Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 3 November 5 >

November 4[edit]

Category:Medieval parishes[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.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The first paragraph of the category page text is "A list of settlements which had a church rather than chapel in the medieval and post-medieval period and all of the other functions which the ecclesiastical parish served until narrowed on the dawn of the secular age.". That appears to be a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic for articles about (what are now) districts of London (e.g. Croydon and Battersea). Note: This category has no parent categories (which suggests that its creator has limited understanding of wp categorization). DexDor (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Both points I have now addressed in the new, much broader proposed category. See below. - Adam37 Talk 10:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We live in the UK administratively in a secular age, granted, but it is more than coincidence that it is the 800+ year old parishes in London which change the least and die out the least in their use. I just think to enable people to understand what is a 'fad' district and what is part of the fabric of English history an old settlement (whose heart was almost always near that old church as opposed to new chapels etc.) would be important? And I don't mean Domesday which was an extremely long time ago in terms of development.- Adam37 Talk 21:44, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Quoting, fairly, wikipedia's own main criteria on the subject: categorisations that describe "type of location or region". That is exactly what say medieval parishhistoric parish does, as suggested by the editor below, it is the source of the name of the district used, and very much a current status when you look around, many others of which chop and change all the time. Were I a churchman I would say it is the very foundation of our sense of local identity, but I hope you get the picture think that is putting it a little strongly, needless to say the old names have the most national recognition and, of course, written about them. - Adam37 Talk 21:48, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm changing the wrong use of tense and completely overhauling to what I meant to say in its definition Right, now it won't need a definition as will be clear to all involved.- Adam37 Talk 21:54, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If this category is about Medieval parishes then it has to cover all parishes not just the ones in London. I can see a use for this information about London but it would be better presented as a List of Medieval parishes in London. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:50, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These are not broadly known and studied under the given title – the title suggests historical parishes, when that is not the actual purpose of the category. There may be some better way to categorise such content, but I see nothing more in common with these topics apart from their having existed it a certain point in time, as compared to the "non-Medieval parishes" (e.g. they were not created under the same statute or for the same reason). SFB 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have made my point about boundaries with other editors' agreement at Hornsey. The former boundaries are being used by authorities and people all of the time allowing doubt to be cast gently on certain alleged 'district's, many of which do not even have a train station named after them! I am happy for it to be remained either historic parishes or medieval parishes and to add in London? Thinking about it again, I agree historic parishes is just as good as that would encompass up to their subdivision (e.g St this that and t'other) I'll even do it myself if you can say what is OK? Few were created by statute. All were former civil parishes too. Perhaps that would be a better alternative, but some of those are combinations? I think the initial opposition was because it rightly sounded a bit too "knights in shining armour"? The reason for their enhanced relevance in metropolitan UK postal areas is that postcodes do not define most London districts, which people instead do base on historic parishes and/or current or former electoral wards.- Adam37 Talk 21:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • May I rename them all to Historic parishes in London or other current county? All of the 19th and mid- 20th century sources make prominent reference to parishes and the practical use of such names which may sometimes conflict with station names is widespread. Unlike Domesday which is only relevant for Early English and Norman studies, yet for some months has had tacit consent.- Adam37 Talk 11:20, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • When the discussion is closed by an admin, the bot will do the moving or renaming. What happens will be determined by the consensus developed in the discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:42, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not too keen on that because what counts as historic is a little subjective for London parishes, as the term is not widely applied. It isn't strictly defined or recognised in the UK as far as I am aware. Obviously the "historic" term has more relevance in North America (because there are so few historic settlements), but in the UK most places are historic in some form so it isn't very definitive (hence why there is an opposite focus on Category:New towns in the United Kingdom). SFB 00:39, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Vegaswikian. Sorry. Noted. I have agreed with the commentator who thought medieval was arbitrary and an early cut-off and it has enabled me to include places such as Pinner which was established in 1716.- Adam37 Talk 10:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The term historic parish is widely used to group Ancient Parish and abolished Civil Parish (usually very similar) these were superseded from two types of current parish: 1. Ecclesiastical parishes which are nearly always much smaller and named after part of a historic parish and 2. Places like Queen's Park, London which are rare examples of current civil parishes in England. Consensus it seems has fairly dismissed much content about current ecclesiastical parishes as they are of insufficient importance and in constant flux. As we have a category of Places in London mentioned in the Domesday Book, which seems archaic to say the least, surely looking back to the last system of administration which (with rural exceptions) was all over in 1965 provides one with certainty. This simply identifies that line of the article that tells you it was an old parish for centuries. That is about 40% of London 'Districts' which understandably overlap in such a developed city.- Adam37 Talk 10:00, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Adam37: Could you help the discussion by showing sources which make the above definitions? It's making it difficult that the category system is getting ahead of the article base here, because sourcing is crucial to understanding whether this idea of "historic parishes" is subjective or not. SFB 17:51, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy:} Vision of Britain is one of the biggest. It uses AP/CP grouped as they are both dissolved unless the CP is continued. Where this is so, it is a historic parish. Or you might say former.- Adam37 Talk 19:27, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Note the change in proposal from its creator. I am a very Bold editor and realise in novel areas for me such as categories that may not be a good thing.- Adam37 Talk 10:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

You changed the heading to" Category:Medieval parishesHistoric parishes ". I have reverted it as Category:Medieval parishes exists and is being discussed here (although it is currently empty), whereas Category:Historic parishes does not exist. If you mean that you are seeking support to create Category:Historic parishes, just say so. – Fayenatic London 18:07, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Fayenatic london: Thanks. I am hoping there is no objection to Category:Historic parishes in England or a synonym.- Adam37 Talk 19:30, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and do not create 'historic parishes' which has even less meaning. MRSC (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I still cannot grasp the purpose of this category. I can see a use for a list of 'old' parishes; even better would be a map of those parishes, but to try and link these historic areas with modern settlements does not help with navigation. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:54, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- There were approximately 12000 medieval parishes in England. Most were also 19th century parishes. There has been some alteration since, but in rural areas, the modern civil parishes are mostly also medieval parishes. Since 1890, we have the further complication that Civil and Ecclesiastical Parishes have changed in differnet ways. If we were to have the category under discussion, it ought to be split by counties. HOwever the whole subject is too complicated for a simnple category scheme to be feasible. Furthermore many of tha articles categorised as on parishes are actually about its main village. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 15 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorizing by having a church in the medieval time frame seems too centered on certain places. What of cities that had full Mosques? Or is this just for a certain, undefined geographic area?John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 5 December 2014 (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:Defunct villages in the United Kingdom[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct and populated means the new village (successor place) should never be categorised as defunct. It just had a place name that died out. - Adam37 Talk 21:15, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
See Wales below. I can't even understand the claimed rationale, let alone the claim that there are no defunct vilages in the whole country. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:27, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not all "populated places" are villages. That's why "defunct villages" is there as a sub category of "former populated places". The populated places sets include "districts of Cardiff" and "Roman towns". Now for venta silurum / Caerwent, that might be defunct as a Roman town, but it's quite successful as a village. Abereiddy though was a village with a clear abandonment event and is now no more than one or two surviving houses on a different site further round the bay. That's not a "village" any more, yet you might still claim it as a populated place - and I note that when the nominator blanked the category before nominating it, he didn't even think to recategorise. Ifton and Llanfihangel Rogiet are two defunct villages that have disappeared and are now within the boundary of a smaller village, Rogiet that has since grown to swallow their sites (even though hardly built upon). Those are another clear case of defunct villages without being former populated placed. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:01, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep – it is out of process to empty categories before cfd; and Andy Dingley makes a persuasive case for retention. Oculi (talk) 14:57, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not sure. I remain skeptical. I couldn't understand what the category was distinct from the two other possibilities mentioned, either former populated or current. If you did live in a decimated community I am not convinced you would willingly be described by the adjective 'defunct', as it is admittedly hard, but you have alerted me to a new category where there is say a mass archaelogy or history perhaps it could be renamed villages containing former settlements (or settlement remains) in the United Kingdom. - Adam37 Talk 11:15, 6 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Repopulate and keep – agree with Andy Dingley and Oculi. — Jonathan Bowen (talk) 14:33, 6 November 2014 (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:Defunct villages in Wales[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct and populated means the new village (successor place) should never be categorised as defunct. It just had a place name that died out. - Adam37 Talk 21:14, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, but I can't even understand your rationale? The category is empty because you've just gone through and emptied it. What is Abereiddy if not defunct? What about the villages drowned under reservoir building? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:25, 4 November 2014 (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:Seraiki culture[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.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:30, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Criterion C2D (WP accepted spelling: "Saraiki"). See also subcategory name. kashmiri TALK 21:11, 4 November 2014 (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:Seraiki tribes[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.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:29, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Criterion C2D (WP accepted spelling: "Saraiki"). kashmiri TALK 21:10, 4 November 2014 (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:Seraiki people[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.
The result of the discussion was: Rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:28, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Criterion C2D - WP accepted spelling: "Saraiki". See subcategory names. kashmiri TALK 21:07, 4 November 2014 (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:Defunct villages in England[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.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dear Jpbowen and admins, Defunct and populated means the new village (successor place) should never be categorised as defunct. It just had a place name that died out. There are now plenty of alternative categories. Adam. - Adam37 Talk 21:05, 4 November 2014 (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.

Awards by school[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. I will inspect the contents to see whether only some should also go to the other parent as the nominator says, or all as Armbrust suggests. – Fayenatic London 20:13, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Besides being oddly named, some of the articles here are about awards awarded by groups at the university. That does not qualify as being awarded by the school. Upmerge all as nominated also selectively merge any of the awards actually by the school to Category:Awards by universities and colleges in the United States. See related discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2014 (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:People from Brook Park, Ohio[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.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:27, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has two entries. ...William 15:34, 4 November 2014 (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:Taemin[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:24, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. As below, too few articles to require parent eponymous category. Navigation from main article and topic album/songs cats are sufficient per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:43, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not warrant an eponymous category as all content fits well within the songs/albums tree and is better located via that route. SFB 20:39, 5 November 2014 (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:Henry Lau[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:23, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too few articles to require parent eponymous category. Navigation from main article and topic album/songs cats are sufficient per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:30, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not warrant an eponymous category as all content fits well within the songs/albums tree and is better located via that route. SFB 20:39, 5 November 2014 (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:Buffyverse artists[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.
The result of the discussion was: Listify to main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:51, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Hardly a defining aspect of any of these artists' careers. Upmerge to Category:Buffyverse for any that could be argued as such. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:56, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance type of category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:58, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify should not be a category, instead it should be a list that indicates why they are Buffyverse artists -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2014 (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:Seas of Norway[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.
The result of the discussion was: Delete tree. Having said that, only this one category will be deleted. While consensus is for the entire tree to go, the rest of the categories will need to be nominated and action will be taken after that discussion. In that nomination please make sure that all articles will remain in appropriate categories/trees. I checked in this one and we are OK. Not sure about the rest. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:31, 11 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: If this categorization scheme was complete then, for example, North Sea would be categorized under all of Great Britain, Norway, Denmark, Germany, the Netherlands, Belgium, and France. It is more appropriate to categorize seas in categories like Category:Marginal seas of the Atlantic Ocean and Category:European seas. If this discussion results in Delete then the rest of Category:Seas by country should be considered for deletion. DexDor (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tree Seas are very rarely confined to one country so it doesn't make sense to categorise them by country. A similar reasoning is given for categorising animals by country, as the topic does not respect borders and naturally is not defined by nations. Organising this content by higher-level ocean/sea or continent is much more appropriate (as we already have in the form of Category:European seas and Category:Seas of the Mediterranean‎, for example). Certainly a suitable topic for a list, however. SFB 17:49, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tree per SFB as extension of nom's rationale. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep this and the others in the tree. Both are useful for navigation in the geography/landforms/bodies of water category trees. This shows which seas border a particular country or, in the case of the Philipines and Indonesia, surround the islands that make up the country. Deleting these categories would mean information loss for no good reason. Instead, the Category:Seas by country should be more fully populated. Having a few more categories attached to the North Sea, for example, is no big crime; it is what the category system is about. Lists would not be a good substitute: for most countries, the number of seas is far too small to justify a list article. Hmains (talk) 04:10, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Categories should only contain information that is also in article text (where it can be cited) so deleting a category should not remove information from wp. We already have lists - e.g. see the first sentence and the infobox of North Sea. Categorization is for categorizing articles - not for providing any link that any user may find useful (if you want lots of links then look at the article!). DexDor (talk) 07:15, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that information should be maintained and lists created as appropriate. I don't think the category system is an elegant solution to gathering and navigating this content though. SFB 20:39, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Tree per SFB rationale. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:19, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as an admin who sometimes closes CFDs: the parent and sibling categories in this tree will not be deleted after closing this discussion, unless they are also tagged and linked to this discussion. – Fayenatic London 18:12, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes - I realise this CFD only covers part of the seas-by-country tree. That tree is not complete (e.g. there's no seas-of-Denmark category) so deleting one category from it doesn't cause an inconsistency. When this CFD closes I'll decide whether to CFD the rest of the tree - either individually or (more likely in this case) in one CFD. DexDor (talk) 22:24, 10 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Each country has a category of this kind: Category:Bodies of water of Norway which naturally includes the seas subcategory: Category:Seas of Norway in this case. Deleting this category and others like it will leave a hole this category structure--for no valid reason. The information loss I mentioned is that this seas information will be lost to this category structure. WP is more than just article content; it is also category content. Hmains (talk) 23:00, 8 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete tree. If all Seas by Country categories were populated, then most "seas" would be unreadable in the category structure. I suppose they might work if hidden categories, but that's another problem. (Yes, I know, only this category would be deleted if the result is "Delete".) — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_4&oldid=1136102525"