Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 10: Difference between revisions

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
Line 93: Line 93:
***Well, we may not have any, but certainly could. I'm not sure this is a problem that really needs fixing. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
***Well, we may not have any, but certainly could. I'm not sure this is a problem that really needs fixing. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 17:41, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
****Ah, I see you've found one - [[Trumpington pectoral cross]]! The one at Durham, found inside [[St Cuthbert's coffin]] is also certainly notable. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
****Ah, I see you've found one - [[Trumpington pectoral cross]]! The one at Durham, found inside [[St Cuthbert's coffin]] is also certainly notable. [[User:Johnbod|Johnbod]] ([[User talk:Johnbod|talk]]) 16:45, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
*'''Keep''' -- While in theory this should be plural, it would be OTT.


==== Category:Social problems ====
==== Category:Social problems ====

Revision as of 19:11, 12 June 2016

< June 9 June 11 >

June 10

Category:Television series filmed in Atlanta, Georgia

Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other category names. JDDJS (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Abbasid Caliphate

Nominator's rationale: Only six pages total in this whole tree. Not even enough to maintain century categories in the establishments tree. The typical year/decade targets in Asia and the Abbasid Caliphate would also be left with just one page, so upmerging to centuries on those. WP:SMALLCAT. ~ RobTalk 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music by place

Nominator's rationale: Sometimes all you have as a reason is feeling. Geographical location feels more precise and better fitting than place. It also fits better to the parent categories name Category:Music by geographical categorization. CN1 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As always, before responding, please read my responses to other comments, as much insight into the matter is only tickled out of me when I have to respond to the thoughts of others and copying the info into the rationale feels redundant. CN1 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What all these subcategories have in common is, that they are defined by their geographic location.
What makes a place?
Its location.
So the thing the category actually categorizes by, is the location.
The discussion fortunately found no consensus, because some felt that location fits better.
CN1 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monumental crosses in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: All the member articles are about high crosses. – Fayenatic London 15:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What has Anna Livia (monument) to do with anything? Merging crosses into "Monuments and memorials" doesn't imply that all those are crosses. The high cross tree is far more useful than this one, if one had to choose, which we don't. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In terms of crosses "monumental" correctly means anything larger than about 3 feet, and I think almost all the "Stone crosses" category would be correctly so described. The Monumental crosses tree seems to contain a very arbitary mixture of larger high crosses and Celtic crosses, plus outside the British Isles ones that would be more accurately described as "colossal", eg Valle de los Caídos. I'd like to see clearer criteria, & a rename. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Category:High crosses in Ireland is an appropriate category for a particular genre of archaeological structure. It is appropriate to have an all-Ireland category, as they date from many centuries before the 1922 partition. They are monumental, but are not memorials. They were perhaps originally the equivalent of a church building before any were built - a place where a congregation met - or a teaching aid. Purge of anything that does not fit (e.g. war memorials). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People with dual American and German citizenship

Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. Are we going to create this for every possible combination? We would end up with 46 000 categories. Nymf (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For info: an intersection of Category:American people and Category:German people lists thousands of people (e.g. Albert Einstein). DexDor (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category has a Kosavar refugee who came to the US via Germany and an NBA player born in Germany but who grew up in Utah. Neither one of these people seem defined by the nexus of American and German culture/citizenship. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter what the cultural and/or political inclinations of these people are, this category is merely noting a significant legal anomalies.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects - not for "noting a significant legal anomalies". DexDor (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crux gemmata

Nominator's rationale: We use plural names for set categories holding articles about individual objects. The main article is Crux gemmata and the Latin plural would be cruces gemmatae, but that Latin plural is not a recognised English expression, so let's use English. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Social problems

Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the difference between Social problems and Social issues is not clear. In article space, social problem is a redirect to social issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players

Nominator's rationale: This is a confusing two categories. It appears a bunch of teams happen to share a name, but they're completely unrelated otherwise. For some reason, they're even sharing an article at Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball). We could try splitting these by iterations, although the information in the article makes it hard to know where one team starts and ends. We could also split by league. Alternatively, we could give up on splitting and merge Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players here. It makes little sense to have one split out and all the rest not. Also, as it stands, Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players is an ambiguous name when we have the other category in existence. ~ RobTalk 06:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Insects of Oman

Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Amyna axis is found in Oman is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that species. Another issue is that these categories tend to be very incomplete - for example Category:Insects of Yemen currently contains 15 articles, but there are over 100 butterfly species alone in Yemen. Examples of previous discussions about categorizing animals by whether they occur in small (on a global scale) countries: insects, Middle East. DexDor (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic

Nominator's rationale: One page for all of these categories, which clearly provides no useful classification. Upmerge to the most relevant establishments category and then delete the empty categories as per WP:SMALLCAT. And no, you didn't misread; this entire tree is for a single page. Note that the single page is already in Category:Tuva (which would have been the other plausible upmerge target). ~ RobTalk 05:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mammals of Iran

Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted last year - categorizing by countries (rather than by larger regions) leads to a large number of category tags on some articles and often (as currently in this case) the category forms a very incomplete list. Lists (in this case List of mammals of Iran) are a much better way to cover this information. The one article currently in this category is already in Category:Mammals of the Middle East so no upmerge is needed. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Top lists

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as duplication of Category:Lists of superlatives. Trivialist (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Glimcher Realty Trust

Nominator's rationale: Glimcher Realty Trust no longer exists. The company is now known as WP Glimcher, and the WP Glimcher name is used on their malls, such as this page, which says "Managed by WP Glimcher" at the bottom of the page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2016 in San Jose, California

Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow-up nomination to the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 28. This should likely be discussed as well, especially given that the parent Category:2016 in the San Francisco Bay Area has been deleted. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion for or against deletion; this is merely procedural. ~ RobTalk 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:2016 in San Francisco, California

Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow-up nomination to the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 28. This should likely be discussed as well, especially given that the parent Category:2016 in the San Francisco Bay Area has been deleted. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion for or against deletion; this is merely procedural. ~ RobTalk 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities

nominated categories
Merge:
Rename:
Delete:
Nominator's rationale: As a follow up to this recent discussion, I suggest that for these hidden "administrative" categories, we do not need to draw distinctions between cities and other types of populated places. So I suggest that we eliminate the Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities tree in favour of the broader Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places tree. I do not believe that drawing a distinction between different types of populated place is useful in the administrative context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Oceanic string quartets

Nominator's rationale: String quartets are categorised by country, not by continent. Further, the adjective from Oceania is Oceanian, not Oceanic (an oceanic string quartet would be one situated in the middle of an ocean, not one in Oceania). Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:21, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cyprus peace process

Nominator's rationale: Not saying the situation in Cyprus was outright "peaceful", it is no longer determined by a violent conflict. The ongoing process is about reconciliation or, more precisely, about the possible reunification of Cyprus. PanchoS (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: @Greyshark09: @RevelationDirect: pinging contributors again. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: I actually started writing an article about the (proposed) Reunification of Cyprus (no, not the currently linked Annan Plan) a few weeks ago. Of course that reunification process is not completed, and it may fail again. But even if there were a full breakdown of the process, it probably won't ever be abandoned as an idea, similar to the Korean reunification, the Unification of Romania and Moldova or the Chinese unification, but different to these in that it isn't (necessarily) based on ethnic nationalism. Actually, this is a slightly different perspective to the reconciliation process that indeed in the literature is usually referred to as "peace process". I'm happy to withdraw my nomination until the dust has settled, but would like to invite you, Greyshark09, RevelationDirect and others to team up with me in writing one or even both articles on this topic. This is no talk forum here, but we might want to use this discussion to come up with a plan how to organize the topic and basically how to proceed from here. --PanchoS (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 03:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fireworks festivals in Canada

Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a Category:Fireworks in China category could be (re)created. PanchoS (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cartography journals

Nominator's rationale: Cat contains 1 article and 2 redirects. Even if there were more entries, I don't really see the utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals". Upmerge to Category:Geography journals. Randykitty (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. did you try googling for "cartography journals"? it'd have readily provided an abundance of such publications, thus demonstrating the potential for growth of this category. the fact that you see no utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals" only shows how much you know about the subject. not only is cartography a notable topic on its own, but it's also not entirely contained within geography, re: navigation, surveying, geodesy, etc. your proposal is equivalent to deleting a medical specialty journal category. fgnievinski (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear that this is too small to justify a category at its current size. The question that should be discussed further is whether there's potential for growth or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that grouping together journals on subjects as diverse as brain mapping, genetic mapping, Moon topography, and the history of cartography (in the sense of making maps of the Earth) makes no sense at all. Indeed, none of these subjects (except for the history one) is in the category "cartography". I am quite certain that readers of, say, Human Brain Mapping would be flabbergasted to find that journal categorized as a "cartography journal" (which in addition is a subcat of "Earth and atmospheric sciences journals"). Heck, I am sure that even cartographers will not consider those subjects to be part of cartography. --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_10&oldid=724969572"