Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 2 September 4 >

September 3

[edit]

Category:Unite the Right rally organizers and speakers

[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:05, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Doesn't meet WP:CATDEFINING. Category is about organizing a rally or speaking at this rally. FallingGravity 22:05, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Many of the speakers have received nationwide coverage since, largely to their prominent role in the rally (i.e. Jason Kessler, Christopher Cantwell). I believe that this category is justified, because the event will continue to be a defining moment in their careers. Alternatively, upmerge to the recently created Category:Unite the Right rally. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:35, 6 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@FallingGravity, Johnpacklambert, TheValeyard, and RevelationDirect: ping participants to review my rationale for keeping or merging. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:50, 8 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the further commentary. For comparison, the Super Bowl Half Time show gets tons of publicity and is probably the most publicized gig for a musician. But Katy Perry isn't categorized as such because that would go down the road of having a bunch of categories about different venues she plays. (But we can still have a category about those performances, at Category:Super Bowl halftime shows.) Similarly, Identity Evropa was not only at this protest, but was also the 2017 Berkeley protests and probably whatever comes next. Maybe you find that comparison convincing or maybe we just respectfully disagree on this one. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:56, 9 September 2017 (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:BBC's 100 Films of the 21st Century

[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. Timrollpickering 11:45, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is ok for a list but it fails WP:CATDEF. Films end up on many "best of" lists and very few are defining. If we started creating categories every time a film ended up on a list we'd end up with pages having more catgeories than article. Betty Logan (talk) 21:39, 3 September 2017 (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:Heritage organizations in Ukraine

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:53, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry Overlaps with History organizations based in Ukraine, which is part of a category structure Rathfelder (talk) 20:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree. Reason for a separate subcat cannot be established. The one item listed in it could be argued for even being related to the subcat. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 22:53, 3 September 2017 (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:Historical society museums

[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:18, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only one entry. No obvious reason to differentiate Historical society museums from Historical museums Rathfelder (talk) 20:26, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – in the United States especially, State historical societies often run their own set of museums in their State. This category allows that type of museum to be identified, as opposed to the much more generic set of history museums, which could be run by any type of organization. —Jonathan Bowen (talk) 17:32, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The vast majority of historical museums are run by a historical society of some stripe. There are certainly exceptions with municipal, university and other governance structures but this seems too common to be defining. Open to reconsideration if the actual museums are somehow different. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:11, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Museums of this kind are essentially a US phenomenon. The only content is a subcat Hist Soc Mus in US, which is alreadrywell categorised. This is an unnecessary parent, with little scope for expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:21, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete (which has the same effect, in this case) because the category contains only a single subcategory. If history society museums categories can be created and populated successfully in other countries we may well recreate the nominated category as a parent category, but currently it is not useful. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:13, 11 September 2017 (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:Historical societies

[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. ℯxplicit 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Substantial overlap and unclear differentiation Rathfelder (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2017 (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:Economic, social and political strategies

[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:  Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 28#Category:Economic, social and political strategies. ℯxplicit 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, shorter names are better, and all articles in the category can be characterized as political. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:44, 3 September 2017 (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:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska

[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. The various subcategories should be nominated at WP:CFD/S. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:09, 17 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per other consolidated city-counties in the US - such as Category:San Francisco, Category:Lexington, Kentucky, Category:New Orleans. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and WP:COMMONNAME. Even though it's true that Juneau is a consolidated city-borough under Alaska law, nobody would ever actually refer to it that way when the occasion comes up to mention Juneau in everyday speech. But our naming conventions for categories are governed by common usage, not officialism. Bearcat (talk) 21:54, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all categories containing "Juneau City and Borough", "Sitka City and Borough" and "Wrangell City and Borough" to the shorter form, as I'm not sure I have the time to approach this piecemeal. I'll have to get back to you on any background as I can't access my laptop or a library at this hour. I just looked at Consolidated city-county and it provides a poor explanation of Alaska's situation, particularly in that consolidation and unification are separate processes under state law. There are only four unified boroughs: Anchorage, Juneau, Sitka and Wrangell. These come the closest to matching the standard definition of a consolidated city-county, because state law favors the stance that they're strictly boroughs. I can come up with a book source to explain this, but not right away. Anyway, we have an extensive tree at Category:Anchorage, Alaska and to the best of my knowledge not a single category containing "Municipality of Anchorage" in its name, so there's evidence already that commonly known and simple works. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 08:37, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Rename per WP:C2D, facilitating concordance between a particular category's name and a related page's name. The main article is Juneau, Alaska so the categories should blindly follow so we don't encourage venue shopping. (The WP:CFDS process would probably be the easiest route to rename the subcategories after this nomination closes.)RevelationDirect (talk) 21:21, 4 September 2017 (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:Australian Almanacs

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:58, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Correcting capitalization per Wikipedia capitalization gudelines. Trivialist (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2017 (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:Historians from 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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Evidently redundant to its parent. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:52, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've no problem with a merge. -- Gwillhickers (talk) 19:11, 3 September 2017 (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:Persian-Armenian translators

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for a person who translates a specific combination of languages. While we do permit categories for "Translators from language A" or "Translators to Language B", we do not automatically create intersected "Translators from A to B" subcategories for every possible combination of A and B -- we can do it when there are a lot of people to be filed there (see e.g. Category:Russian–English translators), but not for just one person. Bearcat (talk) 16:49, 3 September 2017 (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:Italo Svevo

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous cat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:08, 3 September 2017 (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.

Catholic Church in territories, regions and 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: rename and merge as nominated. ℯxplicit 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Other categories included in the nomination
Nominator's rationale: Category names for the Catholic Church in territories, regions and cities should follow the same pattern that was already decided in a previous CfD for countries. Grabado (talk) 08:41, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support most but oppose change in UK (i.e. Cambridge and London), where "Roman" is needed to distinguish from Anglo-Catholic (a trend in the Church of England). It may be necessary to extend this to the Canadian provinces: I am neutral on that, as I do not know local practice. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:14, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
From my point of view, there is no need to add "Roman" since Anglo-Catholicism is a trend of the Church of England, not a Church itself. The "Anglo-Catholic Church" doesn't exist, and followers of the Anglo-Catholic movement don't claim the name of "Catholic Church". Hence, no need to distinguish or disambiguate between those two expressions.
In any case, the change would be necessary to align them with the parent category Category:Catholic Church in the United Kingdom and its main article Catholic Church in the United Kingdom. --Grabado (talk) 13:42, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Grabado (talk · contribs). Beyond the legitimate non-denominational argument, Anglo-Catholic is clearly per se nominally distinguished. Chicbyaccident (talk) 14:04, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maintain position -- I continue to assert that the normal term for this denomination is in UK is "Roman Catholic". Furthermore there are a few other "catholic" denominations, e.g. Old Catholic. I am not suggesting that "Roman" needs to be retained much more generally; only where local usage suggests it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:31, 10 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
We try to follow global perspective consistently, especially for global things. Old Catholic is named Old Catholic, and there seems to be consensus to keep it that way, so that shouldn't be a problem. Chicbyaccident (talk) 08:24, 11 September 2017 (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:Aileen Wuornos

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 11 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content for an eponymous cat. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agreed. Delete per nom. bd2412 T 02:13, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
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:Canadian border 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: delete. ℯxplicit 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This results from some duplication cleanup; some of the places filed here were sitting in both this and Category:Canada–United States border towns simultaneously, while some others were sitting in only one category or the other -- and the city vs. town distinction is not what was making the difference, as some towns were sitting in this category and some cities were not. To the extent that this actually constitutes a WP:DEFINING characteristic for the purposes of categorization at all, however, all Canadian communities that fit the criteria of being located on the border should be filed together, not just a random partial subset of them. That said, there is some arbitrariness being applied here, in that not every place that was sitting in either category is actually located on the border (some are located within what's described as "walking distance" from the border, with "walking distance" extending up to 30 km in some instances), and even some of the ones that are located on the border are not defined by the fact as there's no border crossing facility located there. So some purging may also be necessary here — but at the very least, there's no defining reason to segregate "cities" from "towns" in this context, especially given that a city vs. town segregation isn't even the way the categories were actually being used. Bearcat (talk) 23:24, 28 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
"Settlements" would be fine too, if that's what consensus would prefer — there's no Canadian-specific reason why it has to be "communities" per se, it's just that I had to pick a word that encompassed both towns and cities and that happens to be the first one that came to mind. Bearcat (talk) 15:57, 29 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 04:34, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it is to be kept then this category should be about 'function' not type of settlement. Only those places which function as a 'crossing point' in some way should be included; and that would allow some settlements to be some distance away from the border. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:43, 4 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possibly that it has a customs office. However, would this not include places with international airports as well? Of course, maybe on some level WIndsor, Ontario letting in people coming by tunel or bridge from Detroit and Calgary or Edmonton monitoring those coming through the international airport have the same function, but I am less than convinced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:47, 5 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion started because the category used the term 'cities'. If the category is to be about 'border crossings' then the size and/or administrative type of settlement are irrelevant. The category should be about how the country interacts with the adjoining county (what I would call its 'function'). A Customs office would probably be a starting point; AND airports have a Customs office (and passport control). Passengers will not normally come into contact with Customs as it deals mainly with freight. If the category is just for (actual) border crossings then it is probably too simplistic; and if everything is included then it probably becomes too unwieldy. I am not convinced of the utility of the category - but the name is definitely wrong. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:35, 5 September 2017 (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.

Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth

[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 Category:Social history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Category:Social history of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth and merge Category:Polish-Lithuanian society into it; rename Category:Cultural history of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth‎ to Category:Culture of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth‎ and merge Category:Polish-Lithuanian culture into it; merge Category:History of religion in the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth to Category:Religion in the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth. ℯxplicit 02:01, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge pairwise with each other as duplicates. Everything in a former country is history so it is not meaningful to create a topic parent category on top of a topic history category for every topic. Besides "Polish-Lithuanian" is not very precise, it should definitely refer to the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth. The minor issue with - and – could have been solved speedily (WP:C2C per Category:Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth), but for the sake of merging this had to be a full nomination anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:57, 3 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This still seems to be messy and out of process. Would you not just do the renames first and then open another CFM about the merges later? Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:31, 7 September 2017 (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/2017_September_3&oldid=1138411618"