Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 16 January 18 >

January 17[edit]

Category:Traditional Strega Nonna[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) 21:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains one talk page, has no parents and has rambling text that provides no information about what the category is for. DexDor (talk) 23:09, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as patent nonsense. SFB 00:26, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Contributors rationale: Apologies Wiki users & contributors, for my error in selecting "New category", instead of "Strega Nonna:Talk. Rambling text and Patent nonsense? So above two users did realize my contribution was a talk:comment. Intention was discussion of validity to one individual fact contained within said Article. Users who vote to delete must first comprehend what they are reading. Containing no "Parent" had to offer a speedy clue to possible type of error. As we know, only contributor can correct "Category". For normal peer reviewing of questionable contributions, attempt to bring into Wiki guidelines. Rather than completely remove. Thanks. Educated WikiCHICAGOCONCERTMAN (talk) 03:23, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete creation seems to have been a mistake and the category is now empty. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:46, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We do not even have an article Strega Nonna or Traditional Strega Nonna. Without an article, we cannot have a talk page. The text that CHICAGOCONCERTMAN created was a question for the talk page. At best it was an article (and a bad one) sitting in category space. I suspect that there is a right place for the (new?) user's query, but it is probably not in WP. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 18 January 2015 (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:Groove Awards winners[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) 21:37, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OC#AWARD. Note: The Groove Awards article includes a list. DexDor (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not a major award that is worthy of a category. SFB 00:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- yet another unnecessary awards category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:36, 18 January 2015 (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:Ayre (surname)[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) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Calvin Ayre article shouldn't be in this category (see WP:OC#SHAREDNAME) which would just leave the eponymous article. Hence delete per WP:SMALLCAT. DexDor (talk) 22:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A shared surname isn't really much of a shared feature for any categorised biographies, as the shared family name will almost always be incidental. No potential content for the topic, otherwise. SFB 00:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OC by shared name. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:24, 19 January 2015 (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:UsesSecondParam[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 (by creator of category). Satisfied speedy deletion criterion G2 (test page). RockMagnetist(talk) 23:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This "temporary" category has existed since March 2013. For background see Template_talk:Not_a_forum#Suggested_change. This category has a virtually meaningless name and places article talk pages under Category:Wikipedia templates. DexDor (talk) 21:40, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Test category no longer in active use. SFB 00:24, 18 January 2015 (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:Steve Bloomer[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) 21:36, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Pointless category EchetusXe 21:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not enough conent to warrant a self-titled category. SFB 00:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- One very unimportant song. Steve Bloomer (who is not actually in the category, but should be) may have been a very significant footballer in his time, but there will never be enough content to warrant a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:41, 18 January 2015 (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:Academic journals published by libraries[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) 21:35, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: should have renamed to Category:Academic journals published by university libraries; don't want to leave a redirect behind as it's not the same thing. Fgnievinski (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does the fact that I'm the original page creator qualifies the present nomination for speedy deletion? Thanks. Fgnievinski (talk) 23:23, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fgnievinski: Yes. I don't see this as a controversial change given the original content. SFB 00:23, 18 January 2015 (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:Burials by city[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: make these into container categories; to implement this, rename delete Category:Burials by city to Category:Burials by city and place, and rename city categories to "Burials in Foo by place" if they have at least two subcategories, otherwise delete, and in either case purge any articles held at that level. If there is one subcategory (e.g. burials at a specific cemetery/church), move it up into appropriate parents. The country-by-city categories do not appear to need renaming, e.g. "Burials in Belgium by city and place" may be unnecessarily long, but this category level was not discussed here in detail so it may be nominated again.
Although the opinions below seem at first glance to be split between "delete" and "keep", there were only a minority on either side who wanted (I) to categorise every bio by place of burial, however vaguely identified, or (II) to remove all categorisation by place of burial. In between are many who !voted "keep" or "delete" but expressed support for keeping the city categories only where they aggregate multiple sub-categories for notable burial places.
I have opted for "place" rather than "cemetery" following the parent Category:Burials by place (see nomination below for the variety to be covered).
As for expanding "burials" to "people buried", this does not seem to be necessary, as we have comparable categories for "births" and "deaths", where the meaning is clearly understood as "people born in"/"people who died in".
– Fayenatic London 16:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: please see Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Biography/Archive 50#Categorising by place of burial for a follow-up discussion. – Fayenatic London 15:21, 14 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


Nominated burial in city categories (182)
Nominator's rationale: The city in which a person is buried is not a defining feature. Sometimes the location is merely one of convenience, rather than intention. Being buried in a specific place can be defining when it serves a specific purpose (e.g. royal tomb) or represents the bestowing of prestige or an honour (e.g. Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey). However, cities do not fulfil either of those purposes. If the burial city is of relevance to the life of the subject then the respective Category:People from X category can be used instead of this one. The "from" category has a long tradition of being preferred over "born in", and it should also be preferred over a "buried in" category for the same reason. The city level also does not serve a "container category" purpose very well – very few cities have many "burial by building"-type categories, so this would be better grouped and navigated by type of building or by a national level category (e.g. Category:People buried in England by site). SFB 21:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nominator note I'm more than happy to support a listify outcome if people find the information useful.
  • Comment. I basically agree with the sentiment of the nomination, and I agree that individual articles should not be placed in these categories. The only utility to them I can see is to group multiple subcategories for people buried at particular places within the city. But I also think that the vast majority of those subcategories should be deleted. So I guess I would be in favour of delete, with the understanding that more nominations for many of the subcategories would follow. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:37, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it seems to me that Burial location is an encyclopedic fact, which is why it is a useful parameter in many infoboxes. In many instances the fact conveys meaningful information to the reader. Thus, the category may also convey encyclopedic content.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 16:59, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik no one is disputing that place of burial is an encyclopedic fact (i.e. worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia). DexDor (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We have periodically had discussions on burials by location, and I think we have usually kept them. In a few cases, the place of burial is an indication of perceived notability at the time, e.g. Westminster Abbey; Arlingotn National Cemetery. The London category is significantly populated (though compared as a prpoprortion of bio-articles on deceased Londoners is it is minicule. If we are to allow burial by place categories to exist, there needs to be a superstructure of container categories. Nevertheless, I would question the notability of the place of burual in the majority of cases, which is probably why such a small proportion of bio-articles havce one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:51, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. while most burials are not arranged by the deceased, therefore are not a significant part of their lives, the burial sites are notable for anyone who wants to visit them, and thus is a notable fact. Since we have categories for burial by cemetery, and cemeteries by city, its not particularly overly specific to have burials by city, esp. when a city has a lot of cemeteries. I would limit the tree to cities with more than one cemetery, of course. this layer keeps the categories for burials by country to be better broken down. I do hope that this is not decided by only a few comments, as the number proposed is huge, and i think many people would feel strongly about this discussion if they knew about it (it will be hard to notice if it comes and goes quickly, as CFD is not as viewed as AFD). I myself find it an interesting intersection. (i created some of these myself)Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:53, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Afaik no one is disputing that place of burial is a notable fact (i.e. worthy of inclusion in the encyclopedia). DexDor (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"The city in which a person is buried is not a defining feature", yes they are saying its not a notable feature. thats the whole rationale as far as i know. while i agree that for some people, their place of burial is relatively unimportant, for some it is. looks like the argument is leaning towards delete, which i feel is going to remove an important category tree, based on a handful of responders. probably why i dont do much editing any more.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercurywoodrose:, there is a difference between what is a defining feature and what is a notable feature. Notability is the standard used for determining is an article should exist or sometimes if a fact should be included in an article. Definingness is the standard used to determine how articles should be categorized. For more info, see WP:NONDEF, especially the paragraph that begins "Often,". So in this discussion, users are arguing that it is not defining, not that it is not notable. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Mercurywoodrose: Your argument sounds more like a proposition to listify. Biographical categories are not for things that "are not a significant part of their lives". I don't mind if this information takes the form of a list at all. That could be useful for those with an interest in local burials, but if you look at the other categories for say Joseph Cafasso it's easy to see why these ones aren't going to do a great job of grouping people together by something they are remembered for. Burials don't appear very distinguishing without context (which a list could have, but categories by design can't). SFB 20:37, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If not deleted then rename to "People buried in ..." (assuming the categories are intended for articles about people rather than about the burials themselves). Note: Many of the articles proposed for deletion have subcategories, but those subcats I've checked would still be sufficiently parented. DexDor (talk) 20:21, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Good Ol’factory's thoughts, above. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:01, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete notable cemeteries will have lists of notable people buried therein. So burials in XXX cemetery is unnecessary. Merely being buried with the city limits of some burg is not a defining of the person. We have categories of where they die, which might be defining - but where they put the corpse, ashes, or other remains is not. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:27, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mercurywoodrose above. Paora (talk) 09:29, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are collector categories for more specific (and defining) subcategories about grave locations in specific cemeteries, churches, etc. Where a person is buried is not a defining feature of their life, but it is often a defining feature of their memory/commemoration. That said, I can live with the same information being provided in lists rather than categories, as long as the lists are made before the categories are deleted. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:15, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mercurywoodrose. Where one is interred is a defining fact of one's life.--TM 21:35, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I hold to my previous opinion that we should try to limit as much as possible post-life categories for people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:10, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There is nothing notable about where a body is buried and at present is a redundant category. I could understand a renaming of the categories to Burial grounds by City, perhaps... and there are categories for Burials at Westminster Abbey etc... --Richhoncho (talk) 16:41, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per reasoning by Mercurywoodrose.--RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 20:37, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mercurywoodrose. This category has been a very informative aspect of Wikipedia. In my opinion where one is interred is equally as important as where one is born or raised. Even though burials are important human rituals worldwide, most people prefer to remember birthdays rather than death-related issues. I hope this has nothing to do with its nomination for deletion Eruditescholar (talk) 18:21, 5 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Mercurywoodrose. The information is useful and interesting and I can see no specific advantages to the encyclopedia in removing these cats beyond the merely procedural. Ben MacDui 09:52, 7 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Place of burial (like other death-based characteristics) may be "useful and interesting" (for some readers), but it's not defining. It's a piece of info that should be in the article text (if known) and maybe in an infobox (and also in WikiData), but we don't begin articles with a sentence like "Winston Churchill was a British politician who is buried at Bladon.". Note: date-of-death is a special case; that category exists more for use by bots (e.g. to check that all BLPs are tagged) than for (human) navigation. DexDor (talk) 15:24, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Since this site already requires a degree of notability for an individual to be listed, it is useful to have their place of rest noted for historical purposes. One example would be to know where Abraham Lincoln is buried, as a matter of interest to many categories of people. Conversely, with the growing number of tours held by cemeteries which contain the remains of many notables, it might be a point of interest if one were to know what significant burial sites exist in a particular locale. Using a category seems to be the simplest and most useful tool for providing this information. On this point, it might be a contentious point to determine whose burial site then is worth noting and whose can be ignored. Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:14, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I agree with the nominator that place of burial is sometimes a defining feature of a person. For historical figures sometimes it is only the city that is known. Also, when the actual site is known it may be appropriate to have it as a subcategory of the relevant city. For example it is appropriate that Category:Burials at Westminster Abbey should be a subcat of Category:Burials in London. Therefore these categories should sometimes be kept. If the place of burial is not defining for an individual then the article should be removed from the category and empty (or nearly empty) categories can then be proposed for deletion. Thincat (talk) 10:42, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re "sometimes it is only the city that is known" - If an article consists of just "King Foobar was a king of Fooland in the 15th century. He was buried in Footown." Then "Kings of Fooland" and "15th century kings" would be appropriate categories, but the article does not need to be in a city category. DexDor (talk) 19:30, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Mercuryrose's argument. Daniel the Monk (talk) 14:48, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listify if wanted. As has been said, not defining. Is their raison/cause de celeb due to where they were buried? No? then delete. - jc37 06:36, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Rename as container categories (renamed per Jc37's suggestion below) for more specific "Burials at x cemetery". But only container categories. And they need to have more than one subcategory to survive. Category superstructures are highly useful for those doing research or simply looking up where notable people are commemorated for the sake of travel/visiting. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:15, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd support that if those parents were given a rename of Burials by cemetery in <location> - without the added descriptor we'll be dealing with this over and over. - jc37 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds reasonable. I'll sign onto that. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 18:04, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF and per multiple editors above. Listifying by cemetery sounds like an excellent idea though. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non-defining feature, beyond the range of one's life. Also a potential cause for lots of errors. If closing as keep, please change Category:Burials in Haifa, Israel to Category:Burials in Haifa for consistency with the article Haifa. gidonb (talk) 20:48, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it should always be replaced by specific cemetery category when one exists. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 03:44, 31 March 2015 (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:Burials at priories[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) 18:16, 7 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Following in the footsteps of the parent category (Category:Burials by place) these moves will restrict and make clear the fact that only subcategories should be added. In other words, only people with a specific category for their place of burial should be included in the tree, and not any person buried at that kind of building. SFB 20:59, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I would also prefer to go further and (if these categories are for articles about people and they are not deleted) rename them to "People by place of burial", "People buried at <place>" etc (and separate out those articles that are about burials - e.g. Burials in Glasnevin Cemetery and List of people buried in the Henry VII Lady Chapel). DexDor (talk) 22:02, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- The subcats on particualr churches need to be expressed as "at" them, so that we do not have arguments over whehter the burial was in the church or merely in its cemetery. However, the containers for these will be much better as nom. I suspect that there is room for merging some of these categories: Abbeys and Priories are varieties of monastery, though Westminster Abbey (despite its name) is a collegiate church. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment not sure that the breakdown is required and we don't just have burials by burial place, in part because there is a large overlap among these categories: if one is buried in the chapel of an abbey, which category applies? And there are abbeys that have ceased to function as such but their main building continues to be used as a church - so are burials to be divvied up by what the building was used for at the time of the burial: so that someone buried pre-Henry III in Westminster Abbey will be categorized differently than someone buried right next to him or her buried after Mary I? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:32, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't understand the reference to the parent, as it's a meta category, and we don't extend "by" to the child categories — Category:Cities by country is full of "Cities in" categories. Meanwhile, the proposed change would unhelpfully restrict the scope of these categories; for example, nobody benefits by removing the possibility of categorising Titian as having been buried in a basilica. I agree with Peterkingiron's sentiment about church v. church's cemetery; this being the case, I'd prefer "Burials in whateverplace". Nyttend (talk) 13:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Nyttend: The logic links in with the above nomination, i.e. if the specific burial place isn't of note to a group of people, then they should be excluded. Being buried in a certain type of building isn't really a definitive feature at all. SFB 12:37, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Let me repeat: nobody benefits by deleting this category from Titian or similar categories from other people. The functioning of the encyclopedia was slightly improved when these articles were added to these categories, and your proposed action would slightly impair it. Nyttend (talk) 12:53, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nominator's rationale so it follows burials by city, burials by country etc, as well as what Peterkingiron said about disputes whether they are technically in that place or what. Wikimandia (talk) 09:27, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rename serves no purpose that I can see. People are buried at places. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 00:19, 15 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. - jc37 00:00, 16 March 2015 (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:DJ Tatana albums[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. Good Ol’factory (talk)
Nominator's rationale: Per Tatana Sterba/DJ Tatana —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per main article. SFB 20:08, 17 January 2015 (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 the Elloughton-cum-Brough[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 27 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Also propose merging-
Category:People from Market Weighton to Category:People from the East Riding of Yorkshire
Category:People from Bessingby to Category:People from the East Riding of Yorkshire
Category:People from Sproatley to Category:People from the East Riding of Yorkshire
Category:People from Acle to Category:People from Broadland (district)
Per WP:SMALLCAT. Communities with just 1, 2, or 3 entries. ...William 14:18, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Small towns where expansion beyond a handful of articles does not look feasible. Better grouped at the higher level. SFB 20:08, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The East Riding is now a unitary authority, so that there is no intermediate target available. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 18 January 2015 (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:Historically segregated white schools in the United States[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. Whereas there are good arguments for deletion, the counter keep argument by Orlady was not answered. There is obviously no prejudice against renomination after some time has passed.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:04, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. If populated, this category will include the vast majority of Wikipedia articles about high schools in the Southern United States. – Gilliam (talk) 14:16, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep We do not keep/not keep categories on the basis of fear of the future or other such forecasts. The category serves a legitimate navigation purpose and should be kept. Hmains (talk) 03:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree, segregation is not related to a forecast, instead it has been a historic fact for a very long time. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:52, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These categories should not be confused with the hypothetical categories "All-white schools in the United States" and "Exclusively African American schools in the United States" or "United States schools with a preponderance of white students." The schools in these categories had an exclusive purpose of educating a single racial group -- and they were expressly established and maintained for that purpose. In many cases, their notability derives from their segregated status -- for example, because of incidents related to their desegregation or because they have historic designations related to their history as segregated schools. --Orlady (talk) 03:15, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to add a historical note: School segregation did not end in 1960 in the American South. The formerly all-white public high school in the city where I live was desegregated in the mid-1950s (the first public high school in the South to do so), but the elementary schools remained segregated until 1967 (when the all-black elementary school was closed and the children were distributed across the other local schools) -- and I believe that few communities were fully desegregated as early as 1967. Segregation academies are still prevalent in some areas (see this 2002 newspaper story that's cited in that article for some perspective on that). --Orlady (talk) 03:29, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My point is that a school existing public school existing today in Birmingham, Alabama that was segregated until about 1970 would have literally no effect on its current composition due to this fact. It is a hisotrical fact that has no effect in the modern world, and so we should not be in a situation to categorize present institutions by this fact. Even more so in parts of the Atlanta suburbs where there are large numbers of Hispanics and Asians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Carlossuarez46. And this sounds a lot like Venues by event - though in this case, an historical event, rather than a performance or sporting event. - jc37 00:28, 16 March 2015 (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:Ryukyuan Confucianists[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 to merge. - jc37 00:35, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Overcategorization: People from the old Ryukyuan Kingdom are generally not broken down by religion or occupation, etc.: we just include them in Category:People of the Ryukyu Kingdom and when we break them down by religion or occupation it is to the corresponding Japanese categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support on the grounds that this is a small category where diffusion would not be very beneficial to navigation. However, that said, there does seem to be something specific about Ryukyuan Confucianism that may warrant coverage. SFB 20:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: Within Category:Confucianists by nationality, this category is bigger than four other categories.. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:57, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep separate or delete: The definition of "nationality" is pretty straightforward, and since Category:Japanese Confucianists falls within Category:Confucianists by nationality, and the Ryukyu Kingdom was a separate country from Japan, none of the people in this category should be labeled as "Japanese". All of the people in this category died at least 100 years before Japan annexed Ryukyu. Any Ryukyuan person alive and living in the Ryukyu Islands after at least 1872 is fair game, but no one prior. And there's no policy or guidline that says that Ryukyuans are "generally not broken down" into more specific categories or forced into the corresponding Japanese category. If it is really too small to keep, then it would be much better to delete the category and put the articles under Category:Confucianists. This merger would violate WP:NPOV and WP:ADVOCACY. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 20:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's quite a common practice on WP to categorize people by a certain nationality that didn't technically exist at the time they were alive. For instance, Leonardo da Vinci is categorized as being "Italian" in many categories, because he lived in territory that is present-day Italy. This is a comparable situation and there's no need to create a special category to ghettoize the Ryukyuan Confucianists when the Japanese tree is available and not overpopulated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:34, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: "Quite a common practice" does not mean a policy or guidline, so it isn't a necessity. This isn't a "special" category anymore than the Japanese one, or even the four other categories within Category:Confucianists by nationality that have fewer articles than this category. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 08:44, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sturmgewehr88: Nowhere did I suggest that it was a policy or a guideline. That doesn't mean it may not have consensus, though. Such is the case quite often with things that are common practices. It is "special", actually, in that it is unusual in that is the only subdivision of Category:People of the Ryukyu Kingdom and the only by-religion category for those of this "nationality". Categorizing former nationalities in this way when the nationality overall has such a limited number of articles is simply not very common. If you have taken "special" to mean anything else, it wasn't my intended meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:57, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Frankly the example of Leonardo da Vinci makes me doubt if he should be categorized as Italian after all. I wouldn't expect that reliable (esp contemporary) sources would mention this as a defining characteristic of Da Vinci. Likewise I would tend to keep the nominated category if there are enough articles to populate it. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:05, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: The very first sentence in Leonardo da Vinci says he "was an Italian painter, sculptor, architect, [etc.]", so it's not just the categories. This sort of retroactive referencing is extremely common in Wikipedia, and in non-Wikipedia sources, for that matter. In the context, "Italian" does not mean "nationality of the Italian state", it means "from the place called Italy". I find that many users involved with categories are taking an over-mechanistic view of what "nationality" can mean. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:56, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say we can argue both directions in this respect - namely we can also argue that article writers too mechanically insert 'Italian' in the header. An interesting other example is Christopher Columbus who was really characterized as being Genoese by contemporary sources. I wouldn't expect that any historian would retroactively characterize Columbus as an Italian although I can imagine that this does happen in a non-academic context. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:43, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • On a point of information, there are plenty of sources from before Italian unification that categorize Leonardo da Vinci as Italian (here's an example, which happens to be in Dutch). This is because "Italy" (as a geographical term) and "Italian" (as an ethnic/cultural/linguistic term) both long predate the existence of a unified Italian state. The same can be said of "Germany" and "German", and even of "Belgium" and "Belgian". So in these cases it is not so simple as saying "from a place that is now part of ..." (something I think we had better avoid to the extent it is conveniently avoidable). --Andreas Philopater (talk) 21:24, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: You're exactly right in that Da Vinci is considered Italian from the perspective of the geographic Italy. The same can be said of any number of Germans before there was a state called Germany. But geographic Japan had never included the Ryukyu Islands until decades after they became part of the Japanese state. Either from nationality, ethnicity, culture, or geography, the people in this category are considered Ryukyuan and not Japanese. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 05:08, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the history. They could be said to be Japanese in the sense of being from land that is currently part of Japan, which is the only sense in which I have intended it. It's not necessarily an either/or proposition. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:52, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Good Olfactory: That would be logical if Japan hadn't coexisted with Ryukyu. A person who was born, lived, and died as a Ryukyuan doesn't suddenly become Japanese hundreds of years later because Japan now owns their homeland. If the United States still controlled the islands, would we try to merge this with Category:American Confucianists? I think not. ミーラー強斗武 (StG88ぬ会話) 22:57, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Of course not, but that's not really a parallel situation, and even if the U.S. did control the islands they couldn't be meaningfully said to be "of America" (the islands were never annexed or otherwise formally made part of the United States), whereas the islands can legitimately be said to be "of Japan". I'm not saying that the individuals cannot be said to be Ryukyuan; I'm just pointing out that this is not a usual way to subcategorize, and that there is an alternative acceptable way which is more commonly used in Wikipedia. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the Ryukyuan Kingdom existed separate from Japan, so if there are enough articles to populate a category, there's no reason not to have one. We should have a category for people by the political entity of their time. -- 65.94.40.137 (talk) 05:27, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- We have a variety of categories relating to obsolete polities. We should populate these where it is appropriate in the context, not merge them into anachronistic ones. I do not know enough about the Ryukyuan Kingdom to know if soem peopel were Confucian and some of other religions. If all were Confucian, the category is pointless and it should be merged back to the national one, with the national cat being made a subcat of a more general Confucian one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • While it's true that "we have a variety of categories relating to obsolete polities", it's not true that we have a variety of this type. We generally categorize people by being from an obsolete polity, but we don't generally break them down further into by-religion categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a distinct place, the people in it at the time would not have considered themselves Japanese. 4 is enough for a religion by nationality category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 6 March 2015 (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:Mozart: spurious and doubtful works[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. Sorry, no real resolution here but there's many issues regarding the existing, scope and titling of these categories and the inclusion criterion, too much for a single CFD discussion it seems. The titling/existence of these categories could be done with a RFC but there should be separate discussions (on the article talk pages) as to whether various articles belong in those categories. The title and scope are two different issues. Ricky81682 (talk) 21:55, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename to include composers' full names (per the rest of the composers' category trees Category:Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart/Category:Ludwig van Beethoven/Category:Johann Sebastian Bach) and to change the unusual name format these have adopted to a more standard naming format. Other possibilities also exist and suggestions are welcome. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:52, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support Seems OK to me per nominator.--Smerus (talk) 15:36, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In sum: [1] The name used for such categories should be different from the "<composition type> by <composer full name>" format because by definition these categories are a mixed bag of exceptions to that; [2] the present naming works fine while it is not overly long.
Note: the naming scheme of these categories was decided not so long ago at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 55#Proposed Category: Compositions Attributed to Mozart. There was lots of input about alternative namings there, so maybe take it from where the discussions there amounted in. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:00, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The full name would be Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution to Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, which would be unnecessarily long imho. --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:11, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, even if long, it would be better than the current names, which are in a very unusual (nonstandard) format for categories. You didn't directly address the initial proposals, though, which are really just a rewording of the current names into a standard format. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:51, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spurious and doubtful works of Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart or Category:Spurious and doubtful works by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart would of course be plainly wrong, while listing many compositions that are not in any guise or form "by" W. A. Mozart. The full name as I indicated above would be the only alternative as far as I can see.
The current names are not "contra" any categorization naming scheme. They may be unusual, which is fitting, while grouping an unususal set of works that don't fit in the usual "by composer XXX" train of thought. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Well, while are not explicitly contra anything, but I think it's fair to say that they are in a non-standard category name format on more than one count: (1) the inclusion of the surname only, which for the Bach one at least is ambiguous and (2) the inclusion of a colon between the name and the rest of the category description. I personally don't think that the difference between what exists now and what is proposed converts the meaning from being precise to being clearly "wrong". The existing names can easily be interpreted to mean exactly what the proposed names communicate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:18, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think there are other legitimate ways of interpreting the proposed names than the one you have set out. Anyway, if your arguments are accepted, it comes down to weirdish format vs. longer name. I would side with longer name every time. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:13, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • "I think there are other legitimate ways of interpreting the proposed names" – there are: however this is a category name, which works best the less interpretation is needed. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Summarizing in order of preference:
Could live with it, but would prefer to avoid these while imho unneccessarily long category names
Even longer, and in this case the full name of the composer doesn't really add anything, as explained above
  • Other options: I'm flatly opposed to any other renaming scheme proposed thus far (including the scheme proposed by the initiator), for reasons described above. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:28, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Francis Schonken: I'm in agreement with Francis. All the proposed names range from incorrect to inelegant. It begs the question – is this even suitable for category space? If we upmerged all the articles to Category:Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution there would only be just over 40 articles. Maybe this information with all its complexities (formerly, wrongly, presumed fake, confirmed fake, possible but doubtful) is much better suited to a list format for Mozart Bach and Beethoven rather than the contextless category space. Certainly an upmerged category would group many compositions with similar issues and the lists could sit within this grouping – better than a composer subcategory in my opinion. SFB 20:49, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all of the alternative proposals above per Francis Schonken. It's complicated and a category name doesn't lend itself to the complex possibilities of attribution which are sufficiently explained at each of the 3 pages for the nominated categories. I'm neutral about the broad gist of the original proposal, using the composers' full name, but the use of of seems inconsistent with Category:Compositions by composer and by should be used instead. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 08:53, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral about the original proposal, neutral about of/by, and oppose all of the other proposals made to date. Essentially per Michael Bednarek. --Stfg (talk) 11:10, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal per nominator. The proposed category name is a lot clearer than the current one. I'm neutral on "by" or "of". Marcocapelle (talk) 21:18, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support use of full names. Support removal of colons. Neutral on exact wording; but what about "related to" rather than "by" or "of"? Alternatively, consider splitting into separate "spurious" and "doubtful" categories, for increased data granularity and to shorten category names. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:22, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like 'related to' also better than 'by' or 'of', especially in this context where 'by'/'of' is actually been disputed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:42, 21 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Gets rid of the colon, but imho still longer than needed - I could live with this. Ideas? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are three things at stake, the form of the category name, the full name of the composer and the doubtful authenticity. For the form, I like the original proposal better, but wouldn't reject this new proposal. This new proposal still doesn't contain the full name of the composer which is really a disadvantage. Most proposals, including the original proposal, including this new proposal, do not fully reflect the doubtfulness in the category name. For that reason I would propose alternative 2:
Besides, although still quite long, these category names are not exceptionally long. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
These are also good proposals. I've certainly seen longer names; there are longer category names than even the longest ones proposed here. I prefer to have the full name used. Apart from that, I'm pretty much open to any form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm OK with Marcocapelle's alternative 2. I'd make it "and" though (instead of "or"), so alternative 3:
Is that a compromise we can all live with? --Francis Schonken (talk) 08:02, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure! Marcocapelle (talk) 11:52, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also agree. This is the best proposal I've seen in the above. SFB 12:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Alternative 3; it is correct and removes the colons. kennethaw88 • talk 13:23, 25 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all to [[:Category:Spurious and doubtful compositions attributed to <composer>]] per above. - jc37 01:12, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    ... which maybe makes the compositions themselves look a bit dubious, it is the attribution that is dubious (spurious/doubtful), not the composition itself. It also generates the impression that for all the categorized works the attribution is still to the named composer (or at least that that composer is still considered the most likely creator), which for many of the included examples is a position left long ago by scholarship. E.g. "Bist du bei mir" is not attributed to Johann Sebastian Bach by any self-respecting scholar, after it had been discovered in a prior composition, with another known composer, and when it is still attributed to Bach, that makes a spurious attribution, not a spurious composition.
    What I'm saying is that "Spurious and doubtful compositions attributed to ..." is no improvement over "Spurious and doubtful attributions to ...", although technically, yes, the second is also a contraction of "Works/Compositions with a spurious or doubtful attribution to ..." --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:14, 19 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    You're absolutely correct in that the name could be read that way. I had thought about that, but I really wanted to avoid an -ly form for "spurious and doubtful", which is clearly the phrase used by experts. (Per google, apparently only wikipedia uses "or", while "and" is used for much more than merely just composers, as I noted above.)
    If I had to pick, [[:Category:Compositions with a spurious and doubtful attribution to <name(s)>]] is the best option I'm seeing. Though the more I look at this, the more I am thinking that maybe a category is not the way to go about this. This almost begs to be a list, so that inclusion can be explained and (just as, if not more, importantly) referenced. - jc37 14:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Listify per my comments above. If no consensus to delete, then Rename to [[:Category:Compositions with a spurious and doubtful attribution to <name(s)>]]. - jc37 14:45, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    Looks like we're back to "option 3" above:
    As said above, I can live with it, but would prefer shorter category names.
Re. "...maybe a category is not the way to go about this..." Well, there are articles primarily consisting of a list like Mozart symphonies of spurious or doubtful authenticity, the one doesn't exclude the other: any article about a separate composition with a Köchel number (even if somehow "doutful") would best be sorted somewhere under Category:Compositions by Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart I suppose, because it is in the most famous list of compositions by this composer. Who are we to decide it certainly isn't a composition by this composer (or alternatively it certainly is)? Scholars may contradict each other on the matter, putting the composition in the "spurious/doubtful" category seems like the best solution.
Re. "and" or "or": "and" works best for lists, "or" works best for categories imho, e.g. "List of people absent on Mondays and Fridays" vs. "Category:People absent on Mondays or Fridays". --Francis Schonken (talk) 04:15, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making the choice between "and" and "or", the references do, and repeatedly so. - jc37 05:16, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ: inserting ""spurious and doubtful" Shakespeare" in Google has some 3000 hits, while ""spurious or doubtful" Shakespeare" has over 7000 – "or" appears the more popular choice. (note: please don't change comments already replied to, unless with "strike" tags) --Francis Schonken (talk) 05:26, 31 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Besides, I'm looking at the grammatical coherence of the descriptor too:
  • "Shakespeare: spurious and doubtful works" seems to make sense for a group of works, while it implies "spurious works" + "doubtful works" being grouped;
  • "works with a spurious and doubtful attribution to William Shakespeare" doesn't, while it implies the attribution is both spurious and doubtful (either spurious or doubtful suffises for inclusion in the category).
So if "spurious and doubtful" is somewhat of a fixed formula I propose to keep things as they are, i.e.:
Never really understood what was wrong with these in the first place. --Francis Schonken (talk) 07:11, 31 March 2015 (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:Queensland places with war memorials[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) 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorizing places in Queensland that have war memorials. This is overcategorization; being the site of a war memorial is not defining for these locales. This is not part of a larger scheme of categorizing places that have war memorials. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete War memorials are widespread in Australia and it is common for most places of a reasonable size to have one. On that basis it's not defining. I would suggest a listify outcome, but I'm not really sure if that would even be very useful given the focus on the places and not the monuments themselves. SFB 20:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance category (the place beeing the performer). We have similarly deleted categories for places being on roads and trails. I haver no idea how common war memorials are in Queensland. In England, almost every town and village has at least one. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:25, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining for the places. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:35, 19 January 2015 (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:Queensland places with golf clubs and courses[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) 21:33, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is categorizing places in Queensland that have golf clubs and courses. This is overcategorization; being the site of a golf club or course is not defining for these locales, though it may be a visitor attraction in the place. This is not part of a larger scheme of categorizing places that have golf clubs or courses. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:27, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom.– Gilliam (talk) 14:25, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining of the places as golf clubs are relatively common. Such categories should be applied to the clubs and courses themselves, not the places they are in. SFB 20:51, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- This is in the nature of a performance category (the place beeing the performer). We have similarly deleted categories for places being on roads and trails. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:24, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it is trivial, not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:36, 19 January 2015 (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:Cremations at Mount Thompson crematorium[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) 21:32, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There are quite a few categories that categorize people by burial place, but this is one of the few I have ever seen to categorize by cremation location. Is this overcategorization? Personally, I think that categorizing people by all but the most auspicious burial places is overcategorization. A similar category was deleted here with the more general Category:Cremations being deleted here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:22, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete None of the biographical subjects are defined by or remembered for their cremation at that crematorium. I am also considering a group nomination of the Category:Burials by place category tree, which is out of control to say the least. Interment or cremation by place only has any relevance when that place has a specific purpose (e.g. Category:Burial sites of European royal families). I'm even not entirely convinced by some of those, seeing as they tend to be for dynasties and families which should already be otherwise categorised together. SFB 20:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Good Olfactory: Please note the above deletion nomination for burials by city. SFB 22:11, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete what's done to the body after death doesn't really define a person in any biographical sense. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (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:Q150[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) 21:31, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Maybe there is, but I'm not aware of anything else that could be put into this category right now. If there's nothing else, it should be deleted and the sole article Q150 upmerged to both parents. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:19, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no obvious scope for expansion beyond a handful of articles. SFB 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- no need to merge as the article is already in the appropriate parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:22, 18 January 2015 (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:Latina 30 Under 30 honorees[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) 21:30, 24 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Really pointless "honoree" by a magazine. It's not a special accolade or anything, just a mention in a list. Erick (talk) 04:03, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining characteristic of the recipients. SFB 00:38, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Another unnecessary award category. In this case, I rather doubt it is worth listifying, but I would not oppose that. WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:20, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - trivial transitory award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:37, 19 January 2015 (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:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road & all subcategories[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. --slakr\ talk / 04:30, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NON-DEFINING. These categories group buildings by their street address which isn't defining. (When a building is at an intersection, it's also categorized by the side street.) We do categorize buildings by the street they are on with Category:National Mall and Category:Las Vegas Strip when there is a clear cluster of similar buildings so that the location itself becomes defining, but no similar claim is present here. All of the street articles in these categories link to each building article (and vice versa) so no navigation would be lost. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the main category creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Australia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Background This is a follow up to the successful nomination to delete buildings along Ohio Route 4.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It appears that part of that nomination was that the "category groups any building along a 200 mile long road when most of those structures predate the actual highway". The categories proposed above are all city streets that are significantly less that 200 miles long and most are buildings that have been built since the roads were constructed. In short, I don't see that the background is relevant. --AussieLegend (✉) 07:56, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. This is a perfectly logical and sensible way to categorise articles on buildings in a major city, and something that there should be more, not less of, in my view. If I'm reading about, say, a building on Phillimore Street, one very likely place I might want to look next is to see what other buildings in the area there are that Wikipedia has articles on, and look at those. I also don't buy the comparison to the Ohio Route 4 discussion. State Route 4 is a 206 mile-long highway; it is much less likely that there'd be a point in categorising buildings along a road that travels across half a state than any of these categories, which have far more clear and obvious common interests. The Drover's Wife (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point on Ohio being a weak comparison. Conversely, this nomination includes two roads in a town with 1,000 people, so we're not just talking about a "major city" category either. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:38, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that makes much of a difference - if the buildings are notable enough for a bunch of them to have articles, and for the contents of the category not to be the entirety of our coverage on buildings in the town, there's still a clear commonality of interest among them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 11:00, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for all the reasons given by The Drover. They are perfectly sensible categories and we should have more of them. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:35, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per The Drover's Wife, and per User:Mitch Ames's argument at the previous CFD that addresses can be defining. - Evad37 [talk] 15:48, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete parents and upmerge children to Category:Roads in Western Australia. The child categories of the parents are the streets/roads themselves and are not instances of "Buildings and structures on roads". For example, notable incidents (fires, murders) which occur on those streets would be a reasonable inclusion on the street category. On that basis, these parents are not logical parents of the stated categories. SFB 22:46, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all "by road" categories into the equivalent city category. This will empty the parent "by road" categories. By splitting everythting by road, we have excessive fragmentation. If any of the cities has more than 200 notable buildings we might consider splitting it by district. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:18, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • This doesn't make sense. How can it be "fragmentation" when the contents of these categories are also categorised by all the other things they would be without these categories? What is it fragmenting? his would just intentionally make it more difficult to find the most likely articles someone reading these articles is going to be interested in next, and that makes no sense to me. The Drover's Wife (talk) 23:29, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • One person's fragmentation is another person's diffusion, right? These categorize take Category:Buildings and structures by city and break them into smaller geographic areas by street. That's the whole point, right? RevelationDirect (talk) 03:54, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • ...no? Look at the categories you're arguing about. These buildings are categorised by city and by street, as is entirely appropriate considering they're the two most likely places one would look to find them and others by them. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:19, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep street location is a defining characteristic take for example Wray Road Frrmantle[2] list on the register of national estate 1982, listed on the National trust register 1980 plus other listing for heritage it has within its boundary some 57 individually listed properties. Being on specific streets are a defining characteristic. Gnangarra 11:23, 20 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. For example, Esplanade Park is perfectly categorized in Category:Parks in Perth, Western Australia; it doesn't need to be categorized by what street(s) it's on. The article should mention (and link) to the street and the street article could/should have a list of the major building etc on it. Such a list could be much better than a category (e.g. by listing the buildings etc order, having notes such as "demolished in year"). DexDor (talk) 23:15, 31 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If every fixed structure/space etc in a city/town was clearly on 1 or 2 streets then this might be a reasonable way to categorize them, but that often isn't the case. E.g. there are (not necessarily in these categories, but if this sort of categorization was used more generally) large parks, industrial complexes, airports, military establishments, colleges etc that have many surrounding streets (and streets that go under/through/over them). If the intent of the category is to group articles about all the things alongside a street then would that include things like rivers (which could end up in dozens/hundreds of categories) ? What about things like sculptures and memorials (i.e. how would you decide which streets to categorize them by) ? DexDor (talk) 16:40, 14 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - having created a significant number of these categories, and understanding my complaint of 7 years + that CFD processes do not allow for or have any mechanism for category creators to be notified of Xfd processes (which I find quite objectionable), I did not create the categories to have the senses of what is being read into the created categories. They were specifically for the streets, the fremantle ones were due to the fact that a significant project was showing sign of having expansion, where the categories and articles were increasing - I was not to see that in some cases the extra content did not follow. As a consequence I find most of the dialogue above somewhat 'over-interpetating' the original intention. I fail to see any benefit in deletion, to editors or readers. satusuro 04:40, 6 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a method to be notified of CFD processes. Place the category or categories you wish to be notified of on your watch list. When the category is nominated for discussion, it must be tagged with a CFD template. The edit will thus appear in your recent changes on your watchlist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:49, 9 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the reminder.
      • @SatuSuro: I share your frustration as someone who frequently nominates categories. I always give the parent category creator a tag on their talk page and pick a relevant WikiProject (which most nominations don't), but it would be nice if the CFD tag would do that automatically for all category creators.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:18, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • It can be difficult to know what to do when some users really want such notifications and others regard them as spam and get angry when they receive them. I used to notify category creators, but after receiving a lot of abuse over the issue, I just decided that users could easily watch the pages they care about if it's that big of deal to them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:38, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is now over a month, and no further comment is available, and it does not look like anyone has adequately summarised for where this is to go... satusuro 23:42, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete - We simply do not categorise buildings and structures by the street they happen to be on. And trying to cherry pick some tourist attraction categories as counter examples doesn't change this. - jc37 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I've read through all of the comments and considered this. This certainly isn't something that is common in Wikipedia—but I suppose the real question here is whether or not it is a good idea. I am convinced that it is not a good idea and that it constitutes overcategorization. I am largely in agreement with the reasons set out by User:DexDor. I think that the article about the street should of course contain this information, but I don't think it would be a productive model to develop across Wikipedia or to retain in these cases. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:33, 16 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. If these cities were thinly-spread settlements, so that streets were in effect equivalent to local districts of denser towns elsewhere, I could see the point of keeping them; however, that does not appear to be the case. If these WA locations do not have such features to distinguish them from other settlements, then keeping these categories would make them precedents for others elsewhere. Five editors above have a great deal of experience in using categories, and all of them oppose that as a bad idea. – Fayenatic London 22:18, 10 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
you are right in saying that those 5 editors above spend a lot of gnome time at CFD but they dont WP:OWN categories, in contrast its the significance of relationships between articles is something content writers know and understand. The streets have a significant relationship with the places that are on them, its such a significance that it is something for which our readers search. The relationships between the places on a street is more significant than that between recipients of Croix de guerre yet we have such over loaded caterories because of the value to the readers Gnangarra 02:02, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, nobody owns categories or anything else here; of course, that cuts both ways. My point is that those arguing for deletion have a persuasive weight of policy and precedent on their side. Those wanting to keep seem to be relying on WP:ILIKEIT; nobody is saying these streets categories should be replicated across the rest of Wikipedia, but the defenders have not made a case that Western Australia is different. Can you retrieve some of what you like by merging some of the street categories into district categories? – Fayenatic London 07:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear, I am absolutely arguing that they should be replicated across the rest of Wikipedia. It is a defining characteristic of these articles, it is a sensible and logical basis on which to group them, and a significant aid to readers in navigation. I don't particularly care whether other cities bother, but it's not as if this magically only makes sense in Australia: it's a rational structure with a sound basis in policy that could be in no way salvaged by pointlessly merging them into district articles. Categorising everything said here as WP:ILIKEIT is, well, *rolls eyes*. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:29, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
the arguements for arent WP:ILIKEIT my original argument includes the fact that a streetscape including the buildings along it are defining characteristics supported by references as how significant they are in an Australian context. The issue at hand is is the category a defining characteristic for the article within it, and that has been shown to be true. To quote User:Good Olfactory delete reason above "..I suppose the real question here is whether or not it is a good idea. I am convinced that it is not a good idea..." is the very definition of WP:IDONTLIKEIT not one delete vote offers any reason or referencing as to why it isnt a defining characteristic. Gnangarra 14:25, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]


This has gone on for three months and continues to be equally deadlocked. There is no basis on which to write off the serious policy-based opposition to this being deleted, so it is well past time for it to be closed as no consensus. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@The Drover's Wife: I share your concern over the backlog of open CFD nominations. I appreciate the admins we have taking the time to close nominations but, obviously, I wish we could attract more admins to get involved.RevelationDirect (talk) 18:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This is in response to User:Gnangarra's comments above - e.g. "The relationships between the places on a street is more significant than that between recipients of Croix de guerre". Navigation between related topics is done by normal links between articles/lists/templates etc; categories should be grouping articles about similar topics. It's better to categorize things by type (park, church etc) and by district than by which road they are on/near as it's more defining, less likely to cause problems (see my comments above), it's how such things are already categorized in the rest of wp and it's comprehensive (which by-roads categories would you put something like Eiffel Tower in?). Adding categorization by this 3rd characteristic is more likely to cause fragmentation than to improve categorization. DexDor (talk) 20:38, 24 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Districts, well I presume you are referring to what Australians know as LGA's many of which are 1,000 km2s in area. WP:WORLDVIEW covers this really well, and WP:OTHERSTUFF is there address your concerns that others might follow suit. Gnangarra 05:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By "districts" I meant the lowest level (above street) by which local people identify a location within a town or city, such as the hundreds of districts of London which were originally separate villages. – Fayenatic London 15:49, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of wp categorization is to categorize wp pages - not to encode geographical locations. Hence, the size of a district (e.g. a LGA) is irrelevant in this context. What is relevant is how many notable buildings/structures the district has and I doubt that Shire of Toodyay (pop. 4,686) has many. WP:WORLDVIEW is basically about poor non-English-speakers being unlikely to add content or correct any bias against them - I don't see that it has much (if any) relevance to this particular discussion. DexDor (talk) 22:04, 26 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Bias is in the rejection of an Australian defining characteristic about an Australian subject matter because its not in your opinion a defining characteristic in the UK. Gnangarra 04:51, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Building and structures categories contain a wide range of things (statues, parks, radio masts...) - some of which are not on any road (example) and some of which have several neighbouring roads. That's the case throughout the World (including Australia). For some buildings which street they are on may be a defining characteristic, but it's not the best way to categorize buildings&structures. DexDor (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If its not on a road its not going be put in a road category because in such cases a road wont be a defining characteristic. Gnangarra 06:50, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"it's not the best way to categorize buildings&structures"
It does not have to be the best, it merely has to be a legitimate way of categorizing. Articles can be categorized by more than one criterion. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:46, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
"... notable buildings/structures ... I doubt that Shire of Toodyay (pop. 4,686) has many"
The List of heritage places in the Shire of Toodyay lists quite a few places. The reference lists 167 results (although they are not all necessarily buildings or structures). Mitch Ames (talk) 00:44, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's unusual for such a small place (current population 1,069) to have so many notable(?) buildings, but I don't see that it's a problem. If that category gets too large then create subcategories such as "Churches in Toodyay". DexDor (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds reasonable. It would probably have to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and depend largely on how the sources describe the location. I doubt any source would state that it takes the whole block (although Google maps or satellite view or similar might unambiguously show it), but I would expect the source to list a single street address, or "corner of", or possibly "125 Something St, enter from Else St". Mitch Ames (talk) 14:15, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
not sure what you are referring to as "downtown" could you put that in an Australian context... As for buildings occupying a 4 street frontage(assume thats what you calling a block) Fremantle Prison has 6 street frontages but its official address is The Terrace(smallest frontage) so thats where it would be catergorised should that street have warranted a category. Gnangarra 14:33, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Gnangarra and Mitch Ames: So, regardless of the outcome of this nomination, do we agree that Kings Square, Fremantle is over-categorized? RevelationDirect (talk) 17:28, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Could be improved should have its own category there is enough notable features there, with this a subcat of Queen, William, Adelaide (the square has features on each of these) and High street (bisects) rather than the article being in all four. Gnangarra 23:48, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Kings Square, Fremantle is not overcategorized. It (or, as Gnangarra suggests, a category of that name) does belong in the cats for each of the surrounding roads, because (so far as I know) it is accessible from each of those streets. It is not a building with a street address and/or entrance on only one street. Mitch Ames (talk) 11:29, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... but rename - My argument about street addresses applies to buildings, but not to other structures. We should consider renaming the category to "Buildings ..." rather than "Buildings and structures ..." Mitch Ames (talk) 01:26, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD is about "Buildings and structures" categories (not "Buildings" categories). Such categories contain many things like parks (a more accurate title would be something like "Manmade things that appear on maps", not that I'm suggesting changing it). DexDor (talk) 05:50, 27 April 2015 (UTC) tidied DexDor (talk) 06:00, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Observation If the category structure was returned to where it was 12 months ago when the street categories were move into the Category:Buildings and structures in Western Australia by road from Category:Roads in Western Australia because they comprise primarily buildings we wouldnt be here, but then this is the idiotic process that CfD has developed into where one week its prescriptive titles the next its too much detail then it becomes poor wording choices because too many CfDs are relying on compromised alternatives being pushed by a small group of editors who waste everyones time going around, around and around trying to rework every letter in every word Gnangarra 07:17, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
postcodes and districts are relatively similar which was is suggested as the way to recategorise these. Can some please close this before Disney claims a copyright violation over the Emperors new clothes story line Gnangarra 02:01, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep every of these categories if not too few entries in the category. It does concern a defining characteristic and I haven't observed any violation of guidelines except for WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:24, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • More precisely, keep the 6 to 10 better-populated categories (with a cut-off of 10 or 5 articles per category, respectively), and merge the rest to city level per WP:SMALLCAT. Also, if kept, make sure that the street categories are parented each to its own city, that seems more relevant than a streets by state parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That a building etc is on a particular street (or has an entrance on a particular street) may (depending on how one interprets WP:DEFINING) be a defining characteristic. However, even if it is a defining characteristic that doesn't necessarily mean it should be categorized (being defining is a necessary condition for a category, but not a sufficient condition). Which street(s) a building is on is less defining than the type of building (church, railway station etc) and the building's location (e.g. town/district). (There are also categories based on things such as when the building was built). This characteristic (which street(s) a building is on) is also less suitable for categorization because some buildings etc are not on any streets and some are on many streets.
Afaik, there are no guidelines that prohibit categorization by street, but the general principles should apply that we try to categorize consistently and avoid overcategorization. DexDor (talk) 05:26, 4 June 2015 (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:Airfields in the Middle East[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 to Category:Airfields and Category:Aviation in the Middle East. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 4 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The only by region category in the parent category. I don't see a need to add another level to categorize airports. If anyone thinks a dual upmerge is needed, I have no objection. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:14, 17 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support including the new parenting to Category:Aviation in the Middle East. This category serves very little purpose beyond being a holder for two subcategories and is thus not helpful to navigation. SFB 00:47, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Carlossuarez46: It's funny how you get more serious as you get older :) SFB 22:37, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restrcuture the tree -- downmerge to RAF stations in Middle East and purge of the one American item. This could be a subcat of the nom's target. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete human constructs limited to one jurisdiction don't need to be subcategorized on multinational but subcontinental bases... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:39, 19 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep despite some pages that are in multiple sub cats this category structure actually makes sense though could be WWII or Military airfields in the Middle East as the Middle East is a recognised region of WWII like Europe, the Pacific, the Atlantic and Mediterranean many countries issued medals specifically for service in the Middle East rather than the individual countries there in. Gnangarra 04:50, 26 January 2015 (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/2015_January_17&oldid=1075704610"