Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 March 21

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 20 March 22 >

March 21[edit]

Category:Sri Lankan country music[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: administrative close: category already deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Despite the name and categorization, this category doesn't seem to have anything to do with country music. Probably redundant with Category:Sri Lankan music. Psychonaut (talk) 22:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Sri Lankan music. I suspect that this has been created by someone whose first language is not English and was treating "country" as the equivalent of "nation". Peterkingiron (talk) 10:48, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello, I'm the one who created the Category. English is not my first language any way. But I think that I've got a narrow knowledge enough to distinguish Country from Nation. There is obviously a Genre within Sinhala music schemes known as Subhawitha Geethaya which roughly means Well used in the country introduced by W.D. Amaradeva and Mahagama Sekara in 1960s. Their contribution to Sinhala Music is very similar to Mark Collie's work in the U.S. Many of the same features of the genre Country Music could be found in Subhawitha Geethaya. It is basically evolved from Sinhala folk music. But for some technical reasons citations in English cannot be given. However it is very important to mention here that Sri Lankan Music and Sri Lankan Country Music cannot be employed as same categories, because the first term means Music Of / In Sri Lanka. There are many music categories used in Sri Lanka. Most of them are evolved from and influenced by Hindustani tradition of India. But Sri Lankan Country Music is completely evolved from local folk roots. Mahilkk (talk) 09:45, 27 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually I wanted to name the category as Subhawitha Geethaya too. But the problem is it is not accepted by many scholars in Sri Lanka. There was a long discussion among them from 1990s in local language. Prof.Nalin de Silva reasonably criticized it in his book "අපේ ප්‍රවාද - 2". and later he proposed the name Balasooriya in his public lectures for honour of the scholar who theoretically derived the genre showing its identical features. Prof.Sunanda Mahendra also backed him in the Sanlapa literary supplement "From conversations to knowledge".. But, as I think, personal names may not be suitable for such a genre. Sri Lankan country music was the most common English-language term can be found in common use. It may always be better to go with public interest otherwise I do not mind whatever the name is. So be please to kindly review it. Many thanks Mahilkk (talk) 15:29, 27 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:Categories by Christian denominational family[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. MER-C 12:29, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename per actual content, all child categories are named by denomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:25, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Editor2020, Talk 17:36, 22 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:Iraqi insurgency[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. Note: I have moved the obvious articles that had post-2011 dates in the titles, but the contents probably need further review. – Fayenatic London 17:49, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should only be focused on the Iraqi insurgency (2003–11), per my below proposal. Charles Essie (talk) 15:07, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative. Given the amount of articles about this topic it may be a good alternative to diffuse by year instead of by 8 years. In that case the rename is not needed, you'll simply have 13 child categories within Category:Iraqi insurgency for 2003, 2004, 2005 etc up to present. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • They reason I made the above suggestion is because the 2003–11 insurgency should be distinguished from the 2011–present insurgency. The latter of which began after the 2011 coalition withdrawal and is much more closely related to the civil war in neighboring Syria. The former was also different because the main fight was between the coalition and the insurgents while the latter is more of civil war. I agree that there should be more subcategorization, but I'm not sure this is the way to do it. Charles Essie (talk) 03:12, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and extend the coverage up to the present. The insurgency was always against the ruling powers in Baghdad, even when they were working hand in glove with American forces. The American (and British) withdrawal has made not difference. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point, but don't you think that might the category a little to big? I think a little subcategorization would be helpful. Charles Essie (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which is why I think we should divide this category between the two different phase of the conflict. That said, I also think that this is, for the most part, one conflict which has lasted from 2003 to the present consisting of different phases, just like Afghanistan. So, maybe the creation of an umbrella article and a new umbrella category might be helpful. Charles Essie (talk) 17:08, 5 April 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:2014 Iraq conflict[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/merge Category:2014 Iraq conflict and Category:2015 Iraq conflict to Category:Iraqi insurgency (2011–present). – Fayenatic London 17:53, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This conflict is in no way limited to 2014, it should renamed per Iraqi insurgency (2011–present). After that's done, content from Category:Iraqi insurgency can be relocated here. Charles Essie (talk) 15:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, I agree. I would've proposed that earlier but I didn't find out about the 2015 category until recently. Charles Essie (talk) 02:03, 22 May 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.

Most of the Omak, Washington category tree[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/upmerge as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Omak, Washington is a town in Washington State (US) with around 5,000 people. All of these categories are conceptually fine and work well with larger cities but currently small or are misapplied to Okanogan County articles. This nomination will leave the city category with subcategories for buildings, Wikipedia books and radio stations and images with a Greater Omak parent which is more than enough. No objection to recreating any of these later if more content is created. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Armbrust as the most common creator and this discussion has been included in Wikipedia:WikiProject Washington. – RevelationDirect (talk) 10:37, 21 March 2015 (UTC) [reply]
  • Merge all etc per nom. We should not need more than one category for a town of 5000 people. My village of 6300 people does not even have one category; and that is appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:55, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per nom. While major cities generally warrant this level of subject-specific subcategorization, small towns for which virtually every possible subcategory would be a WP:SMALLCAT violation do not. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 23 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:Cities surrounded by other cities[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 as List of cities surrounded by another city and delete. – Fayenatic London 18:18, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. Category as it is named currently does not reflect a defining characteristic. However, if it's entirely surrounded by a single other city (like Beverly Hills, Texas is entirely surrounded by Waco), it's okay to keep as a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:10, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't oppose the alternative, but I think the nominated target is the least ambiguous. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:49, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question. Is this defining? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:29, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/listify. This category is not grouping articles about similar topics; Lazy Lake and Vatican City (for example) have little in common other than a geographical quirk. DexDor (talk) 20:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like it is a defining characteristic (if defined according to nomination), for example Lazy Lake wouldn't have been notable except for this quirk. In geography, locations can have something in common even if the locations are far apart from each other. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:57, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Lazy Lake article isn't about a geographical quirk; it's about a village (its demographics etc) - just like any other town/village article (based mainly on census etc). DexDor (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What about Category:Cities that are enclaved ? As you can theoretically have a city completely surrounded by multiple other cities as a series of rings... -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:34, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • If not deleted, this alternative is also fine. In fact just anything proposed in this discussion is better than the current category (name). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:33, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Side note. In NY it is common to have villages surrounded by one or more towns, commonly sharing a name. So would that change open this up to subdivisions lower then cities creating a larger rats nest? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Isn't "city" the default name for all these types of communities on Wikipedia? (so as not to be jurisdiction bound) -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 00:17, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • In some cases yes. That begs the question of there being a better name if kept. I'm really unsure at this point. I would not oppose a listify, but I'm not sure that is the best decision. I'm going to support a Delete allowing recreation if this can be made defining. From looking at the contents and this discussion this apparently a lot. While it is a quirk that readers may want to know it may not need a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then Delete - Some researcher may want to find this info, but it'd be a stretch to try to call it "defining". And a list is far better than a cat on another rather important score - it allows the naming of the surrounding city... - jc37 15:56, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete trivia. I should imagine in the suburban sprawl of most major US cities, nearly every inner suburban city without a coastline has no borders with unincorporated territory, and hence is surrounded by other cities. A look at the little county maps that accompany articles such as Santa Clara, California, there's the gray incorporated areas swallowing up lots of little cities and towns. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and Delete. Just in Metro-Detroit we have Highland Park, Michigan, Hamtramck, Michigan, which are commonly said to be surrounded by Detroit, but technically are not because they have a common border. This is very important to their identity. Then there is Lathrup Village, Michigan, which is surrounded by Southfield, Michigan. This is a very different situation, because the size difference is not as great. Center Line, Michigan is surrounded by Warren, Michigan. I can't think of any other clear examples. One other problem is that the name invokes cities, however if the places so surrounded are villages, broughs or towns, or the surrounder is one of those, would we exclude them? This would be arbitrary since just in the US different states have different definitions for these terms, and different legal roles for them. In Indianapolis thinks could get truly confusing because there are some places that are both surrounded by Indianapolis and yet in other ways part of Indianapolis. To return to Michigan, in Michigan cities are entirely distinct from townships. So should a city entirely surrounded by one township go in this category? There are quite a few cases of that in Michigan. A list can explain how all these things differ, a category cannot.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summing up, I think listify and delete is the broad consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:21, 30 May 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:Ancient cities in Spain[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 first, no consensus on second. Thanks, Marcocapelle. – Fayenatic London 18:25, 2 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename. These are the only two 'modern country' subcategories of Category:Ancient cities, all other subcategories are by civilization or by region. Suggest to make it consistent, also C2C to Category:Ancient history of the Iberian Peninsula and Category:History of indigenous peoples of North America‎ respectively.Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Ancient rather than Pre-historic Hugo999 (talk) 10:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Pre-Columbian. Many of these places do not pre-date Columbus. Little Beard's Town is a place founded by a contemporary of George Washington, and post dates Columbus by several hundred years. Support the renaming of the Iderian ones. We need to come up with a better name for the ones in the current boundaries of the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:21, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Another large number of these cities, such as Nununyi are centrally connected to events during the American Revolution. There is no clear indication that these cities comes even close to pre-dating Columbus. In fact Category:Native American populated places of the American Revolution might be a good place to put these places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:28, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering the extent of Spanish establishing of missions, even as far north as Virginia, in the late-16th century, it is hard to even argue we have a clear pre-Columbian account for Werowocomoco.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:30, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Pre-historic cities in the United States to Category:Cities in North America founded by Indigenous peoples before 1600 and purge. In North America some of these places will be founded well after 1492 but not have European influence. That said, the current category contains places founded in the 18th-century by groups (such as the Cherokee and the Iroquois) who were part of the fur trade and while outside direct Colonial control were clearly part of broader world markets. They were in no way pre-contact when founding these cities. I am not sure if city is the best way to describe all the contents of the category either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:07, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Summing up, there is consensus about the Spanish category, but not about the American category. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:26, 30 May 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:War in Afghanistan (2001–14)[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 all. – Fayenatic London 18:00, 29 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories boldly moved to present name due to request move of main article which was done using inappropriate canvassing, there was a significant debate at Talk:War in Afghanistan (2001-present), which lead to a move review, which found that the there was no consensus to change the article to War in Afghanistan (2001–14); see Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2015 February#War in Afghanistan (2001–14). Thus, JzG moved the article to the long standing article name. Therefore, all the boldy moved categories should be reverted back to their (2001-present) titles as well.
This can also be considered for WP:C2D speedy move. RightCowLeftCoast (talk) 04:44, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - note that I'm not an uninvolved party. The war didn't stop on 31 December 2014!! It unfortunately continues. RCLC, apologies for my non-contribution at the other discussion. All the categories listed above did not appear to have been moved! Thus I didn't do anything. Buckshot06 (talk) 05:32, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cautious support though a case could be made for a properly structured discussion around the whole area, the basis for this is consensus at a move review which, while it was certainly a decently robust review of the issues, is a process that defaults to status quo, so no third option was considered. Guy (Help!) 09:26, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "-present". That word is inappropriate in an encyclopedia as it assumes that (every copy of) the encyclopedia will be updated when present is no longer correct - "War in Afghanistan (2001–)" would be better. DexDor (talk) 14:38, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But in this encyclopedia, it is perfectly reasonable to assume that the article will be updated when present is no longer accurate, or in retrospect when it is clear that major hostilities reached a breaking point and there has been a long, sustained period without major hostilities. This is not the type of war that will necessarily have a treaty and sword exchanged to mark a clear ending ("mission accomplished" anyone?). Regardless, I think present is perfectly acceptable. Timothyjosephwood (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For this particular article (and categories) that's probably the case, but for more obscure subjects it's less likely that "present" will be corrected in a timely manner and we should be consistent. "Present" (and "remains", "still", "today"...) should be strongly discouraged in article text (it's also sometimes a sign of copying source text too closely) in favour of wording such as "as of 2015" and article/category names should be consistent with that; the wording used in a newspaper (with the date at the top of every page) is not always appropriate in an encyclopedia. DexDor (talk) 19:02, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Get that change implemented in the article title and I could support it in the categories. Until then—nope. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:07, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

* Support alternative of War in Afghanistan (2001–) as it leaves the end date open. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:36, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support the last suggestion. It is clear that the withdrawal of most Western forces has not ended the Taliban insurgency: the war continues but Afghanised. In contrast, when the Vietnam War ended, Vietnamisation had failed and conquest by the north was complete. When the Taliban decide to make peace, we can add a closing date to the categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:01, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original proposal; oppose effort to use "(2001–)". The article is at War in Afghanistan (2001–present). It's a very bad idea to try to change the name format here via implementation of it in categories only. If users want "(2001–)", then propose a change to the article name. There is no benefit that is gained from having the format of the category names different than the format of the article name. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:06, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Struck my previous vote. Support original proposal per nominator and Good Olfactory. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:32, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support proposal by RightCowLeftCoast in light of the move review which reversed the name of the anchor article to its original name. Mbcap (talk) 23:49, 24 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Buckshot06 is wise. bobrayner (talk) 00:19, 29 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This attempt to create a sense of break in the wars in Afghanistan is being done too soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:34, 11 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • n.b., If this move doesn't happen, other categories (e.g., Category:War in Afghanistan (2001–present) films) should be updated accordingly. --BDD (talk) 19:11, 11 April 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:Arab Empire[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) 02:28, 30 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is practically empty, has no main article, and does not appear to have any useful purpose whatsoever. Charles Essie (talk) 00:40, 21 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:History of the Arabian peninsula[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: speedy rename C2A/C2C. – Fayenatic London 22:52, 23 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per Arabian Peninsula, Category:Arabian Peninsula, Category:Flora of the Arabian Peninsula, Category:History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula, Category:Port cities in the Arabian Peninsula, and History of the Jews in the Arabian Peninsula. Charles Essie (talk) 00:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Editor2020, Talk 17:41, 22 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It makes perfect sense; the new title follows the rules of proper English capitalization. LightandDark2000 (talk) 07:19, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_March_21&oldid=1074815195"