Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 8

< September 7	September 9 >

September 8

Category:Football kits with incorrect pattern

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:10, 18 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Football kits with incorrect pattern to Category:Pages using Template:Football kit with incorrect pattern parameters

Nominator's rationale: Clarity and consistency with other categories under Category:Pages using a sports template incorrectly. DexDor^(talk) 21:02, 8 September 2016 (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:Fireworks festivals

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 October 20#Category:Fireworks festivals

Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states

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 rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:36, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People of pre-statehood U.S. states to Category:People from pre-statehood U.S. states

Nominator's rationale: consistency with other categories. I'm also nominating the whole category tree. Prisencolin (talk) 16:50, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- With the exception of a "by state" subcategory, which is misconceived as anachronistic, all the content relates to a colonial period, before there was a United States, possibly Category:Colonial people of America should be the parent. the content of the subcats of the pre-statehood by state should be manually emptied into the categories to which they belong, such as Category:People of Nevada Territory. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:09, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose Reason for change as 'consistency with other categories' is a meaningless generality pointing one's thoughts to exactly nothing. This category is simply an extension of its parent categories, which are not in question. This is about the people in the lands that became states of the United States prior to the United States or prior to their being a state in the United States--there is no other satisfactory way to organize category navigation to these people. Territory is simply not viable as many of places were never territories; they were colonies and where there were territories, the territorial period only covered a portion of the pre-US state history. Also, I created this category but was not notified of this deletion nomination. Hmains (talk) 21:35, 9 September 2016 (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:Local landmarks in Boston, Massachusetts

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; merge contents to Category:Landmarks in Boston, Massachusetts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Local landmarks in Boston, Massachusetts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: New uncategorized category redundant with Category:Landmarks in Boston, Massachusetts. Gjs238 (talk) 13:05, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with other category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. "Local" is not a characteristic that distinguishes some landmarks in Boston from others; by definition, they're all "local" to Boston, because a non-local landmark would be somewhere other than Boston. Bearcat (talk) 00:31, 11 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The term does not appear to have a technical meaning in Boston, unlike the case of Category:Local landmarks in Louisville, Kentucky, and its parent Category:Locally designated landmarks in the United States, where "local" means landmarks designated by the city government. The category creator also created the article Boston Landmark which is apparently the official term for landmarks designated by the Boston Landmarks Commission; and the latter page makes no reference to "local landmarks" having a separate meaning. It seems to be just a generic term to distinguish them from National Historic Landmarks. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 19 September 2016 (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:Births in Ternopil

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. People who were born there but can't comfortably said to be "from" there can be removed from the category. As noted, this is a great example where ambiguity in meaning actually benefits a category scheme. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:34, 29 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Births in Ternopil into Category:People from Ternopil

Nominator's rationale: We don't have a structure for births, it's simply "from x". Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:24, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

~~keep~~Is there a previous discussion and concensus not to categorize by births? Otherwise I would think it is a perfectly defining category.--Prisencolin (talk) 16:51, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, otherwise where is this going to end? Childhoods in Ternopil, Teenagers in Ternopil? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:43, 8 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- Births are defining enough be used in categories, otherwise why else would we list birthplace in every infobox?--Prisencolin (talk) 01:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - Not everything that is in an infobox is suitable as a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:08, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    - That doesn't make any sense. If it's in the infobox, then it is essential information about the topic. Otherwise why in the world would it be presented so prominently in an article?--Prisencolin (talk) 17:57, 20 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      - Categories are intended as an easy way of navigating between related articles. I fail to see why anyone would want to navigate between biographies of the same place of birth. And it would just cause even more category clutter in every article, while especially with biographies there is often so much clutter already, sometimes to the extent that it's almost impossible for readers to make use of the category system because there are just too many categories listed in an article. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 21 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        Birth place is relevant for many things, such as citizenship or identity. Why else do you think lots of people make a big deal ab about Obama supposedly being born outside the US? Anyways, I'm striking my keep vote, not because it's I now think that categorizing by birth is improper, but because of WP:SMALLCAT and the fact that the category is rather redundant.--Prisencolin (talk) 19:41, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
See: links from Wikidata. Births in Ternopil (or in another city) — is born in city. People from Ternopil (or in another city) — there may be people who are not only born here, and here work (eg teachers individual universities, sports clubs, city managers and other categories. See: Category:People of Ternopil. See also Wikimedia category Births by location on Wikidata and subcategories. This branch is in many categories Wikipedia, why can not the English? --Микола Василечко (talk) 04:59, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- What being "from" a place consists of has purposely been left woolly, and we should not change that. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:11, 9 September 2016 (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.