be an equivalent. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  •   Comment: It looks like I'm able to verify the materials in the book. The book can be found here as part of University of Florida's Library. The question is would even a list be ok to use - I feel like it could be a directory which Wikipedia is not. Also, it looks like editions of the book are made. – TheGridExe (talk) 02:24, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: Pinging you on your thoughts based on the above. For example, your question about Hawthorne Historical Museum and Cultural Center would be on page 67 of the book. – TheGridExe (talk) 18:45, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • A category has to be based on sourced info in the article, not in some external list. Is a mention in this book sufficiently important to be in the article? I would have thought not. In any case the person adding the category has to add text to the article to justify the category, otherwise anyone can remove the category. Oculi (talk) 20:15, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: I agree, just wanted thoughts on the matter since I was able to find the source. The book doesn't establish a criteria for placement and it's merely a collection of information on buildings. I even looked at some examples in my local area and still ended up with questions onto why it was presented. – TheGridExe (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – TheGridExe (talk) 20:16, 5 July 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:Proposed railway stations in County Down

edit
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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: 1 article, no prospect of expansion, not part of an established series. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:33, 10 May 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:Buddhist communities of Laos

edit
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Timrollpickering 10:58, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The same reason as Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 12#Category:Buddhist Communities of Thailand: This is a trivial intersection of religion and ethnic group, which aren't actual ethnoreligious groups. Paul_012 (talk) 06:10, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Paul 012.--Farang Rak Tham (Talk) 11:46, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Farang Rak Tham Oops. Just noticed that I made a mistake in the nomination. I had meant to nominate Category:Buddhist communities of Laos, not the parent category. Will fix now. --Paul_012 (talk) 13:25, 10 May 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:Destruction of churches by Muslims

edit
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. ℯxplicit 00:58, 18 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per actual content, most of these articles are not specifically about churches, so the category is not distinct from its parent category. The few articles that are about churches, like 2016 Samarinda church bombing, and also the subcategory, should be added to the other two parent categories as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:24, 10 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Ah, I see there is already a sub-cat Churches destroyed by Muslims, so you are saying that the nominated category is an unnecessary layer.
I also note that you have been restructuring the contents of Category:Destruction of religious buildings, moving most of the contents down into Category:Demolished places of worship, even though "destruction" and "demolition" are not identical. Please could you draw out the hierarchy that you think should exist at the end of the process you have in mind? – Fayenatic London 10:02, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Right, the nominated category is an unnecessary layer. I am not sure whether "destruction" or "demolition" is preferable but it definitely makes sense to align the categories in this respect. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:19, 15 May 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:Destruction of mosques by communists

edit
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. Timrollpickering 10:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, these articles are primarily about mosques, not primarily about destruction. (For the second category, one article Destruction of Albanian heritage in Kosovo does not fit the proposed new category name, this article should be moved to Category:Destruction of religious buildings and to Category:Persecution of Muslims by Christians.) Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 10 May 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:The Demonata characters

edit
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 to all parents (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 18 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:04, 2 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:39, 10 May 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_May_10&oldid=1138411852"