Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 2

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 1 February 3 >

February 2

[edit]

Category:Chairmen of the Federal Reserve

[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. I am reading the "oppose pending RM" votes as making this title contingent on the article title. Since the article title has now changed, that contingency is activated. bd2412 T 18:24, 10 February 2014 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Janet Yellen will become the new chair of the Federal Reserve on Feb. 3, 2014. Currently, she is referred to as the "Vice Chair" on the FRB website, as opposed to the old title "Vice Chairman" used for males. For note, news outlets use the term "chair" instead of "chairman" when referring to Yellen. Per WP:GNL and WP:TITLE, the name of the category should be changed to match the title used. EvergreenFir (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Seems fair enough to me I guess. Working on getting that one changed. They are calling her "chair" already ([1]) so it shouldn't be too hard to get it changed. EvergreenFir (talk) 16:20, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't realized that this was already in the works, and I have already indicated my support for the move you proposed. Alansohn (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose, pending RM I agree with BHG that there are exceptions to the rule, but this is not one of them. Many things go into consideration of a title, and I think we should not try to legislate here; rather let RM deal with it and then we follow suit with a speedy if needed. I suggest we close this, and then it can be speedied if the move succeeds.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:39, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I'm okay with that. Didn't really think about Alansohn's suggestion, but it makes sense. Cheers. EvergreenFir (talk) 17:49, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. News reports say she has requested to be called Fed Chair. This is from the TV news. I'm sure we will get print sources to confirm and I have no idea how this will affect the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:10, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a web source saying this: [2] EvergreenFir (talk) 22:33, 3 February 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.

Curries

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 13 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not quite sure this would fall under "C2A - pluralisation", so I brought it here. While Category:Curry is a topic category, its subcategories are set categories, containing the various types of curries. So I believe that the "curries" plural is appropriate for them. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:24, 2 February 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:Connected to men wearing hijabs

[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:56, 9 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I don't know what it's supposed to be, but looks bizarre in any case. Brandmeistertalk 18:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: Keep: Whether something is considered "bizarre" by some people is not relevant. We have many articles about things that seem weird to some people, and they are properly categorized. We have all kinds of aricles about cross-dressing (cat) and about topics like the hijab (cat). At first glance I have found two articles which belong in this category:
The activist Aliaa Magda Elmahdy has subsequently called for men to submit images of themselves wearing veils, to protest against women being forced to wear them. (article)
The arrest of Majid Tavakoli has led to a campaign of protest by Iranian men, publishing pictures of themselves wearing hijabs. (gallery)
These aricles belong to the topics cross-dressing and islamic dress (female), and the appropriate means to put them there is a subcategory.
Some related eye candy: [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], [8]
mate2code 20:44, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, Category:Hijab wearing by males is a better name. I don't think that "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members" is the case here. So do you think these articles should be directly in cross-dressing and islamic dress (female), or not at all? mate2code 23:58, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think you could put articles about activists into something like Islamic dress (female), if that topic was really closely related to the notability of the activists in question. That they once posted on Facebook calling for X is not sufficient IMHO. We don't usually categorize activists into the topic categories of all topics they have touched upon.
  • delete per Bushranger. This is too vague for a topic category, I'd say start with an article, and see if it expands, but until you have 5-10 articles specifically about men-wearing-hijabs we don't need a cat.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:40, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Ok. Seems things are different here than on Commons (where I come from). So long. mate2code 09:50, 3 February 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:Academic journals by commercial publishers

[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 both.
There was some disagreement about whether the category of non-profit publishers was clearcut enough to make a viable category, and some good arguments were made against retaining it, but Category:Non-profit publishers was not up for grabs here. However, regardless of any decision which might be made about that category, there is clearly a consensus not to categorise academic journals in this way. There are mnay other attributes by which en.wp categorises publishers, such as by country‎ and by year of establishment‎ which are not carried through into categorisation of any journals they publish ... so there seems to be no grounds to contest the validity of a local consensus that journals should not be categorised by his particular attribute. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:38, 10 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The distinction between commercial and non-profit publishers is not always clear (university presses, for example). In addition, this distinction is not made for any other type of publications (magazines, newspapers, books). Randykitty (talk) 10:48, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I left those two categories because, regardless of whether articles exist, the subdivision makes sense and is easy to verify. I had not seen Category:Non-profit publishers, but it seems to me like a candidate for upmerging, too. Whether or not a publisher is a university press or an academic society is easy to see. Whether or not a publisher is for profit or not is less clear. At one point, Category:Academic journals published by learned societies was categorized under Category:Academic journals by non-profit publishers. I think that case is less clear. Some societies have created a company for their publishing activities. All profit of the company is used to sponsor the society and its activities. So the end result is non-profit, but their company is for-profit. Same with university presses. Not all universities are non-profit, so why should all university presses be assumed to be non-profit? We all know that Springer and Elsevier are for-profit. But how about Cambridge University Press? Or OUP? MDPI was categorized under Category:Non-profit publishers and the article indeed mentions that "Molecular Diversity Preservation International" is registered as a non-profit. However, it then continues to explain that "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute" was spun off from the former and operates as MDPI AG. An AG in Switzerland is a for profit company. All this to say that the boundaries between for-profit and non-profit are not very clear and, in my opinion, not very useful either. For this reason I retain my nom to merge both to the parent cat. (BTW, thanks to Fayenatic for correctly formatting my nom!) --Randykitty (talk) 17:31, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case you may want to make further merge proposals, i.e. Category:Non-profit publishers to both Category:Publishing companies and Category:Non-profit corporations, and Category:Non-profit academic publishers to both Category:Non-profit corporations and Category:Academic publishing companies. As long as these are here, I'd only support the first line of the current nomination.
    Meanwhile, why did you remove the category from its new corresponding parent (as I mentioned above)? You did not also remove e.g. the one for journals published by university presses from its parent Category:University presses. If you find it objectionable to categorise publications under publishers, at least be consistent, and please provide "see also" links to replace the hierarchical links, as I have just done. However, it is accepted within categories that the nature of the thing can change from one level to another in a hierarchy, e.g. film companies can be parents of the films they produce, so I believe it is appropriate for categories of publications to be parented by the corresponding categories of publishers. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The fiscal nature of publishers is not important enough to justify two trees.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:40, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- The distinctions are less clear than it might appear at first sight. If there is an academic society, it may well be having its journal published by a commercial publisher. Economic History Review is published (I think) by Wiley, but produced by Economic History Society. Midland History and Industrial Archaeology Review are both published by Maney, but the first has no society while the second comes from the Association for Industrial Archaeology. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:19, 8 February 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:Organizations based in the Caribbean

[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; noncontroversial merger of duplicate categories. The Bushranger One ping only 19:16, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category; s-spelling version created first Tim! (talk) 10:21, 2 February 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:Greek cuisine dolmas and sarmas

[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/delete all to the appropriate "FOO cuisine" category (and any others that are appropriate), except for Category:Turkish cuisine dolmas and sarmas, which is kept as a subcategory of Category:Turkish cuisine. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Added after Obi-Wan's catch:

Nominator's rationale: WP:OC. Small categories, that are not part of any established scheme and with their only contents already also categorised in the parent category. (Note that if these are kept they need to have "cuisine" removed from the titles to fit the standard convention, see subcategories of Category:French cuisine for example.) The Bushranger One ping only 01:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well, not really. For example, we have Category:Soups_by_country and I'm not sure why we would have soups but not salads for example. The other ones you may have a case for, but again, the broader question is, what sorts of divisions are acceptable more generally in this tree. It seems no-one would argue with desserts or drinks, but kebabs is out. Why?--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry if my intervention has caused confusion. Greek cuisine as experienced in UK may well actually be Cypriot; after WWI, there was an exchange of populations between Greece and Turkey, with the result that the two countries became almost ethnically pure. Greece now contains Orthodox Greek speakers; and Turkey, mostly Muslim Turks. However, much of the cuisine is typical of the eastern Mediterranean, perhaps the 19th century Ottoman Empire, rather than of either country. I suspect there is little difference between a Greek kebab and a Turkish kebab, or a pilav, etc. I think the best solution may be to ensure that the articles on each dish adopt a NPOV as to whether they are Greek or Turkish; if there are slight differences, they can be explained within the article. In this way, the dishes can appear in categories for both Greek and Turkish cuisine. This is a means of providing a NPOV solution to what is essentially an irreconcilable dispute. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:56, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree there are similarities, as there are strong links and similar dishes and ingredients between all of the Mediterranean-influenced cuisines, (Lebanese, Italian, Spanish, etc.). But the distinctions are reflected in our separate articles. There are sub-cats in Category:English cuisine that are not in Category:Irish cuisine and I think that's fine, even though (as with Greece and Turkey) there is a deep and profound overlap of ingredients, dishes, and shared history. I'd also suggest that Category:English cuisine and Category:Irish cuisine might be considered identical in every way and every similar dish completely merge-able to someone who lives in Japan or Mexico, but that clearly wouldn't be the best thing to do.
Your suggestion is a good one for similar dishes, and is currently used for dish articles like Cottage pie and Baked beans, but there still appears to be room for sub-cats in cuisine categories if there are enough culture-specific dishes, like Category:Irish breads. I still think Category:Turkish cuisine dolmas and sarmas shows a connection between enough specifically Turkish-specific dishes that wouldn't be clear by their article names alone and that this type of sub-cat should be kept.
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I see some amount of thought here, but it seems unfortunate to declare a mere no consensus following this, and I hope that more eyes might give us some sort of actionable direction.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Splash - tk 00:46, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restructure Pilaf can be in both Greek cuisine and Turkish cuisine, but Turkish cuisine pilavs and Greek cuisine pilavs are both small categories with no real possibility of expansion, so that these categories are an unnecessary level and should be deleted. This eliminates the need to decide whether it is a Greek or Turkish dish, when it is obviously both. The same considerations apply to the other dishes. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:31, 8 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Turkish and Greek food are not purely equivalent any more than Portuguese and Spanish or Irish and English. There is no reason to mix the national dishes of different cultures because they are both rice-based.__ E L A Q U E A T E 01:43, 19 February 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:Oregon police officers

[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: withdrawn. The Bushranger One ping only 07:14, 2 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. As BrownHairedGirl has explained the reason, and trusting her implicitly, I withdraw this nomination. Quis separabit? 02:43, 2 February 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_2&oldid=1138399238"