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 per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 9 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge, "moveable" is just a POV. A holiday may be moveable on the calendar and fixed as a weekday, or fixed on the calendar and moveable as a weekday, or moveable on the Gregorian calendar and fixed on another calendar, or moveable on another calendar and fixed on the Gregorian calendar. With a neutral view, every observance is moveable and fixed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:27, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The term "moveable holiday" has a long history of use (over 150 years, at least) to mean a holiday which occurs on a different date from year to year according to the Gregorian calendar. There is no ambiguity of the sort that you suggest. I would, however, suggest renaming the by-month categories to match the spelling of the parent categories. Grutness...wha? 23:16, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
But is the movableness a defining characteristic of the observance? Bearcat (talk) 23:22, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not always, but frequently, yes. Grutness...wha? 00:48, 25 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:52, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support Unnecessary disambiguation. All observances within a certain month should be located in the same category. Dimadick (talk) 09:14, 2 February 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:speedy delete. ~ Amory(u • t • c) 19:48, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Mistyped title: The correct one (Category:Companies by city in Turkey) already exists. CeeGee 17:41, 1 February 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:rename. -- Black Falcon(talk) 22:47, 11 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support renaming but someone should create an article on Curlie on Wikipedia, so the Category and the Template have a link to Curlie information.--Dthomsen8 (talk) 18:12, 4 February 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: to keep the order. every part of the city is categorized using Category:/Borough/ and Category:Neighbourhoods of Warsaw Andrei (talk) 14:07, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew J.Kurbiko: please move the articles back to the original category and wait for an admin to close this discussion and move the articles. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisting note. These categories were emptied by the nominator @Andrew J.Kurbiko immediately before they nominated the categories at CFD (see these edits). That presented CFD participants with a WP:FAITACCOMPLI: keeping the categories was not a viable option, because they were already empty. So I have rolled back (see rollbacks) the edits which emptied the categories, to allow a consensus to be formed. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:21, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
it turned out to be a rather complicated bureaucratic process. apologizes, I was trying to do everything without delays --Andrei (talk) 22:30, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Neighbourhoods of Mokotów. I wouldn't usually comment substantively on a discussion which I had relisted, but I just noticed that Category:Neighbourhoods of Mokotów contains 12 pages (which wasn't evident when the categories had been emptied). That seems to be a viable category size, and keeping it seems more helpful to navigation than dumping its contents into the 20 other pages in Category:Mokotów. @Marcocapelle notes that these are neighborhoods of districts of Warsaw, which is true, but they are also neighborhoods of Mokotów, and a subcat is the usual way of handling such an intersection. Other intersections such as Category:Neighbourhoods of Wola may be too small, but Mokotów is big enough. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Note that I have voted for upmerge per WP:NARROWCAT, not per WP:SMALLCAT. While the former guideline is not often appealed to (so we don't have a lot of precedent), I think it applies in the sense that intersection categories for neighbourhoods without any administrative status are a bit over the top. Let's also take into consideration that most other districts of Warsaw do not have a subcategory like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:25, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: NARROWCAT is a bad fit here. WP:NARROWCAT notes that "Such intersections tend to be very narrow, and clutter up the page's category list". These categories have the opposite effect, reducing the number of cats on each page.
I don't see how administrative status is relevant. The reason we don't have similar subcategories for other districts of Warsaw is simply that we don't (yet) have enough articles to justify them; they'd be WP:SMALLCATs. Note that Category:Neighbourhoods of Warsaw's Polish equivalent is pl:Kategoria:Osiedla w Warszawie, which has 209 pages. If/when more of them are translated, more subcats will become viable ... as they have in London, where we have a full set of Category:Districts of London by borough, none of which have any administrative status. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 9 February 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:no consensus. After 18 days, this discussion is going nowhere; the participants don't seem to share any points of common understanding. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 8 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as trivial intersections. Holidays are either in a fixed month (hence the season depends on the hemisphere) or in a fixed season (hence the month depends on the hemisphere). In the former case we should categorize by month (rather by than season x hemisphere), in the latter case we should categorize by season (rather than by month x hemisphere).
Perhaps the categories have been created specifically to link Category:Holidays based on the date of Easter with northern hemisphere spring and southern hemisphere autumn. This would not surprise me because the five remaining non-nominated siblings are empty (I have C1'ed them). Note that Category:Holidays based on the date of Easter does not need to be parented to a month or a season category, since individual holidays based on the data of Easter are already in two consecutive month categories (e.g. March+April). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:51, 21 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. You are right that holidays depend either on the month or the season. And you are also right that the season depends on the month and the month depends on the season. However, that means that holidays in either hemisphere are a mix of those based on one system and those based on the other, and simply using categories based on season or month will not always be helpful. As such, it makes perfect sense to categorise them by a hemisphere-specific method. You are also right that the categories are virtually empty - that is because the categorisation has only just begun for all eight categories. I was waiting until I had finished categorising month-specific events by country before starting on this (another user had assured me he'd help with the categorising, but that doesn't seem to have eventuated. Give this a few days, and all the categories will be appropriately filled. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PS - I note that none of the categories have been marked with CFD tags - why is this? Grutness...wha? 00:53, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
PPS - the "the five remaining non-nominated siblings" are not empty. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The missing tags was an omission, thanks for pointing that out. I have added the previously empty five categories to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:42, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I suspect that more useful would be to create a new version of this article, Lists of holidays, as a sortable table, including sortable by date. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:59, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not quite sure how that would help - there'd still be the problem of working out from the date whether you're referring to that date as it applies to the southern or northern hemisphere. Grutness...wha? 13:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just go by date. Forget season by hemisphere, it is not useful. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:18, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary. The reason these categories were created was because the "by date" system was heavily biased in favour of the Northern Hemisphere. For Southern users, the system was a complete nightmare. Grutness...wha? 23:08, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't get it. Why is season important in navigating to holidays? Why categorise holidays by season? It generates problems and solves what problems? Where are the parent articles that should that this is not WP:OR? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:50, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness: I believe I am the "another user". I kicked off the creation of the southern hemisphere seasonal holidays because I was disturbed to find that there was only one article, Summer holidays, and all the December-February summer holidays in the SH were simply lumped in with those. Totally inappropriate. I promised to do separating out, but found that you (Grutness) had become involved to the extent that we would conflict with each other's work. I decided to let your dust settle before doing any more work myself. Also, it's high summer right now and I'd prefer to put off heavy editing sessions until the weather cools in a couple of months. Akld guy (talk) 08:02, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ah - yes, that explains it :) Sorry I forgot who it was! Grutness...wha? 12:57, 22 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness and Akld guy: Could you please further react on "I don't get it" in the discussion above? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As it originally stood in mid-December 2017, Category:Summer holidays was billed at the top as observances in the Northern Hemisphere from "roughly June through August". I added "in the Southern Hemisphere, roughly December through February" in this edit. What is not now apparent was that at that stage, any article for a Southern Hemisphere summer holiday, such as Waitangi Day, that called this category was simply lumped in with no indication that the month didn't correspond. I created Category:Summer holidays, Southern Hemisphere as explained at the Talk page of Summer holidays for the reasons I gave there. Please look at that statement. It is now not possible to see what the problem was, because recategorization has been done at multiple articles, so no matter how far back you look in the history of Summer holidays, you're always seeing the present state of categorization. Akld guy (talk) 23:13, 1 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. Prior to this reorganisation, there was simply no way of telling just by looking at a category whether a "winter holiday" was one celebrated in winter in the north, winter in the south, or winter in one hemisphere and summer in the other. It was like having a box containing apples, pears, and oranges and labelling it "Apples". We also had the ridiculous situation of categories and articles such as Christmas being categorised as Category:Winter holidays and Category:Summer holidays. Grutness...wha? 01:55, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Grutness and Akld guy: I would expect Category:Summer holidays to be holidays that are celebrated in June-September in the northern hemisphere and 6 months later in the southern hemisphere, like Summer vacation. If that is not how it is actually been used, wouldn't it be more clear to delete all seasonal holidays categories and just stick to monthly holidays categories? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:29, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all seasonal holiday categories? That is not what this CfD is about. Kindly stick to the scope of this CfD and don't go off on a tangent. Akld guy (talk) 08:35, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is correct that it is not what the nomination is originally about. But if - as I understand now - the origin of the problem lies somewhere else then we should be willing to discuss that too. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:43, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No we should not. This is a CfD with specific deletion terms. Until this CfD is closed, we should not be discussing alternative deletions. Akld guy (talk) 08:51, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle, your comment simply confirms why these categories are necessary. "I would expect Category:Summer holidays to be holidays that are celebrated in June-September in the northern hemisphere and 6 months later in the southern hemisphere". Of course that's not what it was holding. It was holding exactly what it said on the label - summer holidays. That is, events celebrated in each hemisphere's summer, irrespective of whether they are also celebrated in the other hemisphere's summer or winter. The Southern Hemisphere's most widely celebrated summer holiday is Christmas. Are you saying that that is celebrated six months earlier in the north? Until the creation of these categories, it was only in Category:Winter holidays, and many other seasonal holidays, such as Easter, were also in the wrong category for the Southern Hemisphere. Understandably, this was a problem. That problem doesn't exist any longer - it was fixed by the creation of the eight seasonal holiday by hemisphere categories which you are now proposing to delete. If these categories are deleted, then the problem will return. So what you're effectively saying is "if there's a problem with those parent categories, it needs to be fixed - meanwhile, let's delete these categories which are effectively fixing the problem". Talking about deleting those parent categories is simply throwing out the baby with the bathwater - not to mention the fact that it's muddying the issue with a discussion that doesn't belong in this proposal. What you're saying is "Foo is useful, but had a problem fixed by Bar. Let's delete Bar, and since Foo will then have a problem, let's delete Foo as well". That's simply madness. Grutness...wha? 11:11, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again I don't get it. As holidays are apparently not related to seasons (with incidental exceptions like Summer vacation), why would we categorize them by seasons? Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 2 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Who said they're unrelated to seasons? They're integral parts of them. Here in New Zealand, for instance, Christmas is an integral highlight of summer. As such, categorising it as summer is perfectly logical and not having summer mentioned in association with it would be ridiculous. Yet for much of the world, it's equally integral to the winter season. On the other hand, Easter is, by its very traditions of eggs, rabbits, and other symbols of fertility, the very definition of a spring festival. Yet in the southern hemisphere it is central to autumn. On the other hand, Beltane is a spring festival in both hemispheres, celebrated in May in the north and November in the south. These festivals are intrinsically linked to specific seasons, so not categorising them by season is crazy. Yet for many of them, if you simply lump them in with one specific season, you're biasing their categorisation against one hemisphere in favour of the other, which goes against Wikipedia:Systemic bias. The categories which you have listed for deletion here remove that bias. To delete them alone would increase systemic bias. To delete both them and the parent seasonal categories would remove a series of useful categories which group together holidays by one of their intrinsic, integral facets. It's baffling to try to understand why anyone would think they should be deleted. And even deleting them would leave a similar problem, since in many cases, the specific holidays default to the categories for their month of occurrence - Christmas, for instance, is listed in Category:December observances. And there is an automatic bias for the majority of Wikipedians to think "December = Winter". So again, it's reinforcing a systemic bias. Other events, such as Beltane, would have to be categorised by two months six months apart, causing more confusion, and prompting a rephrasing of your question - as holidays are apparently not related to months, why would we categorize them by months? To carry your argument to its logical conclusion, then, we would have to then consider removing all the by-month categories. Grutness...wha? 01:51, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Christmas being categorized in Category:December observances, it is entirely irrelevant that people in the northern hemisphere think "December = Winter" or people in the southern hemisphere think "December = Summer". December as such is completely unambiguous. Creating duplicate categories because of fear that people have wrong associations with the first category name is quite a novelty, to put it mildly. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, they're not duplicates - they run in parallel, in exactly the same way that many other category trees do. If they were duplicates, then they would have exactly the same articles in them. They don't. The use of hemisphere names is a simple disambiguation (which is why they are in parentheses). And it's definitely not a novelty to have categories which run in parallel with disambiguated names because of fear that people have wrong associations with a category name. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They will be duplicates because all December observances will go into Northern Winter and Southern Summer categories (except days that are exclusively observed in one hemisphere, which would however be a trivial distinction and completely unrelated to this discussion). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Regarding Beltane, don't get me wrong, if there are is sizable number of true spring holidays (e.g. in May in the north and in November in the south) then I don't object having a Spring holidays category. It is questionable if there are enough of these holidays, and that is a different issue. So for spring holidays, do we have a number of articles more than Beltane? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Until the recent recategorizations, the problem was that categories were sub-categories in other categories, and the whole thing was Northern Hemisphere biased. For example, Category:Summer holidays might have been1 a sub-category in Category:July observances, which was clearly unsatisfactory because July is the coldest winter month in the Southern Hemisphere. Northern Hemisphere editors, who are more numerous, had failed to take that into account when setting things up years ago. That was the crux of the problem. Now that things have been recategorized, no Northern Hemisphere editor can do that again, because Category:Summer holidays has been split into northern and southern hemispheres, forcing him to choose the correct one, which is now Category:Summer holidays (Northern Hemisphere). The same with the other seasonal observances. Your proposed deletions would take us right back to the situation where an unthinking Northern Hemisphere editor could once again cross-categorize.
1This is only an example for illustration - I cannot now recall the exact state from nearly 2 months ago, but there was certainly cross-categorizing of the type shown. Akld guy (talk) 20:40, 3 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's a pretty accurate illustration. Grutness...wha? 03:21, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Again, if there are virtually no true summer holidays (i.e. observed in December-March in the southern hemisphere and in June-September in the northern hemisphere) then we should delete the summer holidays category. That would solve the problem instantly, because it would only leave us only with holidays by month, which are unambiguous. And if there are a substantial number of true summer holidays (which I doubt, frankly) then we should purge the summer holidays category and remove all holidays that are observed in June-September in the southern hemisphere. The fact that Category:July observances may have been a child category of Category:Summer holidays is irrelevant, since we agree that this is plain wrong. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:08, 4 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So you're effectively saying that either we should either delete the summer holidays category and let people hunt for summer holidays in the by month categories (which is ridiculous), or delete holidays which are regarded as integral parts of summer in one hemisphere because they are clearly not integral parts of summer (which is also patently ridiculous). Grutness...wha? 00:59, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Hunting? Why would it require hunting to find a by-month category (any more than to find than a by-season category)? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:11, 6 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Say you're looking for an article about a summer festival, but don't know its name for certain. Rather than looking in the summer festival category, you'd need to look in three (possibly four, given the season boundaries vary from culture to culture) month categories. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
As things stand at the moment, it seems - since relisting - to be just Marcocapelle arguing for delete, and two of us arguing for keep, with no sign of any likely consensus. Either this debate will simply continue ad infinitum, or should be closed as no consensus per CFDAI. Grutness...wha? 01:07, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't mind closing this as no consensus, then we can start a fresh and broader discussion including the nomination of the parent categories, that will hopefully attract more participants. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 7 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Surely if a child category is no consensus, the chances of getting a deletion of the parents is minimal, to say the least, and the process will be just another waste of time. Grutness...wha? 23:20, 7 February 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:Christmas nomenclature and language[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.
RenametoCategory:Names of Christmas (option A); this seems to me to fit the contents well. Yule is the weakest fit, but although it was not originally Christmas, it is in modern times used by some people as a name of Christmas. – FayenaticLondon 14:13, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Black Falcon: Based on his and my own findings, Xmas is the only one that really fits into this category. It may already be too small as is. LaundryPizza03 (talk) 01:59, 3 February 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: Subfields of economics is more general and can include more subjects. Golopotw (talk) 13:48, 12 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Question@Golopotw: which subcategories might be additionally put in this category after renaming? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps mergetoCategory:Economics. I do not quite see why subdisciplines should come directly under the main one. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:30, 14 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom 'subfields' is a good choice, to match up with other similar social science categories here Hmains (talk) 05:41, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural note The nominator @Golopotw did not tag the category when it was nominated. I have tagged it now [2]. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:23, 1 February 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.
Rename per nom This should follow the format of other Chronicles. Dimadick (talk) 07:40, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. That completely changes the scope of the category. It would not be a simple renaming. The category now has chronicles that talk about Lithuania, but are not Lithuanian. Renata (talk) 18:53, 17 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and purge the Russian and Livonian articles which contain little information regarding Lithuania anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:28, 19 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Potential keep -- The content is more wide-ranging than would fit in the target. Some are clearly in Latin, so that this does not concern the language. If renamed, it would have to be purged, which may be destructive. Perhaps some of the siblings need moving to this format. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 19 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.
