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.
Oppose:: 3+4=7, it is hard to teach elementary arithmetic without (implicitly) including notions of equality or similarity. But where does the counting number 3 come from? If we ask a child to count the number of brown haired girls in class, then brown haired girl forms an equivalence class of sorts, and in any case, the child must check each person and decided whether they are equivalent to the requested items to be counted. Where hair is off-brown, it is more a notion of similarity. If the female teacher has brown hair, some students may ask whether she should be included (did girl imply just female or was age also to be accounted for). So the applied arithmetic of counting Xs implicitly requires testing items for equivalence to X. PS. i am not averse to removing equivalence from arithmetic as it was never made explicit. In any case, testing for equivalence or similarity is a fundamental human activity with common issues - should you count the number of terrorists or freedom fighters (there are assumptions behind ever X), and when is one more suitable than another? For those interested in the fundamental notions of equivalence, and how it is applied everywhere, this category is critical. While it does bring together disparate categories, they are all equivalent in sharing the concept of equivalence. PS. This is a new category, and I suspect it will be refined with finer grained sub-categories. Dpleibovitz (talk) 23:02, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, articles in this category are too unrelated to each other. We can see that similarly in article space: Equivalence is a disambiguation page instead of a topic article. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:09, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but purge. This isn't an ill-conceived category in principle — it was intended to group mathematical concepts that are defined by the mathematical principle of equivalence. The problem, rather, is that it's being misused for a lot of things that aren't mathematical concepts, such as equal pay and similarity in music. Those misfiled things should be removed, and the category should be renamed to make it clearer that it's for math pages, but it's not an inherently invalid category for some of the entries. Bearcat (talk) 20:36, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If the category is to be purged and renamed (and the category text which is currently almost an essay replaced) then wouldn't it be much simpler to delete this category and then someone who understands categorization (e.g. that we categorize topics rather than titles) and who understands the topic could (if necessary) create a new one? DexDor(talk) 20:19, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat: According to the dab page, the term "equivalence" may refer to many different things in mathematics, so don't you think that we will keep the nameshare issue even within a new Category:Equivalence (mathematics)? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:58, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Categories which need a long explanation dont work. Rathfelder (talk) 10:16, 8 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose due to improvements: 1) I've added a main article by indicating via {{dabconcept}} that Equivalence serve as a broad-concept article - please help to broaden it. 2) Subsequently, I've removed all the verbage/cruft in the category. 3) If you feel that any of the categorizations within do not belong, please remove them (or re-categorize them elsewhere) - indeed I've done much of this already so that the general equivalence appears more coherent - I would like to do more of this myself, but the objectors to this (and other general) categories have asked me not to create any more! 4) This category is decidedly general and not mathematical specific. A specific Category:Equivalence (mathematical) would be a useful subcategory. 5) The only question remains is whether general Equivalence and Category:Equivalence are useful. I believe they are. Arguments about its expected utility (especially doing alright without it so far) are highly subjective, speculative, and do not help improve Wikipedia. I feel that finding all the ways people think about equivalence (in general) should be a common question to many, and this is exactly why this category was created. One could equally argue that few would be interested in Category:Equivalence (mathematical) which we have done without! I can point out that in my article reviews, that I have come across numerous articles stating that X is an equivalence relation, and I do suggest that these be categorized - for one thing, it shows how mathematical principles are used, rather than what a mathematical concept is.Dpleibovitz (talk) 19:09, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are serious that you are willing to write a broad concept article, then please say so. If you aren't, we'd better remove the template. And adding a template is obviously useless as an argument in this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:49, 10 March 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.
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, see here. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:02, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:30, 2 March 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.
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:Maharlika Pilipinas Basketball League roster navigational boxes[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: Contents are all articles, not navigational boxes BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:21, 2 March 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.
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.
keep In order to use Category:Chinese tea by province one must first know what province to look for to find a particular tea or one must look at each and every province category. Not reader friendly. By province is no substitute for having a category containing ALL the Chinese tea articles where one can readily navigate through each and do so without necessarily knowing the exact article/tea name ahead of time. Hmains (talk) 18:18, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep - I am in agreement with Hmains on this. Anomalous+0 (talk) 23:36, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Looking at the "by province" structure, only one, maybe two of them have enough articles to justify the split-out anyway. Mangoe (talk) 20:41, 7 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and move the contents to the Category:Chinese tea category. If all the subcategories are impairing navigation, delete them and upmerge their contents to the parent. Nyttend (talk) 22:30, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should not 'Chinese teas' be renamed 'Chinese teas by type', and clear out any duplicates mentioned in 'Chinese tea'? Broichmore (talk) 20:08, 19 March 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.
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 makes no sense to have a category for a slogan. In point of fact, the contents of this category are clearly about the movement -- and there is already a main-article at Black Power movement. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the contents are by no means 'clearly about the movement' as there is for instance a whole subcat Category:Womanism. 'Black Power' is more general, and it is not merely a slogan. Oculi (talk) 15:41, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Your take on this really turns things inside out, Oculi. First of all, the phrase "Black Power" really is/was, first and foremost, a slogan. As such (like any good slogan), it sums up and conveys in a couple of words a certain outlook -- an outlook that caught on and took shape as a movement known as the Black Power movement. The phrase "Black Power" was, precisely, the slogan of that movement.
The Black Power article -- which starts out talking about the origin of the slogan -- is, in fact, mostly devoted to a discussion of the "Black Power movement" (the term is used repeatedly throughout the article). Which is hardly surprising, because there is only so much that can be said about the phrase "Black Power" and its uses.
If the phrase was "Black PowerISM", I suppose I might agree with you that it could serve as the heading for the category, because that would denote something much larger than a slogan or an idea. The head category for any subject should always have a name that reflects and encompasses the full breadth of its contents.
In point of fact, ALL of the contents of this category are about things that are connected with the Black Power movement, whereas only a few (at most) are about the idea of Black Power. (And note that another editor found it necessary to add a headnote saying, "Pages related to the Black Power movement are also here." Well, duh!)
Lastly, since you brought up the subcat, Category:Womanism, I took a look at the main article, and discovered that it doesn't even mention the phrase "Black Power" anywhere in the article -- which suggests that its inclusion in this category is questionable, in any event.
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: the term "political prisoner" is inherently and irredeemably POV. Nearly everyone agrees that some people are political prisoners, but there is no accepted, neutral way to define whether any individual is a political prisoner.
Keep There are many terms which could be viewed as POV but we allow in Wikipedia because WP:RS use them. For example, the term "terrorist" is a contentious label, as WP:LABEL states, but there are hundreds of articles/categories/templates which use the terms terrorist/terrorism. The term "political prisoner" is widely used by reliable sources and we have had an article on the subject, Political prisoner, for the last 16 years. If the article is acceptable why aren't categories? If they are reliable sources which state that someone is a political prisoner why can't we categorise them as such on Wikipedia?--Obi2canibe (talk) 15:30, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Obi2canibe: See WP:SUBJECTIVECAT. We have plenty of well-sourced articles on notable topics which do not lend themselves to an NPOV binary test for individual examples. For any given claimed political prisoner, there are reliable sources for and against that label. See e.g. Leonard Peltier, Julian Assange, Nelson Mandela, Bobby Sands.
WP:NPOV is v clear that where sources disagree, we do not simply take some sort of majoritarian assessment of sources; instead we should be "representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic"
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:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, after populating the subcategory in an earlier discussion not much remains left for the category about the circle itself. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:48, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's not WP:SMALLCAT as there is a potentially large subcat (as quite a few people are mentioned on the page). WP:EPON doesn't say anything about eponymous categories with few articles at the top level and WP:OCEPON applies only to people. Oculi (talk) 13:03, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While WP:SMALLCAT obviously doesn't apply to the subcat, it may still apply to this category, unless it would be part of a large established tree - which it isn't. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:SMALLCAT doesn't apply because the category (which includes all articles in its entire subcat tree) is not small. Otherwise all container categories (0 articles at the top level) would be deleted. Oculi (talk) 16:13, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite, only container categories which are poorly populated (i.e. few subcategories) are nominated for merger. It's not just about the number of articles but more generally about lack of sufficient content. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The population of a category is the number of articles in its entire (flattened) subtree; the number of subcats is irrelevant. Oculi (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That is probably meant as a definition, which I take for granted. The real question is in which cases we can improve easy navigation through the category tree by means of upmerging. That may be either with a too small number of articles or a too small number of subcats of a container category, or a mix of both. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:58, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi. Three articles and a subcat is enough, especially since it is the subcat's main parent. Grutness...wha? 01:08, 3 March 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.
