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.
Nominator's rationale: These two dab page categories duplicate talk page (editor-side) project categories (this and this). All the dab pages in these categories are now in the corresponding project category. These reader-side dab categories are an unnecessary complication - I'm not sure that we really need any by-topic categorization of dab pages; we certainly don't need two such (incomplete, overlapping) categorization schemes. This type of category (added manually to dab pages) is also discouraged by the parent category (CAT:DABP#Notes). For info: an example of a previous CFD for a disambiguation page category is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_8#Category:River_disambiguation_pages. DexDor (talk) 22:40, 16 March 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear to me what role this category serves. The vast majority of Wikipedia editors are anonymous, whether they are a registered account or editing as an IP. If the category is going to exist, there should be clear criteria of who it applies to. Right now, there is only one user account in this category. LizRead!Talk! 22:17, 16 March 2014 (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:Species common name disambiguation pages[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.
Nominator's rationale: This is an unnecessary layer in the category hierarchy, not every common name refers to a species (e.g. see Sea lemon) and this category breaks the rule that dab page cats are only populated using the dab template. DexDor (talk) 22:01, 16 March 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: This topic is nowhere near notable enough for its own category. There appears to only be two journals that could be included in this category (the other one is "Gastroenterology Nursing"). Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, and the fact that there is probably no one who will want to see all of these types of journals at once. Jinkinsontalk to me 20:41, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to category Nursing journals. I'm not sure about the other cat, though. Looking through the histories of public health journal, User talk:Jsfouche, and other places, one can see that there was a discussion in 2010 about whether or not "nursing journals" are "medical journals". If yes, that would make our task much easier, as there already exists a well-developed category tree for medical journals and we could get rid of the near-parallel nursing journals tree. Personally, I would favor that solution. All "general nursing journals" should be moved to "nursing journals" (which itself would become a subcat of "medical journals") and all specialized journals to the medical specialty cats, like Category:Gastroenterology and hepatology journals. However, I don't think that it is a good idea to apply that solution to one single journal as this would make Gastrointestinal Nursing the only nursing journal to be included in the medical journal tree. --Randykitty (talk) 14:55, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - they should not be placed in medical journal categories, as they are not medical journals. They are nursing journals. Nursing is not a subfield of medicine. A license to practice one does not permit the practice of the other. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:29, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I would also point out that WP:SMALLCAT states: "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" which should be the case. I would also point out that there are several sub cats of "Medical Journals" that only have 1-3 articles. There continue to be systemic bias in regards to nursing articles and categories. Countless times articles are merged, deleted, re-categorized, etc. because of this bias that nursing is somehow not as important or robust as medicine or is somehow just a subfield of medicine. So I really am just ready to throw my hands up in the air and give up and accept the fact the Wikipedia community will continue to support this bias. Of course there are fewer nursing articles than medicine articles. The long history of this bias has turned off many nurse editors, and they have stopped creating/editing nursing articles. jsfouche ☽☾Talk 18:55, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see what licenses to practice have to do with this. A podiatrist would not be licensed to perform open heart surgery either, yet both are included in the medical practitioners categories. --Randykitty (talk) 14:25, 24 March 2014 (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.
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 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: As a result of previous CFDs (example) these categories each contain just one subcat (for "Cold war naval ships of <country>") plus one of the categories contains a single article - thus this is an unnecessary level in the category hierarchy. Note: These categories sit below Category:Cold War ships and thus below Category:Military equipment which explains why there are so few ships at this level. DexDor (talk) 19:46, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all -- There is no need for this level of categorisation. Merchant ships do not need cold war categories, they will be much better dealt with in other ways, for example by decade when built. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 16 March 2014 (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.
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:administrative close: speedily deleted by another user. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:50, 18 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was created fairly recently by an editor who has an established behavior of creating poorly thought out categories. Liches aren't real to begin with so there is no need to collect this category of a particular kind of fictional character. —Ryūlóng (琉竜) 19:29, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Close -- I seens already to have been deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:54, 16 March 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Categorizing fauna by European countries (of which there are about 50) can lead to an article being in lots of categories - e.g. the Apamea zeta article says "found throughout the Northern Hemisphere ... throughout Europe and the northern half of North America" and it's currently in at least 10 categories for European countries (most of which aren't mentioned in the article). In other words, being found in an particular European country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. According to List of Lepidoptera of Albania there are estimated to be 1,181 Lepidoptera species present in Albania (the majority moths and many with wp articles), but the corresponding category currently only contains 11 pages.
Support -- biological distributions do not stop at national boundaries. Species are far more likely to occur throughout a region, wherever there is a suitable habitat. Accordingly occurence in a country is far too like a performance (occur in foo-land) by performer (species) category. We do not allow such performacne categories because they create category clutter. The same considerations apply here. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support. These categories are pretty much worthless on their own. An article "List of Moths of [country]" would be sourced and formatted. The same applies to all plant/animal of [country] categories. Sander Säde 07:59, 17 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Please stop using misleading rationales. Nominally, the best practice is to use larger regional or continent categories for widespread species as I have explained before in other discussions. Because a few editors who complete many edits a day and don't engage with you when you when you ask them to modify their technique have botched the fauna and flora by country category system so thoroughly that it is difficult to undo and creates an easy target ("Look! Category clutter!"). This doesn't mean the flora and fauna categories by country are necessarily bad, especially when used in the proper manner: species with small distributions use a few country categories; those with larger distributions use regional parent categories when they mostly overlap with the region's demarcation; species with the largest distributions use continent categories when they truly inhabit the entire continent. And again, to your point about defining characteristics... Species distributions are defining. This is the most reasonable method of diffusing large continent categories so they can be navigated. And enough of this "distributions do not stop at national borders." That's quite clear, but this is how species distributions are commonly described as political boundaries are convenient, clear, and (usually) stable.Rkitko(talk) 12:43, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If you beleive there is anything misleading in this (or any other) rationale please explain. (To repeat the question I asked at the spiders CFD) what would the category inclusion criteria be in the categorization scheme you're suggesting ? It may appear obvious to you what "the proper manner" is, but in wp it would need to be explained. That, for example, Apamea zeta has been found in Andorra is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. This is not the most reasonable way to diffuse a continent category with many articles (see the cats below Category:Spiders of Europe for a better way). DexDor (talk) 21:48, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You said the following in the rationale: "Categorizing fauna by European countries ... can lead to an article being in lots of categories..." This is misleading, as I have explained. When implemented correctly, an article on a species with a wide distribution, such as Apamea zeta, would be placed in regional categories as necessary when the distribution is mostly approximated by the region's boundaries. At Wikipedia:WikiProject Plants/Template#Categories, we try to explain this approach briefly: "Try to limit the number of categories with common sense and judicious use of regional categories: a species found across the continental U.S. and Canada except for two or three states/provinces is still accurately put simply in Category:Flora of Canada and Category:Flora of the United States." (The spiders CFD closed before I could respond to your question.) The answer to your question is also in my comment above. There's no simple formula for inclusion, but a series of If... then statements.
If a species has a wide distribution that approximately matches the boundary of the largest scale geographic categories (e.g. continent or country for larger countries), then place it only in those top level geography categories and exclude it from child categories of those.
If a species has a more limited distribution but is still best described by regional boundaries (e.g. "Flora of Northern Europe" or "Flora of the Southeastern United States"), then place it only in those regional geography categories and exclude it from child categories of those. However, if the distribution extends just beyond the regional category's demarcation, a few additional categories may be required (e.g. some species occur in the Southeastern United States but also occur in Texas, so it would be categorized in both the regional Southeastern United States category and the Biota of Texas category).
If a species' distribution doesn't sufficiently match a regional category's boundary either because it is in too few of its subdivisions (states or small countries) or it straddles the boundary between two regional categories (e.g. a species present in a few countries in southern Northern Europe and northern Southwestern Europe and cannot accurately be described as being a member of either without breaking it down into just the countries it is found in), then choose the categories that are among the finest scale (states, provinces, and smaller countries. Species endemic to a state, province, or smaller country (those not subdivided) should only be categorized in these but the finest scale of categories is not restricted to endemic species.
You also said, "In other words, being found in an particular European country is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic." Enough of this. Let's put this argument to bed. This can achieved quickly by asking you, what scale for the geographic categories is appropriate. Why is "Europe" the appropriate scale and not "Eurasia"? Why not Category:Moths of Earth or Category:Moths of the universe? So, then, why isn't it appropriate to subdivide into the different countries of Europe? By your logic, that a moth is found to a particular continent is not defining (I disagree). The simple truth is we subcategorize because this is the way species are discussed and grouped when the organisms are studied. When I read monographs or scientific papers, even popular news articles, the authors note what country or state an organism is native to. Monographs on globally distributed taxa -- genera and families -- use these kinds of categories to describe species distributions. Works are written on the flora or fauna of just a single state, province, or country. I have several publications in my possession on the fossil taxa of Ohio, the flora of Ohio, birds of Ohio, etc. To repeat: the distribution of an organism is a defining characteristic; how that is subcategorized into continents --> regions --> countries --> states/provinces is irrelevant.
You also said, "According to List of Lepidoptera of Albania there are estimated to be 1,181 Lepidoptera species present in Albania (the majority moths and many with wp articles), but the corresponding category currently only contains 11 pages." How the categories are currently used is irrelevant. As I've noted before, a few editors have mucked up the category scheme and do not respond to polite encouragement on their talk pages when asked to 1) slow down or 2) revise their categorization scheme. Let's keep the discussion to the merits of the categorization scheme, not its current, imperfect use.
To reply to your comment directly above, "This is not the most reasonable way to diffuse a continent category with many articles (see the cats below Category:Spiders of Europe for a better way)." I see you are referring to the subdivision of that category by taxon, e.g. Category:Ground spiders of Europe. Ground spiders are in the family Gnaphosidae and are categorized in Category:Gnaphosidae. Category:Ground spiders of Europe is really just the Wikipedia:Category intersection of Category:Gnaphosidae and Category:Spiders of Europe. While I don't prefer these taxon categories for small groups (e.g. "Orchids of ..." is fine because, well, there are thousands of species but "Nepenthes of ..." categories would be too fine of a scale since there are only 140 or so species), why can't both the taxon-based subdivisions and the geography-based subdivisions coexist? I know, you're opposed to the fine-scale categories we are discussing -- but as I see it, the subdivision of the geographic categories is a matter of scale. I see no problem with breaking Fauna of Europe into fauna by country categories. I see it as a defining characteristic. As far as I've seen, you haven't clearly articulated why being a moth native to Europe is defining when being a moth from Eurasia or a moth from Earth would be one tick up on the scale of the geography category and being a moth native to Germany (which you say isn't defining) would be one or two ticks down the scale. This is exactly a matter of scale, not whether it is defining. To reiterate: The species' distribution is a defining characteristic; what geographic scale we choose to subdivide the continental categories (Earth --> Afro-Eurasia --> Eurasia --> Europe --> Southwestern Europe --> Spain) isn't relevant except in light of the fact that species are described, spoken about, written about, and categorized in the literature and databases by the finest scale (smaller countries, states, provinces, islands). This is the scale we have used and should continue to use.Rkitko(talk) 01:02, 24 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The range (distribution) of a species is (usually) important information about the species and hence is often covered in the text of an article (and sometimes in the form of a map). The distribution may have complications such as “occasional winter migrant” or “now extinct in <region>” which can be covered in the text. Even without such complications the distribution isn't something that can be described using a (single) characteristic (in the way “a characteristic” is used in the context of wp categorization) unlike, for example, being a moth. You say "the distribution of an organism is a defining characteristic”, but wp categorization is a binary system (either an article meets the inclusion criteria for a category or it doesn't) so, in the context of wp categorization, “a characteristic” means something that can be represented by a (single) piece of information. For example, London has a characteristic of being a city and a characteristic of being in Britain; we could define London by listing all its boroughs or listing the geographical coordinates around London, but those are not a characteristic.
Your comments above (e.g. “distribution ... best described by regional boundaries” and “to describe species distributions”) suggest that you want to use the combination of categories on an article to describe (encode) part of the information about the topic (rather than providing categories as a way of navigating to the article).
Many article editors (who may have little experience/interest in categorization and limited English) have trouble understanding the existing categorization schemes in wp so the algorithm you propose (which is different from how wp categorization normally works) is too complex and would result in inclusion criteria being something like “This category is for articles about moths that are native to Andorra, but should exclude moths whose distribution approximately matches the boundaries of Europe”. It's unlikely that editors would use the categories in the way you consider to be correct.
If a species is found in dozens of countries (as many are) then that some have been found in Andorra (or Germany or wherever) would not be appropriate to mention in the lead and hence is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. It may be reasonable for the lead to list the continents in which the species is found (7 at most), but it would not be reasonable for the lead to list dozens of countries (or hundreds of smaller regions). DexDor (talk) 06:49, 28 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge With countries like Andorra, San Marino and Luxembourg, it makes no sense to break these cateogries out to the country level. What countries they happen to fly into have little to no effect on moths. Mouths do not care what country they are flying it. It is not a major fact to the moths. Articles should be categoriezed by things that are defining to the article, and flying into San Marino is not defining to the mouth. What next, will we create Category:Religious organizations that operate in San Marino, that category would be just as trivial for the articles involved. I just shudder to see how many categories we could then put The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in. Categorizing animals by every country they can be found in is a very bad idea. It is not defining to the animal, even less so than what countries it has congregations in is defining to a church.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:06, 29 March 2014 (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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Recreation of deleted category (named both Category:The Narrative and Category:The Narrative (band)). Both times it was deleted for lacking a sufficient amount of articles per the standards of eponymous categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:19, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:58, 20 March 2014 (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:United States men's national basketball team members[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 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:Reservoirs and dams in New South Wales[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. This was emptied out of process. Dams are structures that are built and are notable. Reservoirs are impounded bodies of water. While a dam may create a reservoir they are not the same. Notability of a dam does not infer notability for the reservoir. I would accept a split of the dams and reservoirs if that is what consensus supports. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the top level categories are Category:Reservoirs and Category:Dams. But yes, if this out of process emptying gets reverted, then the rest of the new tree will need reviewing. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:08, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
cmt Some of the articles are reservoirs which will not go into dams category structure. For this category and all its siblings, we need reservoir categories to go into the Category:Reservoirs by country category tree. Hmains (talk) 03:24, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
cmt after this is done, the same needs to be done for each Australian state as well as Australia itself Hmains (talk) 20:47, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
When this is closed, I guess we can start on those. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:48, 23 March 2014 (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.
