Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 13

< October 12	October 14 >

October 13

NEW NOMINATIONS

British America

Delete. Two categories for a single book. Just move the book to Category:History books about the United States and that's it. Cambalachero (talk) 19:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/upmerge. Makes sense. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not quite. British America apparently refers to land owned by Britain in the whole of North America during a certain but not the whole of their colonial period. There's also British North America and Category:British North America Mayumashu (talk) 21:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, but this is not about "British America", but about "History books about British America". The limits are broader than this, topics about the 13 colonies are topics about the history of the United States. Get into a library and seek books about the French and Indian War, will you find them at the "American history" shelf, or at the "British history" shelf? And, in any case, we do not need two levels of categories to find a single article. If there were many articles about books on the British America, and then even more articles about books specifically about the French and Indian war, then it would be an acceptable subcategorization, to avoid having a very crowed parent category. That's not the case here. Cambalachero (talk) 22:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Drishtantoism

Category:Drishtantoism - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Eponymous category for a philosophical school of little apparent significance; only page so categorized (and only page mentioning the school) is a userspace draft. No indication that we will ever have multiple pages belonging to this category. Huon (talk) 18:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Insignificant. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Best of Century accolades

Propose renaming Category:Best of Century accolades to Category:Best of Century awards

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#AWARD, categories which group together award winners are to be discouraged -- doubly so in this instance, which covers both the awards and the winners; and where they are not winners of the same award, but of different awards based around the same concept. I would therefore propose either:

Renaming to Best of Century awards (for standardised naming), perhaps moving into Category:Awards by subject, and depopulating this category of award winners (1953 French Grand Prix, Ford Model T, Pelé, etc.)

or

Deleting outright and merging into the applicable subcategories of Category:Awards by year (they'll all be either 2000 or 2001, I would imagine).

I think I'd prefer the former, as this is potentially a reasonable category. But I'm far from well versed in CFDs. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 18:02, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

British Raj

Delete Too much structure for just 2 articles. Remove the category from Late Victorian Holocausts, as it is a book about famine, and India is merely a "famine in foo" section. Upmerge The Great Game (book) to Category:History books about India Cambalachero (talk) 17:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WPTL articles

Category:WPTL articles - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category was being used by two different WikiProjects, WP Theology and WP Theoretical Linguistics, resulting in a rather strange list of articles. I separated them into the new categories Category:WikiProject Theology articles and Category:WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics articles, so now this category is obsolete. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 15:16, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (for the moment) You should have proposed this at the wikiproject talk pages, and do the change if there was consensus (or if nobody else replied). You have open this discussion and told the WP of the problem in the same day. I would tend to support the change, but the autonomy of the wikiprojects goes first Cambalachero (talk) 15:41, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I probably would have done that, but both WikiProjects don't seem very active at all. WP Theology only has three participants, and WP Theoretical Linguistics looks like it will be merged into WikiProject Linguistics in the next few weeks. (See the discussion on WP Linguistics for more details.) Being the proposer of the latter is how I came to notice the mix-up, of course. — Mr. Stradivarius ^♫ 16:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – as it is now empty (and there is no Category:WPTL). Occuli (talk) 16:11, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – but Category:WPTL articles should not have been already emptied; next time propose this and let us judge with the category still intact. ^{şṗøʀĸşṗøʀĸ: τᴀʟĸ} 16:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – as above. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete good job. -- Francis Tyers · 21:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems like an entirely necessary technical change. I can't imagine it being controversial among WikiProject particpants. Cnilep (talk) 00:47, 14 October 2011 (UTC) (WikiProject Theoretical Linguistics participant)[reply]

Category:Books on art

Propose merging Category:Books on art to Category:Books about visual art

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Per parent Category:Works about visual art and recent discussions here about the need to use "visual art" in such cases, to avoid the confusion over art/the arts. I've checked with creator User:Johnbod and he concurs, as well. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as above. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom, although the use of "visual art" in category names should be carefully limited. Johnbod (talk) 20:58, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Green architects

Category:Green architects - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. No objective way to define the scope of such a category. What would make an architect "green"? what is a "green architect"? Consequently current content is aleatory and meaningless. Elekhh (talk) 11:05, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support – and thanks for 'aleatory'. Occuli (talk) 12:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support - It ain't easy, bein' green. -The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support subjective. Having categories for biographical articles on architects who had or have LEED certification would be OK. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No material is ever green/environmentally friendly because construction always has an impact on the environment.Curb Chain (talk) 22:53, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Architects who died in Nazi concentration camps

Category:Architects who died in Nazi concentration camps - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining. There is no notable correlation between profession and cause of death. Elekhh (talk) 11:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:People who died in Nazi concentration camps per WP:OCTrivial. I predict however that various editors will flock in shouting 'Keep' without any attempt to address OCTrivial: cf a recent similar cfd. Occuli (talk) 12:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious upmerge unless we can document that someone in the regime was having his rivals bumped off. Seems unlikely, though. Mangoe (talk) 15:06, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge - clear-cut case of WP:OC. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Museum architects

Category:Museum architects - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Non-defining, non-existent specialisation. Any architect can design a museum, all architects designing museums also design other buildings. Category is meaningless. Elekhh (talk) 10:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — the category is not meaningless, it is a specialism of some architects. The category is similar to other categories for specialised architects such as Category:Ecclesiastical architects, Category:Theatre architects, Category:Bridge architects, Category:Naval architects, etc. All of these are valid and defining qualities of some architects. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 13:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Will come to some of those as well, but mass nominations are problematic. Specialisation is when a certain set of special skills are required. This can be significant by complex functions or difficult engineering (skyscrapers, bridges), but exhibition spaces are among the simplest, any architect can do and there is no special course or qualification for it. This is a clear-cut case. --Elekhh (talk) 13:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I contest that designing a museum building is simple; where is your evidence of this? Take, the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao and Tate Modern for example. The are important defining aspects of museum architecture, which is of increasing importance. See The Explosion of Museum Architecture for example. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:13, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say is simple, I said that it does not require specialisation and thus is covered by the basic skills of general architectural education. "Take the Guggenheim Museum Bilbao" for example, could be a concert hall or else, is not not the functionality (museum) what makes it notable but the architecture. --Elekhh (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

well.... One can argue about whether designing museum buildings is a distinction, but at least half of the entries seem to be about exhibit designers, which is a different and distinct specialty. Mangoe (talk) 15:10, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Don't most architects have certain specialties? For large buildings the same applies for firms that may limit their activities to a limited set of projects in certain areas. For buildings designed by large firms, doesn't this go to the various parts of the design? Does the lead architect actually design the entire buildings or do they create the basic concept and then a team of specialists does the actual design work for the building? If this is true, then what does a category like this actually mean? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:15, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In search of an easy metaphor, is like with an actor which gets to play mostly in comedies (because of abilities, producers' choice, "market demand", random circumstance, whatever) so it becomes than a "comedy actor"? It does not mean that other actors cannot take up that role, or play it better or that the subject actor couldn't play in a drama. So back to architects, what would make objectively an architect be a "museum architect" (any reference yet for the term?) having designed one museum? ten? a hundred? having designed only museums? more than 50% of works having been museums? At least 10% of projects being for museums? And concretely David Chipperfield is he than also "civic architect", "office architect", "hotel architect", "residential architect" in the same time? Do his museum designs make him notable because they satisfy functional requirements or because they are outstanding architecture? Why would we dump him in a category like that if he doesn't assume such an identity nor architecture critics attribute him such a narrow role? --Elekhh (talk) 20:26, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — Yes, David Chipperfield (as an example) is a particularly noted museum architect and has won awards for his museum designs (e.g., the River and Rowing Museum). — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody contests that he is the author of distinguished museum designs. That does not reduce him to be a "museum architect" though. --Elekhh (talk) 23:54, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we could look at lawyers. In most, if not all states, they are lawyers who are authorized to practice law in any any area. Most states prohibit them from saying that they are experts or especially qualified to practice in one area. So we tend not to classify them by the type of law they practice. That does not mean that each lawyer does not have an area that they are more qualified to practice in since the knowing the case law and statute in a particular area helps their clients. I believe that architects are the same. But is this a defining characteristic for them or similarly for an architect? A lawyer may be notable for the cases they win. An architect may be notable for the buildings and structures they design. But is that distinction defining? Vegaswikian (talk)

Can the questions be narrowed down to: Does a museum design make an architect notable because it satisfies functional requirements (being able to hang a picture on the wall, etc) or because is outstanding architecture ? and are there any references in any of the articles in the category to support the "museum architect" term? --Elekhh (talk) 21:29, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A simple answer is notable designs can make an architect notable. And the other half, a notable design may not be a reason for a category. A common reason for deletion is that there is no lead article with the premise being that if there is no material for a lead article, then the category should not exist. Also consider that if you can justify a category like this, the name needs to be unambiguous and the inclusion criteria needs to be clear, so that the simple fact that someone has designed a museum, should not be the reason they are included. Architects should only be included if the buildings is defining for them. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dependently typed formal languages

Propose renaming Category:Dependently typed formal languages to Category:Dependently typed programming languages

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These are all programming languages, not merely formal languages. —Ruud 09:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BYU Cougars baseketball venues

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 rename, under the presumption that BYU doesn't have any venues for BASEketball.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:22, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:BYU Cougars baseketball venues - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Speedy delete per criterion 1 (misspelling/typo). Category now empty; content already moved to correctly spelled version, Category:BYU Cougars basketball venues. Dale Arnett (talk) 08:37, 13 October 2011 (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:Presidency University, Kolkata

Category:Presidency University, Kolkata alumni to Category:Presidency College, University of Calcutta alumni — Reason for rename: All the alumni listed are alumni of the University of Calcutta, which awarded them their degrees and not the newly established Presidency University. Separate category required for alumni of Presidency University to emphasize this difference. An example is category on alumni of Hindu College, University of Delhi. Sidhu Jyatha (talk) 18:48, 21 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Moving from speedy nomination. No opinion on the merits.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:55, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I agree that alumni should be categorised by the name of the institution when they graduated. Occuli (talk) 08:17, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:ACAC aircraft

Propose renaming Category:ACAC aircraft to Category:Comac aircraft

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The company name changed a few years ago; the category name should change accordingly. Would C2D but it doesn't fit the timeframe. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 03:59, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History books about Paraguay

Category:History books about Paraguay - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The only article that used to be here was 1810 (book), a history book about Argentina, not Paraguay. Cambalachero (talk) 02:42, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History books about Bolivia

Category:History books about Bolivia - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The only article that was here was 1810 (book), which is a book about Argentina Cambalachero (talk) 02:40, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Empire of Brazil

Delete Category tree for a single article that does not even belong there. The Empire of Brazil was a former country that encompased the territories of modern Brazil and Uruguay, thus the structure. However, it is not a history book about Brazil, but a book about famine, and Brazil is just a "Famine in foo" section of it. And if we remove it, the Brazil->Empire of Brazil line is left without any history book to categorize. The Uruguay->Empire of Brazil line is even more pointless, as Uruguay left the Empire decades before the topic being talk about at the book section. By the way, 1810 (book) was also wrongly categorized here, as that book is about Argentina. Cambalachero (talk) 02:34, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piscataway Township, New Jersey

Propose renaming Category:Piscataway Township, New Jersey to Category:Piscataway, New Jersey

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Match the article name. See Edison, New Jersey where Township is not used in the category name. Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 02:09, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Commerce Clause

Propose renaming Category:United States Constitution Commerce Clause case law to Category:Category:United States Commerce Clause case law

Propose renaming Category:United States Constitution Dormant Commerce Clause case law to Category:Category:United States Dormant Commerce Clause case law

Nominator's rationale: Rename. In the last discussion it was pointed out that Australia might have a commerce clause (although not one that the article namespace currently gives credence to). Leaving that aside, we can still safely drop the word "Constitution" from both these categories. Within the US, the term Commerce Clause unambiguously refers to the clause in Article I of the Constitution. Savidan 02:03, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for brevity. Neutrality^talk 19:30, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1976 Grand Prix

Category:1976 Grand Prix - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary. Almost redundant to Category:1976 Formula One race reports (the difference between the two categories being that Category:1976 Grand Prix is intended to include all 1976 national Grand Prix auto races, not all of which were Formula One races, whereas Category:1976 Formula One race reports includes all 1976 Formula One races, not all of which were national Grands Prix). 1976 is this only year for which such a "national Grands Prix" category exists. If the category is not deleted, at the very least it should be renamed to "1976 Grands Prix" or (preferably) "1976 national Grands Prix" or perhaps "1976 national auto racing Grands Prix" or maybe "1976 national Grand Prix auto races". DH85868993 (talk) 02:00, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Spyder_Monkey (Talk) 22:46, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Totally unnecessary. Bretonbanquet (talk) 23:04, 13 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there should probably be a national grands prix category tree. This could be the start of it. 70.49.126.190 (talk) 04:06, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]