Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 December 17

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 Category:Eeyou Istchee Baie-James to Category:Eeyou Istchee James Bay (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Eeyou Istchee Baie-James (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Eeyou Istchee James Bay (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: More User:Veillg1 garbage, again trying to overcategorize rivers and lakes by something other than their defining location: "Eeyou Istchee James Bay" is a political entity, so it's not relevant to categorizing geographical features like lakes or rivers. Everything here is already in either Category:Lakes of Nord-du-Québec or Category:Rivers of Nord-du-Québec as it is, so this is simply an unnecessary layer of redundant categorization -- and even if it were to be kept for some reason, we would still have to merge them, as we don't need two separate categories for the English and French names of the same thing. Bearcat (talk) 19:23, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by creator. There is a lot of categorisation underway of the geography of northern Quebec and Ontario, most of it in redlinked categories, and some of it in apparently duplicated or overlapping (mostly-redlinked) categories. I have been trying to clean it up a bit, but I have little knowledge of the area.<bt>Thanks to Bearcat for raising this. It seems to me that it would be helpful for a wikiproject to discuss the category structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:33, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose keeping Category:Eeyou Istchee James Bay

The "Eeyou Istchee Baie-James" is a territory of 335,818 km2 (of which 297,355.46 km2 of land); it is about half of Metropolitan France area. On July 24, 2012, the Quebec government (province) signed an agreement to create this large municipality which have a special status. This territory include major watersheds such as Harricana River, Missisicabi River, Nottaway River, Broadback River, Rupert River, Pontax River, Eastmain River and La Grande River. Each of these watersheds deserves also to have a category on WP. Let us put in perspective that each territory can be categorized on different dimensions: municipal territories, territory of school boards, hydrographic slopes, religious territory, territories of government services, etc. Limiting the categories on WP to one level of government administrative territories (ex.: province), unfortunately would decrease the efficiency of navigation on WP. Grouping by categories (or subcategories) is very useful.Veillg1 (talk) 5:40, 18 December 2017 (HNE)

• Adding a lot of category clutter to the articles is what would decrease the efficiency of navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:40, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• People are not going to search for rivers or lakes by watershed, because they rarely if ever know what watershed a river or lake is in — they need to already find the lake's or river's article in order to learn that detail, so by definition they're not going to search for the lake or river by browsing a detail they don't know yet. School boards are only useful for categorizing schools, not for categorizing the towns or cities within their catchment areas. And on and so forth: we categorize things by their WP:DEFINING characteristics, not by every last individual piece of information that could be stated about them. And incidentally, we already have Category:Eeyou Istchee (territory) — so these are both simply unnecessary duplicates for a thing we already have a category for. Bearcat (talk) 17:46, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, but select one of the 2 spellings. This is a useful subcat of the huge Nord-du-Québec. Some refinement needed.
  The nom makes little sense to me: Nord-du-Québec is also a political area, not a topographical one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:36, 26 December 2017 (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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 15#Category:Nottaway Hydrological System. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:31, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nottaway Hydrological System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Broadback Hydrological System (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As with the prior Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 November 13#Harricana Hydrological System, these are two more attempts by User:Veillg1 to overcategorize rivers and lakes by their watershed instead of their geographic location -- and once again, Veillg1 just left them as redlinks, forcing a more established user to create them in good faith from the WantedCategories queue. This is not a useful way to categorize water bodies, and it's not done anywhere else -- we categorize lakes and rivers by the state or province that they're located in and/or by county if the state or province needs diffusion, not by their waterflow relationships to each other. Bearcat (talk) 19:12, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the debate on the relevance of the two categories, let us put in perspective that in French, the two categories exist fortunately. The categorization of hydrographic slopes for large areas such as Northern Quebec is a good logic. They make it possible to locate the reader in these vast territories and to understand the main flows of water. Let us put in perspective that the municipality Eeyou Istchee James Bay has 297,332 square kilometers; which is 9.7 times the size of Belgium. Admittedly, the categorization by region is useful, but not sufficient to be well located in countries with large spaces. In English, these categories are as useful as in other languages. Hopefully, in English, every major watershed will have a category. Veillg1 21:40, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment by creator. There is a lot of categorisation underway of the geography of northern Quebec and Ontario, most of it in redlinked categories, and some of it in apparently duplicated or overlapping (mostly-redlinked) categories. I have been trying to clean it up a bit, but I have little knowledge of the area.<bt>Thanks to Bearcat for raising this. It seems to me that it would be helpful for a wikiproject to discuss the category structure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, Veillg1 is notorious for this. He constantly applies redlinked categories to articles, often on non-defining criteria like their "hydrological system" that aren't reflective of how we actually categorize rivers or lakes, regularly using non-intuitive sortkeys like numbering rivers instead of sorting them alphabetically, and (as with the James Bay/Baie-James duplication I listed above) not always even taking proper care to ensure that he's using the same spelling from one article to another — so cleaning up one category doesn't mean you don't still have to check his edit history to see if there's still another redlinked category for the exact same thing to clean up because he spelled or capitalized it differently somewhere else. He's been advised not to add redlinked categories before, but he doesn't stop. Bearcat (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Oh dear, Bearcat. Messy.

Is it time for a topic ban for Veillg1 ? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support that, but I'd be very surprised if he actually abided by it. Bearcat (talk) 20:14, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. There is long history with this user's tenuous grasp of practices on the English wikipedia (and of the English language in general). I've mostly crossed paths with creating or making monstrously bad edits to disambiguation pages (for recent examples, see Nemenjiche or Iserhoff). older ≠ wiser 17:09, 18 December 2017 (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: no consensus on this platform, the discussion should be about the article name to begin with, hopefully User:Jay eyem or User:GiantSnowman are willing to start an RM. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 2 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

• Category:Desert Diamond Cup to Category:Mobile Mini Sun Cup
• Category:Desert Diamond Cup Standings templates to Category:Mobile Mini Sun Cup standings templates

Nominator's rationale: competition renamed[1].

Head article Mobile Mini Sun Cup bold moved without discussion, so not a WP:C2D speedy. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:25, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure to name change. Is there an alternate non-sponsor name that could be used. What happens next year if the sponsor changes. Djln Djln (talk) 16:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Why was this renamed in the first place? It certainly isn't the common name for the tournament and we don't use sponsored names in the titles of articles like this unless it becomes the common name. WP:CRYSTAL is relevant here. Jay eyem (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. Hhhhhkohhhhh (talk) 11:52, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - move the main article back, as Jay eyem says we do not use sponsored names. GiantSnowman 13:31, 1 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.

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) 08:10, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Male actors from Globe, Arizona to Category:Male actors from Arizona and Category:People from Globe, Arizona
• Propose merging Category:Actors from Globe, Arizona to Category:Actors from Arizona

Nominator's rationale: Two WP:SMALLCATs for just one actor, between the two of them combined, from a small town of just 7K people. As always, every town or city does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one actor from there to file in it. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if there are a couple male more actors from Globe, Arizona. If there are then obviously the category should be kept. I'll have a look around. But if there is just one then I have no problem with a merge. Thanks Karl Twist (talk) 22:59, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I found one more (female) actor, but that may be the lot. Grutness...wha? 00:01, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:44, 18 December 2017 (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: merge. It appears that the nominator has already placed the contents into more specific geographical categories by century, e.g. Category:10th-century establishments in the Kingdom of León, so no double merges are now required this for this set. – Fayenatic London 14:00, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:1000 establishments in Spain to Category:1000 establishments in Europe
• Propose merging Category:1000 in Spain‎ to Category:1000 in Europe
• Propose merging Category:1000s in Spain‎ to Category:1000s in Europe
• Propose merging Category:1003 in Spain to Category:1003 in Europe
• Propose merging Category:1005 establishments in Spain to Category:1005 establishments in Europe
• Propose merging Category:1009 establishments in Spain to Category:1009 establishments in Europe

Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, most categories contain only one article. This nomination ends in 1478 because in 1479 Ferdinand II, until then the spouse of the queen of Castile, became king of Aragon, thus in practical sense (though not officially) uniting the two countries to Spain. That seems like a good point in time to start decade or year categories for Spain. Note that the merge nominations do not contain a second merge target, because the articles are already in appropriate categories of León, Castile, Aragon, Navarre and/or Al-Andalus. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:13, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support while there was only a personal union of the crowns at that time, it's a good year to say that this is, practically speaking, the emergence of a "Spain" in Modern history. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:04, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support in principle though perhaps we can split pre-1478 categories into appropriate contemporary categories such as "<year> in the Visigothic Kingdom" (418-720), "<year> in the Kingdom of Aragon" (1035-1478) and "<year> in the Kingdom of Castile" (1065-1478 within the Kingdom and the later Crown), "<year> in the Kingdom of Asturias" (718-910), "<year> in the Kingdom of Navarre" (824-1821), "<year> in the Kingdom of Leon" (910-1230), plus of course "<year> in the Country of Portugal" (868-1139) and "<year> in Al-Andalus" (encompassing 756-1110 period in the Emirate of Cordoba, Caliphate of Cordoba, Taifa of Córdoba, Taifa of Seville, Taifa of Zaragoza).GreyShark (dibra) 08:18, 19 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Better not. Since there isn't even enough for content for "whole Spanish" medieval year categories, there is even less content for years of all its separate countries. Century categories of the separate countries are nicely populated though. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:37, 19 December 2017 (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: no consensus on any changes at this time. -- Tavix ^(talk) 03:07, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:American people in health professions to Category:American people in health occupations
  • Category:Australian people in health professions to Category:Australian people in health occupations
  • Category:Bangladeshi people in health professions to Category:Bangladeshi people in health occupations
  • Category:Barbadian people in health professions to Category:Barbadian people in health occupations
  • Category:Belgian people in health professions to Category:Belgian people in health occupations
  • Category:British people in health professions to Category:British people in health occupations
  • Category:Brazilian people in health professions to Category:Brazilian people in health occupations
  • Category:Canadian people in health professions to Category:Canadian people in health occupations
  • Category:Cape Verdean people in healthcare professions‎ to Category:Cape Verdean people in health occupations
  • Category:Chilean people in health professions to Category:Chilean people in health occupations
  • Category:Chinese people in health professions to Category:Chinese people in health occupations
  • Category:Croatian people in health professions to Category:Croatian people in health occupations
  • Category:Czech people in health professions to Category:Czech people in health occupations
  • Category:Danish people in health professions to Category:Danish people in health occupations
  • Category:Filipino people in health professions to Category:Filipino people in health occupations
  • Category:French people in health professions to Category:French people in health occupations
  • Category:German people in health professions to Category:German people in health occupations
  • Category:Hungarian people in health professions to Category:Hungarian people in health occupations
  • Category:Indian people in health professions to Category:Indian people in health occupations
  • Category:Irish people in health professions to Category:Irish people in health occupations
  • Category:Israeli people in healthcare professions to Category:Israeli people in health occupations
  • Category:Indian people in health professions to Category:Indian people in health occupations
  • Category:Italian people in health professions to Category:Italian people in health occupations
  • Category:Italian people in healthcare professions‎ to Category:Italian people in health occupations
  • Category:Japanese people in health professions to Category:IJapanese people in health occupations
  • Category:Latvian people in health professions to Category:Latvian people in health occupations
  • Category:Malaysian people in health professions to Category:Malaysian people in health occupations
  • Category:Mexican people in health professions to Category:Mexican people in health occupations
  • Category:Namibian people in health professions to Category:Namibian people in health occupations
  • Category:Nepalese people in health professions to Category:Nepalese people in health occupations
  • Category:New Zealand people in health professions to Category:New Zealand people in health occupations
  • Category:Nigerian people in health professions to Category:Nigerian people in health occupations
  • Category:Norwegian people in health professions to Category:Norwegian people in health occupations
  • Category:Palestinian people in health professions to Category:Palestinian people in health occupations
  • Category:Polish people in health professions to Category:Polish people in health occupations
  • Category:Portuguese people in health professions to Category:Portuguese people in health occupations
  • Category:Romanian people in health professions to Category:Romanian people in health occupations
  • Category:Russian people in health professions to Category:Russian people in health occupations
  • Category:Rwandan people in health professions to Category:Rwandan people in health occupations
  • Category:Saudi Arabian people in health professions to Category:Saudi Arabian people in health occupations
  • Category:Serbian people in health professions to Category:Serbian people in health occupations
  • Category:Seychellois people in health professions to Category:Seychellois people in health occupations
  • Category:South African people in health professions to Category:South African people in health occupations
  • Category:South Korean health workers‎ to Category:South Korean people in health occupations
  • Category:Spanish people in health professions to Category:Spanish people in health occupations
  • Category:Sudanese people in health professions to Category:Sudanese people in health occupations
  • Category:Swedish people in health professions to Category:Swedish people in health occupations
  • Category:Taiwanese people in health professions to Category:Taiwanese people in health occupations
  • Category:Trinidad and Tobago people in health professions to Category:Trinidad and Tobago people in health occupations
  • Category:Turkish people in health professions to Category:Turkish people in health occupations
  • Category:Ugandan people in health professions to Category:Ugandan people in health occupations
  • Category:United States Virgin Islands people in health professions to Category:United States Virgin Islands people in health occupations
  • Category:People in health professions by nationality to Category:People in health occupations by nationality
  • Category:Egyptian people in health professions to Category:Egyptian people in health occupations - added later, after creation
• Propose renaming Category:People in health professions to Category:People in health occupations - added from 2017-11-26. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 21:24, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Slightly wider in scope. Not all the subcategories are properly described as professions Rathfelder (talk) 10:36, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, see also this earlier discussion, which is still open. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Meanwhile the other discussion has been incorporated here. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as proposed. These are currently sets of people engaged directly or indirectly in personal healthcare, primarily in medicine and allied health professions. The medical industry has worked hard in recent decades to rebrand itself first as "healthcare" and then as "health" ... whereas the set of occupations engaged in human health is much much wider than those in healthcare.
  Other occupations vital to human health include: sanitary engineers, whose work stopped the epidemics of cholera and typhoid in European cities; house-builders, who create safe homes; trades unionists who fight for workplace safety; people engaged in rood safety; and many more, including ppl engaged in eradication of poverty (see e.g. diseases of poverty). Sanitary engineering in particular makes a good claim to have had a bigger impact on human health than medicine.
  The current terminology is vague, but does imply some direct relation to medicine, whereas "health occupations" is wide open.
  I suggest that we should split these categories into Category:People in medical occupations" and Category:People in people in occupations allied to medicine, and then have a broader discussion about whether "health occupations" is a viable grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• @BrownHairedGirl: A late question, how would you make the split? Medical doctors/physicians obviously belong to the first category, healthcare managers and hospital administrators obviously to the second category, but what about chiropractors‎, dentists‎, midwives‎, physiotherapists‎, nurses‎, pharmacists‎, physiologists‎, psychologists‎, medical researchers‎, veterinarians‎? Marcocapelle (talk) 11:37, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• @Marcocapelle: checking again, I find that the term most used in the USA is "Allied health professions", which also used by the WHO. In the UK it seems to be replacing the earlier "professions allied to medicine" (PAMs).

We have a list on en.wp at Allied health professions. Other sources of definitions I found are at [2]and [3]. I would have liked to find a WHO definition, but a search of the WHO's website throws up no definitions. So I suggest using list the list at Allied health professions. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• In that case Category:People in health professions may well be reorganized by creating two subcategories Category:People in medical occupations/Category:People in medical professions and Category:People in allied health professions. But I doubt if Category:People in health professions should disappear, also because many country categories are insufficiently populated to split them. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:26, 20 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Health in its widest sense embraces most of human life. I think there are problems here. We don't want to include everyone. I don't think we need "People in medical occupations", because they are already substantially embraced by the category "Physicians". The point of this grouping is precisely to include those who dont qualify to be called medical. "occupations allied to medicine" has a very specific meaning, at least in the UK. It means physiotherapists, occupational therapists etc, but not, for example, nurses. But the term "professions" probably excludes most people in alternative medicine, health campaigners of various sorts, and people in less well paid occupations like hospital porters. I'd be perfectly happy including sanitary engineers - and perhaps other sorts of engineers, like traffic engineers, whose contribution to human health is important but not very much noticed. Healthcare (or health care) occupations might work, if you think health occupations (which I admit is not a term I have encountered in the wild) is too vague. Rathfelder (talk) 17:22, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is the common used name. Wikipedia follows common names. The arguments about sanitation engineering would be worth bringing up in a widespread study of the topic, but Wikipedia reflects the common name, and when people say "health occupation" or "health profession" they mean doctors, nurses, dentists, phamacists and a few related professions, not sanitation engineers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:29, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The other categories of this kind are generally like Category:Belgian people in arts occupations - deliberately broad in order to encompass a variety of borderline categories. That is what is needed in health. Health professions has, in most countries, quite a narrow definition. Not much is gained but using that in order to collect less common categories together - hypnotists, for example. I don't think most people would regard hypnotism as a profession, but it is certainly used clinically. Rathfelder (talk) 23:33, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• The superior category is Category:People by occupation and nationality. Shouldn't be follow that? Rathfelder (talk) 15:14, 28 December 2017 (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: delete as non-defining . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 10 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Signatories to the Pyongyang Declaration (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: delete, having signed a declaration is not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - we have similar categories such as Category:Warsaw Pact. The DPRK (whom the Pyongyang Declaration is associated with) is one of the few remaining socialist states in the world and the Declaration, as well those who signed up to it are the international political parties which have aligned with it and pledged solidarity with them, which is a notable characteristic (not all organisations calling themselves communist or socialist are pro-DPRK/Juche). Claíomh Solais (talk) 23:47, 17 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Not even the Warsaw Pact has a membership category, while this was a permanent organization that has existed for decades - which is much more significant than just a signature on a declaration. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 18 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• delete I doubt the notability of this declaration and have put it up for deletion. But at any rate there's nothing defining about a bunch of communist parties signing a "yay socialism!" declaration. Mangoe (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2017 (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.