Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 October 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 24 October 26 >

October 25[edit]

Please note that the discussions on this page have been transcluded from subpages.

Category:Economic struggle[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 on 31st. Kbdank71 12:56, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Economic struggle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • I was going to point out that this grouping is the intersection of two equally important parent cats, both of which are well populated with other articles that don't fall within the scope of this category. I was initially tempted to propose deletion, but it does seem to serve a useful purpose. Cgingold (talk) 03:36, 26 October 2008 (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:Agostino Carracci[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. Kbdank71 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Agostino Carracci (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged per WP:OCAT. So far, only one page has been categorized here, and that is an image. I propose that the category be deleted. Stepheng3 (talk) 21:20, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - it is odd that Agostino Carracci is not included or mentioned. It is also odd that images of works by XXX are not categorised by XXX, or at least I could find no examples. There are quite a few images of works by AC in I Modi, most of which are uncategorised. Occuli (talk) 01:05, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete without prejudice to a category on the Carracci brothers, which might make sense one day. Needless to say, the single image has next to nothing to do with Agostino Carracci. Johnbod (talk) 16:29, 27 October 2008 (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:Volleyball Asian Championship[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 on 31st. Kbdank71 13:09, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Volleyball Asian Championship (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The creator's intent was a little unclear, but I think this category was intended to cover Asian volleyball championships, of which there are several, hence I am proposing to rename it to Category:Asian volleyball championships. Stepheng3 (talk) 20:58, 25 October 2008 (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 in Norway[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. Kbdank71 12:54, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Cities in Norway to Category:Cities and towns in Norway
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I consider this a technical nomination. In researching Category:Unincorporated cities in Norway I found that Category:Cities in Norway was a redirect to Category:Cities and towns in Norway and yet it has a large number of articles. So rather then act based on the redirect and move stuff, I felt that it should be brought here for a discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Please see the discussion here. I created the Cities and Towns in Norway category a few days ago following that discussion. I were originally going to merge the categories by hand but as the instructions page says that "Placing this template on a category will alert a bot to reclassify all pages from that category to the redirect target", I decided to wait for the bot instead. Apparently, the bot is not doing its job for unknown reasons, so it seems a manual merge will be necessary. I'm not sure we we need to discuss it here, though. --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:24, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Other relevant discussions:
__meco (talk) 09:36, 26 October 2008 (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:Unincorporated cities in Norway[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 on 31st. Kbdank71 13:02, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Unincorporated cities in Norway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The term "unincorporated" does not have any meaning in a Norwegian context. All cities in Norway are localized within a municipality and lack local governance.
For instance, Bergen has a so-called city council which is elected by the whole municipality, but the outlying borough of Arna is not a part of the city, just of the municipality.
Seemingly, the category creator has just added cities with a different name than their corresponding municipality. The history of Horten shows why this is meaningless: The municipality of Horten was merged with the municipality of Borre in 1988. The name of the new municipality was Borre. Supposedly, then, Horten was an "unincorporated city" in Borre municipality. Some years later, the name was changed from Borre to Horten. Supposedly, from this point the city of Horten was no longer "unincorporated", since its corresponding municipality bore the same name. But - no, that makes no sense and is OR. Punkmorten (talk) 19:08, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, Arna is in fact part of the city. I believe the reason why you think it is not is due to SSB's urban areas, but those do not in any way decide the size of and the area covered by the cities - SSB does not decide what is part of cities and what is not (although it might have been reasonable if they could do that, but that's not the current situation). The city limits of Bergen are in fact coterminous with the municipality limits, much like those of Oslo being coterminous with that city's limits - Bærum is not part of Oslo even though it is obviously a very integrated surburb and considered part of the Oslo urban area by SSB. On a related note, what are your thoughts on the Sandvika case? How large is its population and where is its city limits (it is entirely included in the Oslo urban area). --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 20:21, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think my thoughts about Sandvika are relevant - sources, on the other hand, are. Punkmorten (talk) 10:07, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What do the sources say? --Aqwis (talk – contributions) 10:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Punkmorten (talk) 11:15, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have repopulated this category with the following cities:

I find it quite inappropriate that the category was depopulated before this nomination. __meco (talk) 09:33, 26 October 2008 (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:David George (Baptist)[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. Kbdank71 12:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:David George (Baptist) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - All that's in here is the main article and two articles about churches connected with him -- just not enough to warrant a category. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 12:00, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- a clear case of overcategorisation. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:53, 26 October 2008 (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:Fann Wong films[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. Kbdank71 12:52, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fann Wong films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_April_24#Category:Jackie_Chan_films Eftaleofmelodies (talk) 09:31, 25 October 2008 (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:Registered Historic Places in Orange County, New York[edit]

Category:Registered Historic Places in Ulster County, New York[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. Kbdank71 13:13, 31 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Registered Historic Places in Orange County, New York to Category:National Register of Historic Places listings in Orange County, New York
Nominator's rationale: As part of ongoing NRHP renamings. I prefer this format for a county-level category as unlike the state-level cats recently renamed it is strictly intended for individual buildings, structures, sites and districts on the Register in the county (or, in the future, city) in question (contents of category would be more or less those articles, created and yet to be created, at National Register of Historic Places listings in Orange County, New York. Daniel Case (talk) 00:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sub-state level cats, as I just said, really contain nothing more than the articles about individual entries. In the state-level cats I think we are leaving ourselves room to put lists of certain property types ... almost every state has a separate list of bridges and tunnels on the Register, the National Historic Landmark lists could also go under the state-level cat, as well as list articles on any Multiple Property Submissions that cover more than one county in a state. As I argued several times during the renaming discussions, "National Register of Historic Places" alone is a little too vague and inclusive (as well as referring to the whole list of almost 90,000 properties, unpartitioned by geography or property type). Daniel Case (talk) 01:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I liked "Registered Historic Places in ..." too, but unfortunately it's a neologism phrase that was never widely used anywhere else and isn't used much by the Park Service in its official documents. As for the name, whatever WP:SAL says there are plenty of featured lists that do not begin "List of ...", including the analogous Grade I listed buildings in Greater Manchester. I sort of think anyone seeing "listings" in an article title assumes it would take a list form. "Listings" was what consensus reached because "properties" isn't accurate where you include historic districts, plus the NPS wants to dispel the notion that the federal government actually takes ownership of these buildings/sites/structures/objects (It doesn't). Daniel Case (talk) 20:10, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename
Category:Registered Historic Places in Orange County, New York to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Orange County, New York
Category:Registered Historic Places in Ulster County, New York to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Ulster County, New York

Per the many others of this form including: Category:National Register of Historic Places in Escambia County, Florida, Category:National Register of Historic Places in Fayette County, Kentucky, Category:National Register of Historic Places in Jo Daviess County, Illinois, Category:National Register of Historic Places in Minneapolis, Minnesota and numerous others. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I don't see the logic of doing this for sub state-level cats. The National Register of Historic Places is a nationwide list; it can't be subdivided. This proposed name treats it like a topic; it's not. "Listings" implies just those in this particular geographic area. It would be as if we titled an article "Federal Bureau of Investigation in Buffalo, New York" instead of "FBI Buffalo Field Office". Daniel Case (talk) 13:48, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The change to Category:National Register of Historic Places in Foo was approved and many of these categories have been renamed. Creating a third name for these categories will do nothing to help. To try and change while the approved renames is occurring will simply add to the confusion. Now if you want to create a nomination to include all of those you want changed, you are free to do so. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, I'm not going to fight this anymore. (perhaps my name suggestion would be more appropriate once we get around to renaming the Commons categories), and I suppose I see the logic if you include the list article in the category. Go ahead, close this sucker and put the bot to work. I suppose it could probably be subdivided into "Buildings on the National Register of Historic Places in Orange County, New York", "Structures on ...", "Sites on ..." and "Objects on ..." for articles about individual listings. Daniel Case (talk) 16:33, 27 October 2008 (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/2008_October_25&oldid=1074801337"