Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 27

May 27

Category:20th-century United States presidential electors by year

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. (The category had been emptied before this discussion was closed.) Marcocapelle (talk) 04:03, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:20th-century United States presidential electors by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not enough subcategories, and the meta-category, Category:United States presidential electors will be limited to only one subcategory per 4 years, so not many.. —GoldRingChip 13:48, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- With an election every 4 years, there is not enough content to require a split by century. The category is tagged as a container, but still contains a lot of articles that need diffusing into subcats. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
delete but I have to question whether any of the elector cats should exist except Category:Faithless electors, as they are the only ones notable for doing this. Mangoe (talk) 01:41, 29 May 2016 (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:Financial system

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) ~ Rob^Talk 05:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Financial system to Category:Finance
Propose merging Category:Financial institutions and services to Category:Finance

Nominator's rationale: merge, technically the latter part of the proposal may well be considered as a case of WP:SMALLCAT, but the bigger problem is that these two category layers just hinder easy navigation. Most particular, when you're at Category:Finance, a Wikipedia user of average intelligence is unlikely to find Category:Banking or Category:Insurance because they are contained in Category:Financial system which is not very intuitive to begin with and moreover Banking and Insurance are currently no less than 4 levels lower than Finance. Having Category:Financial services and Category:Financial institutions directly in Category:Finance makes things much easier to find. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/delete per nom. I agree that these cats are unnecessary layers than hinder rather than facilitate navigation. Neutrality^talk 19:27, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. The second is just a container. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:00, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the first. Merge the second. The first is mostly being used for articles on the financial systems of particular countries; and the global one. It should perhaps become Category:Financial systems with a headnote saying that it is mostly for national financial systems. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:34, 28 May 2016 (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:Music organizations by country

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: since the nomination as proposed is clearly inappropriate, the intent of the nomination is unclear. I suggest a renomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:44, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Music organizations by country to Category:Australian music organisations

Nominator's rationale: Bringing in line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 13:10, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification Do you mean to Category:Music organisations by country? RevelationDirect (talk) 16:38, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, as this doesn't make sense. Shouldn't it be Category:Musical organisations based in Australia being renamed to Category:Australian music organisations?? Funandtrvl (talk) 19:58, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think the nom must mean:

Propose renaming Category:Musical organisations based in Australia to Category:Australian music organisations

Support that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Funandtrvl's Interpretation Note that the articles were tagged as nominated so I just tagged the Australian category. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:49, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Funandtrvl's interpretation as this interpretation contradicts the usual format of the categories in the organizations tree: "Organizations based in...". Alt rename Category:Musical organisations based in Australia to Category:Music organisations based in Australia (remove al). Marcocapelle (talk) 15:25, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification, I do not support renaming Music organizations by country to Australian music organizations. My comment above for: Shouldn't it be Category:Musical organisations based in Australia being renamed to Category:Australian music organisations?? does not support that change either, it is just a supposition of what this request for change should or would be. I do not support that change either, at this time. Funandtrvl (talk) 14:24, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The nomination makes no sense as written. A more clear nomination might work, but this one will not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:24, 5 June 2016 (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:Physical therapy journals

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. There's no clear consensus for any one outcome and no agreement that these categories overlap enough to justify a merge. I'm not sure if the categories have been cleaned up since the original nomination, but there's not much overlap in contents at the moment. Overlap in topic is a separate issue, but there's no agreement that such overlap exists. (non-admin closure) ~ Rob^Talk 05:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Physical therapy journals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Small category, split off from Category:Physical medicine and rehabilitation journals, which now is even smaller. The distinction between the two categories, if any, is very subtle at best. Delete and upmerge to parent cat. Randykitty (talk) 06:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See further comments below. --Randykitty (talk) 09:40, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose expanding both Category:Physical therapy journals and Category:Physical medicine and rehabilitation journals. There is a real distinction between physical therapists and physical medicine and rehabilitation doctors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jeandédé (talk • contribs) 07:42, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Jeandédé: If there are current articles that are not in either category today but belong here, by all means, add them now. That would help refute smallcat and allow us to see if there is a clear distinction between the two in practice. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:03, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the situation is more complex than I realized: Category:Physical medicine and rehabilitation journals is a subcat of the category Category:Rehabilitation medicine journals. How these three categories differ from each other is murky at best. Expanding them does not solve this problem. At a current total size of about 19 articles (note: some articles are in more than one of these categories), I don't see a compelling need to split these categories either. In my opinion, it would be best to upmerge both Category:Physical therapy journals and Category:Physical medicine and rehabilitation journals to Category:Rehabilitation medicine journals. --Randykitty (talk) 09:33, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
REname to Category:Physiotherapy journals, which is a term used by 4 of the 6. Six is about enough for a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:40, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Peterkingiron:: my argument to merge is not based on an argument that these cats are too small, but on the fact that the difference between them is absolutely not clear and doesn't seem to serve a useful purpose. Note that several journals are already categorized in more than one of these closely-related cats. --Randykitty (talk) 16:30, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comment To make things more complicated here, Jeandédé who created these categories, has moved Category:Physical therapy journals from Category:Physical medicine and rehabilitation journals to Category:Rehabilitation medicine journals. There is now also a Category:Occupational therapy journals. Please note that almost all journals from this cat are also included in Category:Rehabilitation medicine journals, as are almost all journals from Category:Physical therapy journals (the exceptions being a few where I removed the duplicate categorization). This was all done by the creator of Category:Physical therapy journals and Category:Occupational therapy journals, indicating that they, too, don't really differentiate between these different categories. I propose that all these confusing categories be merged into one (the best being Category:Physical medicine and rehabilitation journals) and only split any off at a later stage if a natural subdivision can be found. --Randykitty (talk) 14:35, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I meant to differenciate "Rehabilitation journals" from "Health-profession journals". If you see what I mean? I removed remaining duplicates. What do you think about it ?Jeandédé (talk) 14:54, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not really: we have no Category:Health-profession journals. --Randykitty (talk) 15:24, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I looked at the Mesh classification maybe we should move Category:Physiotherapy journals and Category:Occupational therapy journals to a Category:Allied Health Occupations inside the Category:Healthcare journals. Jeandédé (talk) 08:07, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"Allied Health Occupations" would refer to the therapists, I assume, but we are talking about journals here. --Randykitty (talk) 08:33, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Weak oppose, the content of the categories is different enough and each backed up by a relevant article, though we might merge based on WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:50, 3 June 2016 (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:Chapels by type

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: upmerge both to Category:Chapels. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:06, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Merging Category:Chapels by type to Category:Types of chapels (or vice versa)

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT

Both of these categories group chapels by type, as their names make clear. I think the first category was for the subcategories and the second category was for the main articles before I stumbled in with the wedding chapels but I don't see how that separation either aids navigation or is remotely clear from the category names. (If other editors would prefer a reverse merge, that's fine too and I've already tagged both categories for consideration.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified Neddyseagoon as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Architecture. – RevelationDirect (talk) 02:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC) [reply]

ALT Upmerge both to Category:Chapels. The parent can then be Category:Types of church buildings. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:44, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge both to Category:Chapels. There is not enough content to need three separate categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:42, 28 May 2016 (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.