Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 December 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 12 December 14 >

December 13[edit]

Collegiate affiliations[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I disagreed with the decision to delete the QuestBridge category, but if that's going to be our standard, there are a bunch of other similar categories that should also be on the chopping block for consistency. Here's a few of them. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:25, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WT:WikiProject Higher Education. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 22:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • What exactly is the rationale for nominating these categories for deletion? "We deleted another category like these" might make sense for those who participated in that discussion but it's not helpful for other editors. ElKevbo (talk) 22:59, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ElKevbo, the main rationale for QuestBridge was WP:Defining. I'm not sure I agree with that, strictly interpreted, as a standard, but it's what the standard appears to be, so I think we should apply it consistently. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 23:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Got it; thanks for clarification. ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These probably aren't defining doing a quick spot check on the articles (most of these aren't mentioned anywhere except in the category) but I'm not entirely sure of the rationale either. SportingFlyer T·C 23:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the first three categories - Posse schools, Members of the Oberlin Group, and Members of the Annapolis Group - as they do not appear to be defining characteristics of the member institutions. ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep for the V-12 program category; in some instances, the V-12 program was instrumental in preserving colleges and universities during World War II when so many (current and prospective) college students and faculty left to join the war effort, so in that sense it could be correctly categorized as "defining." I'm not familiar enough with CfD discussions and categories in general to know if historical considerations such as this are "valid" hence my "weak" !vote (and I'll not argue if more experienced hands !vote differently if historical considerations are not valid in these discussions). ElKevbo (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, I was thinking that one was the weakest one because the articles I clicked on didn't seem to mention it at all. (Maybe we clicked on a different sampling though?) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete All Per WP:OC. I favor keeping accreditation articles because they define the legal status of the school but universities are often in multiple other loose associations, whose membership often evolves and gets passing mention in the articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:46, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete these are loose associations with little direct impact. Keep in mind rules say, once you join a group you belong in the category. Over time this means that since universities will periodically leave and join a new group, this could lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:08, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and commentary od JPL. --Just N. (talk) 21:15, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the first three, Keep V-12 as ElKevbo mentions it actually is defining. - The Bushranger One ping only 04:00, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I fail to see how these categories are defining for their members. Dimadick (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. These affiliations are likely to evolve in time, and are therefore not defining for these intitutions in a time-independent manner. Place Clichy (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2021 (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:Communes of the Province of Florence and similar[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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:02, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Province of Florence became the Metropolitan City of Florence in 2015, and similarly for the other cities. Unless I'm mistaken, the communes within them remained the same across the change in status, so there doesn't seem to be a great deal of value in retaining this as a historical record. Indeed, it seems there's been an incomplete process of transferring everything, in that Category:Communes of the Metropolitan City of Florence contains almost everything that presumably was once here—only a few subcats and pages remain; likewise for most of the others. In addition, some of the category descriptions (e.g. Florence) and some of the pages are unambiguously about the Metropolitan City, not about the former Province.
These are most of the categories for what are now metropolitan cities. The exceptions are:
YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 22:02, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notified: WT:WikiProject Italy. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 22:51, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support province to metropolitan city per WP:C2C. But I am surprised about the usage of communes, shouldn't that be municipalities? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:40, 15 December 2020 (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:American film score composers of Indian descent[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 as nominated and to Category:American film people of Indian descent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:34, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles in the cat. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 21:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As the parent Category:American film people of Indian descent has not also been nominated, there should be a double merge also to that one, rather than removing the pages from its hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 08:06, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double upmerge for now. I have reservations about most of these x nationality occupation of y descent categories, but this is a bridge too far. It is too fine to really comply witbh ERGS rules. I wish in ERGS rules we required the article first, because I have my doubts people could create a non-list article that was American filmmakers of Indian descent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another "descent" category suffering the usual problems. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, trivial intersection between occupation and descent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:42, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:17, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per nomination MPGuy2824 (talk) 05:54, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Trivial intersection between occupation and descent. Dimadick (talk) 18:58, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The other parent is not defining for anybody, it was probably a mere attempt at an intermediate categorization level which is pretty articicial. Place Clichy (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2021 (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:Cnidarians of Ireland[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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:04, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category just contains a list article, there are no corresponding categories for other land masses. Note: The category creator has been blocked. DexDor (talk) 15:07, 13 December 2020 (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:Nadeem Beyg[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 Bushranger One ping only 04:07, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:OCEPON. The category contains films directed by Baig, and the article about him was moved from "Nadeem Beyg" to Nadeem Baig (director). 1857a (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2020 (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:Destroyed landmarks in Egypt[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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Landmark" is subjective and we have deleted many categories with this naming convention as a result. The two articles in this category should probably be upmerged. SportingFlyer T·C 13:34, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Library of Alexandria, etc., were not demolished, they were destroyed. Misleading category name if upmerged.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I do not think there is any difference between destroying something and demolishing something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this has come up before: how "destroyed" or "demolished" must something be to fit in. Certainly, many buildings and structures in Egypt look different than they did in their heyday some through deliberate actions of humans (scratching out the names or faces of disfavored former rulers seems to have been common). There is also the concept of spolia which applies to many buildings and structures in Egypt. A google search of "ruins" in Egypt gives varied opinions on whether certain buildings have or haven't been "destroyed" or "demolished". Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge If a building is still there, it may be vandalized but not demolished. There is certainly some range of possibilities here but I don't think we're losing any nuance with "destroyed" over "demolished". - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge — but there's still a whole tree of "destroyed" as a child of "demolished". They all need to be upmerged.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:35, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:19, 18 December 2020 (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:Destroyed landmarks in Bulgaria[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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Landmark" is not only subjective per many recent CfD discussions, this completely duplicates the proper "Demolished buildings and structures in Bulgaria," which while small is part of a proper categorisation scheme. SportingFlyer T·C 13:33, 13 December 2020 (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:Destroyed landmarks in Romania[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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per prior discussion, "Destroyed landmarks by country" are subjective, and this category is small and superfluous. SportingFlyer T·C 13:32, 13 December 2020 (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.

Aldermen in the Netherlands[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) 06:36, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more similar categories
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one, two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:30, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:21, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for Now While these places would have had more than five aldermen, most would be non-notable. No objection to recreating any if they ever exceed expectations and get up to 5+ articles. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:08, 5 January 2021 (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.

Badulla[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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:38, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, just one or two articles in each of these categories and delete the container categories which become empty after the merger. In total we have 3 articles in 6 categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:23, 13 December 2020 (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:Members of the Provincial-Executive of the Netherlands by province[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) 01:20, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the current title is certainly incorrect, as it suggests there is one "Provincial-Executive of the Netherlands". Also, in plural, provincial executives is no longer a proper name and so there is no longer a need for capitalization. Several better alternatives are possible, such as the one nominated, or Category:Members of provincial executives in the Netherlands by province which is closer to the current title, but mind the word "in". Again another rename to Category:Deputies of the Netherlands by province was opposed for speedy renaming because the term "deputies" is not used in the one English-language source that was included in the Provincial executive article. See also this related discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:01, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Oppose, not a case of WP:C2D and the only English-language source mentioned in the article says "Provincial executive members". Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Ætoms: pinging other contributor to speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:03, 13 December 2020 (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:Male villains[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 24#Category:Male villains

Water supply companies in Malaysia[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 The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The parent category is Category:Water companies by country which contains 23 subcategories; all but one have the format Category:Water companies of Malaysia; hence it is proposed to move the four Malaysian companies from the category “Water supply companies in Malaysia” as they have the same characteristics (water utility companies) as Indah Water. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs)
  • Support, while a distinction could be made between water supply companies and waste water companies, the category tree seems to combine them all. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:15, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. --Just N. (talk) 21:25, 18 December 2020 (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:Named corners of raceways[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 per amended nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:CATNAME and WP:SMALLCAT
I'm ambivalent on whether this category tree should be kept at all: there are 7 redirects, 1 article (Handley's Corner), and no main article. (See below) Assuming we keep the parent catetory, the "named" part of the title is not needed. The subcategory is the old branding for what is now the Isle of Man TT and has little growth potential beyond that 1 article so it should be upmerged. (Alternatively, we could delete both.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the categories serve no navigational benefit. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:17, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: Turns out I was mistaken about the growth potential. You may want to review your !vote based on the conversation below. - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:33, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are 100 or more, not just one named corner. Perhaps someone went through the articles removing the category? The solution is to re-apply it, not delete the category. There has been one editor who created and argued about them; I came across the area in some AFDs many years ago. There were so many, and there was so much battling about notability, etc., that I eventually created List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course. Some separate articles may have been redirected to there, but I think it's more likely there are numerous more now, just disconnected by removal of the category. --Doncram (talk) 17:11, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: Thank you for repopulating the subcategory. I don't think you meant to imply I purged the categories, as both were described just as I found them. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:26, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
EC, right. The general topic area has been a battleground for 10 years or so; several disputants could have removed the categories, i am not checking. It is also possible that it was never populated out, though I think I would have applied the category out when I created it. thanks, --Doncram (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further, "named corners" are a thing, as established by the "main article" (List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course) which had not been found by nominator(s) here. That Isle of Man course is unusual as a racecourse because it is all along public roadways (and, relatedly, is dangerous and was eventually dropped from the main championship motorcycle racing circuit). There are other significant corners of other raceways which are publicly known/named. At some raceways the corners are just numbered (the Indianapolis 500 has corners/turns #1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7).
IMO, "named corners of raceways" is a better term than "corners of raceways", accurately conveying that "named corners" are a thing, and that Wikipedia is going to cover them, perhaps all of them that exist in the world. Wikipedia is not going to cover all, or most, of the unnamed corners of raceways in the world, and it perhaps it will never have a separate article for any one of them. Named corners of raceways are different. And are totally different than "corners" or "named corners" (like, say Speakers' corner in London) that are not related to raceways. These are places where machinery and riders are likely to zoom, at 120 mph or faster, off the course, possibly killing the rider and possibly killing spectators. Many of them are named for riders who died right there.
Most and probably all 100 or so items in the List of named corners list and/or items listed out within Template:Mountain Course should be added (or restored) to the category. After adding some, the category currently includes:
  1. 11th Milestone, Isle of Man
  2. Ballacrye Corner
  3. Ballagarey Corner, Isle of Man
  4. Birkin's Bend
  5. Brandish Corner
  6. Doran's Bend
  7. Douglas Road Corner
  8. Gooseneck, Isle of Man
  9. Handley's Corner, Isle of Man
  10. Hillberry Corner
  11. The Nook, Isle of Man
  12. Ramsey Hairpin
  13. School House Corner
  14. Signpost Corner, Isle of Man
  15. Tower Bends
  16. Windy Corner, Isle of Man
I think all 100 or so items are members of Category:Roads in the Isle of Man, which is a bit of a misnomer. There may be some local disagreement about categorizing the rest of the named corner articles, as it might be argued that some are better termed "landmarks" or "intersections" or whatever, rather than emphasizing the raceway corner/turn aspect which is a major contributing factor to the notability of the place. And in some cases a place became notable as a raceway corner but later road re-alignments straightened out the road, so there may be dispute about whether a "named former corner" can be kept in the category or not. All of them are better termed "named corners" than "roads", in my opinion, but there could yet be some argument. Anyhow, there are certainly 20 or 50 or 80 or maybe 100 that will be agreed to be categorized as "named corners". --Doncram (talk) 19:31, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:DexDor, thanks for commenting, but why do you support rename? Your "!vote" does not explain. Please see my additional commenting above, too, please. --Doncram (talk) 19:35, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was directed at another editor, but I also replied at the bottom of this discussion. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:19, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both if we can actually populate the first category. I'd be in favour of a giant merge for most or all of the Snæfell corners, but for now a rename is fine. SportingFlyer T·C 23:07, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
illustration of Fédération Internationale de l'Automobile specs, suitable for an article about raceway turns/corners, a different thing than "named corners of raceways"
No one is explaining what is better about "corners of raceways" than "named corners of raceways". Having one less word is not automatically better. I think the latter is better as more descriptive; a named corner is simply different, involves a name behind which is a story; an unnamed corner is not a thing. I believe List of named corners of the Snaefell Mountain Course does a good enough job establishing that "named corners" are a thing there. The main article for the topic would be something like Named corners of raceways (currently a redlink), not "Corners of raceways" which would be possibly be a section in Race track article or a separate article about construction methods and surfaces and angles for slanting the roadway for traffic at different speeds, or about various racing associations' standards and so on. --Doncram (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Set vs Topic Cats The fact that they're named isn't what makes them defining; all Wikipedia articles are "named" and using that word often leads to confusion about inclusion criteria. If you think we need to distinguish individual corners of raceways for a set category versus corners of raceways in general for a hypothetical topic category, then we can use "individual" which follows Category:Individual horses in sport, Category:Individual sailing yachts, or Category:Individual rivalries in sports. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:14, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Umm, i'm sorry, I don't really get/appreciate the set vs. topic distinction which must matter to some people, even after trying to read up about it. About the tactic of adding the word "individual", I also don't quite appreciate that. In category trees that I have now reviewed where "individual" is used, its usage is very random. For just one example, within Category:Individual horses there is Category:Irish Sport Horses with Irish Sport Horse (not an individual horse) and with various individual horses. Usage of the term "individual" seems inefficient, doesn't deliver much info value for its bandwidth. Maybe its usage provides useful clarification somehow sometimes. But for racecourse corners, "named corners" is better than "individual corners" because it delivers more info, i.e. delivers "individual-ness" plus also fact there is a name and a story, rather than just a number.
I will agree this doesn't matter too very much, but there is small principle that removing a word (just for sake of removing a word?) is not beneficial for any reason I can see, and does reduce information conveyed. --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The Snaefell Mountain Course is a name used for a cycling event and not a motor-cycle race. The Isle of Man TT has raced on four different circuits and a category for Corners of the Isle of Man TT is inaccurate. Road Courses may be different from raceways which may mean a permanent or semi-permanent (motor-sport) facility. Loading a single category with Isle of Man related raceway information is unencyclopedic and may confuse other editors. There are only three Isle of Man corners that have been named after fatal accidents, two of those are not in general use, a further section has a different name. The other established Isle of Man articles have been written for independent notability which may include motor-sport use used in full or in part with different events. These Isle of Man articles are not dependent on the proposed category and would be more extensive except for repeated vandalism in the Isle of Man area of articles from the editor USER:doncram including editing against sources. agljones(talk)20:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Agljones, nice of you to show up. This statement is an example of long-running dispute about anything and everything. And maybe about generally being incomprehensible: I don't understand the point of this "comment". But, by the way, to be sure, I am truly sorry about my being a horrid vandal. :( --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, "named" is redundant and if non-named corners (e.g. numbered corners) would exist and have an article they would also belong in this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:49, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Marcocapelle, for adding clear focus on alternatives of being "named" (I guess I meant being named with descriptive words that are not merely numbers) vs. only being numbered. Hypothetically, a racecourse corner could be well-known/notable for the documented treachery of its curve or whatever, and also be known (be named?) only by its number, and deserving of a Wikipedia article which should be included into this category. In which case I would suppose that the category should be renamed (unless it can be successfully argued that the "number-type-name" is in fact a "name"). But, there is not one such example in Wikipedia, is there? "Named corners" conveys more and accurately. Let's deal with the situation of "Indianapolis raceway corner #2" becoming an article if/when that ever happens (and even then I would think that if "Indianapolis raceway corner #2" is really a thing that people know about, then "Indianapolis raceway corner #2" has become a name). Just because some person secures a legal re-identification/re-naming of themself to "#8734001-12" or whatever, in some jurisdiction, does not mean we need to panic and rename Name to "Name and/or number" or to rename Personal name to "Personal name or other identification". There's no problem needing to be fixed here. --Doncram (talk) 23:10, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still, named does not mean anything, it is just redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per amended nomination. If raceway corners are notable enough for a Wikipedia article, they probably have a name. Therefore named is redundant (unless someone finds nameless raceway corners to be a field of academic knowledge). Place Clichy (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2021 (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:Archaeological type sites[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
According to the main article, a Type site "is an archaeological site that is considered the model of a particular archaeological culture. ... A type site is also often the eponym (the site after which the culture is named)".
Both definitions show up in this category:
  • 1: Mount Pleasant henge had the Mount Pleasant Period named after it, Aden Site had the Aden Phase named after it while Blackwater Draw is in the category because it is near Clovis, New Mexico which in turn had the Clovis culture named after it. This seems less defining than the typical shared name category because they don't actually share a name: they share that they named something else.
  • 2: There are also sites like Book Site and Barton Gulch in the category because they are well preserved and a good source of artifacts. But archealogists labeling them as a "type site" still a judgment call, even among experts, who are likely to be sincerely enthusiastic about their own finds and there is no agreed upon standard.
I copied the current category contents right here so no work is lost if someone else wants to start a list article.- RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • listify, with the criterion that's it the first sort, where the site is its name to a culture or period. That particular type of "type site" does seem worth recording in a list, but you're right that as far as the category is concerned it's a candidate for deletion under the shared name rule. Grutness...wha? 04:14, 13 December 2020 (UTC) hey[reply]
I don't think this would work as a list. There are thousands of archaeological cultures and by definition all of them have a type site. I'm also not aware of any sources that discuss them together as a group. – Joe (talk) 19:54, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no limit on size of a list, I happen to have worked in Wikipedia mostly on the 100,000 or so items in List of RHPs; "type sites" are a thing and we have an article for it and it is fine to include a list in that article or split it out if it becomes too large, dividing by geography or era perhaps. I rather do expect that discussions about type sites as a group do exist. Wikipedia is probably a better forum than anywhere else to build the most comprehensive list of them, this is something that Wikipedia does well. I would acknowledge that perhaps a huge list of "type sites" might well be included as a field within some huge list/table of archeological cultures and their phases / subphases, etc. But I rather suspect that not all cultures/phases/etc. have really good illustrative type sites, and that a list of major/good/great type sites is good as a standalone list-article. --Doncram (talk) 22:12, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are a lot of long lists on Wikipedia, and I don't remember calling any argument which says that all the references have to be from the same source a list to be valid or viable - just as long as it's referenced it doesn't matter how many different sources you use. Grutness...wha? 02:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:LISTN suggests that lists be created when the grouping "has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources" which is likely achievable here. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:25, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there are no easily found sources that discuss them together as a group, then probably the concept does not make a good category either. Place Clichy (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Article Type site already contains a good list, I am not too sure if that list needs to be expanded with the current category content. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Frankly I don't think that is a "good list" because I am pretty sure it is very very incomplete. It would be fine/great for it to be expanded using the current category content and more, and for the category to be used to collect more knowledge over time, too. wp:CLNT is the applicable editing guideline about how having a list and a corresponding category are generally complementary and good, as applies here. --Doncram (talk) 20:50, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Neither of the deletion rationales apply and I'm not sure the nominator has fully understood what the concept. A type site contains the assemblage that defines an archaeological culture – more often than not it also lends its name to it, but that's secondary. A direct analogy (which I believe is where the concept comes from) are type specimens in biology. It's not subjective: whether a site was the basis for a culture should always be easy to verify, because sources on other sites of that culture will trace back to it. It's also not just a matter of shared names: subsequently discovered sites are assigned to a culture based on a comparison of their material to the type site. What becomes a type site is mostly a matter of historical accident, but it does give those sites a privileged place in archaeological taxonomy and so is very much a defining feature. – Joe (talk) 19:53, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. "Type sites" are a real thing, and it is very appropriate to have a category for them, and it would also be reasonable to have an expanded list-article of them. (wp:CLNT guideline is about how categories and lists are complementary.) There are no doubt numerous interesting anecdotes (with reliable sourcing) about how amateur archeologist A "got credit" and secured the type site designation for a culture, beating out professional archeologist B who took longer to publish about an arguably better / more representative site. Or how B succeeded eventually in securing academic consensus that the site they dug out was indeed more representative/better, and so how the culture got renamed for B instead. A list-article could share some of that color. (For examples, see Stamper Site, Turpin Site, Warren K. Moorehead (who discovered but destroyed lots of important Hopewell Culture stuff). --Doncram (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)) I see no justification at all for deletion of the category here; please do explain or re-explain to me if there is any valid reasoning that I should recognize. I am not an expert about categories, nor about type sites, but in the process of creating some thousands of articles about National Register of Historic Places-listed places I do believe I created several of these articles. --Doncram (talk) 20:38, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. One of the asserted deletion reasons, WP:SHAREDNAME, is that these are "Unrelated subjects with shared names", for which the suggestion is: "Avoid categorizing by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." The reasoning does not apply here. Being a type site is absolutely a defining characteristic that is worth categorizing.
The other reasoning, WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, which is about: "Adjectives which imply a subjective, vague, or inherently non-neutral inclusion criterion should not be used in naming/defining a category." But whether a site is a type site is absolutely not subjective...in almost all cases I believe it is an objective fact that a given site is accepted as the type site for a culture in the archeological literature. There may be marginal cases / disputes where one journal disputes another journal, I suppose, but such cases would just prove the point that type sites are real things. --Doncram (talk) 20:46, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The category is important, and covers relatively more important archeological sites; in the U.S. the more important historic sites are National Historic Landmarks; I just applied this search to identify a bunch of NHL type sites and some other important ones, and added the following to the category:
  1. Draft:Ortoire
  2. Burro Flats Painted Cave
  3. Hopewell Culture National Historical Park
  4. Turpin Site
  5. Safety Harbor Site
  6. Emerald Mound Site
  7. Horner Site
  8. Stamper Site
  9. Anna Site
  10. Lamoka Site
  11. Arzberger Site
  12. Menard-Hodges Site
  13. Birnirk Site
  14. Iyatayet Site
  15. Harrell Site
  16. Yankeetown Site
  17. Schultz Site
  18. Swift Creek Mound Site
  19. Nodena Site
  20. Walker Gilmore Site
--Doncram (talk) 22:04, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This is a perfectly reasonable category. Archaeologists frequently name cultures etc after the site where they were first identified. This is not a SHAREDNAME case, or at least it is different from the typical one. I think of the British Bronze Age Deverel–Rimbury culture, which takes its name from two barrows where a particular type of pottery was found. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:50, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, or listify into the current Type site article. Although SHAREDNAME is not the exact rationale, these sites are notable for being the first site found for a given archaeological culture, which in the case of the later discovery of a more important site would only be a trivial association with said culture. Anyway, they have very little in common. Place Clichy (talk) 10:59, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, this !vote is based on a lack of understanding of the concept. Type sites define an archaeological culture, because a culture is an analytical construct not a real thing that's discovered. They're often the first known site, but not always, and retain their significance as long as the unit they define is still used. That special place in archaeological taxonomy is what they have in common. – Joe (talk) 10:36, 5 January 2021 (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/2020_December_13&oldid=1002547387"