Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 2

< February 1 February 3 >

February 2

County Championships

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: keep all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Gaelic games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2013 (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.

County Football Championships by year

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/2013 March 13#County Football Championships by year. The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, since no one has commented yet, there exist four categories on their own with the format Year County Senior Football Championships, e.g. Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships. Now this seems overly specific altogether. Perhaps those categories should just be divided by year (the Sligo Intermediate Football Championship is in that category anyway). This would also rename these particular subcategories for consistency with the same parent category which is currently at Category:GAA County Championships and would allow the inclusion of hurling and intermediate football.
There aren't so many County Championships per year that they need be divided much further (as they currently are)
About 32 X 3 (senior, intermediate, junior) X2 (football and hurling) still equals less than 200.
  • Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2008 GAA County Championships
  • Category:2009 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2009 GAA County Championships
  • Category:2010 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2010 GAA County Championships
  • Category:2011 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2011 GAA County Championships — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.99.51 (talk) 06:23, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note. This set of categories was added by the nominator to the discussion above, and I have split it out.
    The original nomination was about a technical renaming a set of similar categories, with no change of scope). However, the proposal for the second set of categories is to change their scope in 2 respects (from senior football championships to all levels of all GAA sports). Whatever the merits or otherwise of this second proposal, it is a separate issue ... and trying to discuss two separate issues in one nomination would cause confusion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:05, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural note 2. None of these categories was tagged with {{subst:cfr}}, so I have just tagged them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:17, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This nomination widens the scope of these categories in two respects: a) by extending the level from senior-only to all levels; b) by changing from football-only to all GAA sports.
    The second change is very unwise, because each of these categories is currently in the appropriate subcat of Category:Gaelic football seasons (e.g. Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships is a sub-category of Category:2008 in Gaelic football). That parenting would no longer be viable after the renaming, so each article would have to be added to the relevant subcat of Category:Gaelic football seasons. That would increase category clutter on articles and increase the maintenance workload, for no apparent gain. If we want by-year categories which can accommodate county hurling championships, it would be better to create specific hurling categories.
    I am so far neutral on the merits of the first change (i.e. from senior level to all levels). AFFAICS, most of the Wikipedia articles on GAA club competitions relate to senior level; the intermediate and junior levels are less notable. So that widening of scope would not bring in many new articles, but it would reduce the focus on the topics which most interest our readers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:47, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Could the above be addressed by:
  • Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2008 GAA County Championships (football)
  • Category:2009 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2009 GAA County Championships (football)
  • Category:2010 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2010 GAA County Championships (football)
  • Category:2011 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2011 GAA County Championships (football)

? Same as the naming format of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) with football at the end. Hurling could be done likewise if there was a need for it.

As for the notability of junior and intermediate levels - it depends. Based on what it says in their Wikipedia entries, to give two examples, Paul Galvin has won Kerry Junior Football Championships and Michael Murphy has won a Donegal Intermediate Football Championship. If, to take a soccer parallel, every competition in the English football league system has a Wikipedia entry (when the likes of Sergio Agüero and Wayne Rooney would likely never play in the North West Counties Football League or the Manchester Football League) why shouldn't the intermediate and junior championships in Gaelic football (which often feature the sport's major stars) be covered by Wikipedia if reliable sources can be unearthed? --86.40.105.141 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the reliable sources are found, then of course there can be articles on junior and intermediate levels. My point was imply that it less likely that reliable sources will be found for competitions at the lower levels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BHG. Brocach (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Alternative: The problem is that "football" is ambiguous, because it can be Gaelic, Australian Rules, American, or Soccer. Soccer is a "garrison sport", not played by GAA, but soccer is played in both parts of Ireland. I accordingly suggest:
    • Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2008 County Senior Gaelic Football Championships
    • Category:2009 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2009 County Senior Gaelic Football Championships
    • Category:2010 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2010 County Senior Gaelic Football Championships
    • Category:2011 County Senior Football Championships to Category:2011 County Senior Gaelic Football Championships

Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support that renaming (changing my !vote). It doesn't change the scope, but does remove ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this alternative proposal; as far as I am aware only the GAA organises county and provincial football championships throughout Ireland, all of which are named in the conventional format [name of county or province] [level of competition i.e. Minor, Under-21, Junior, Intermediate, Senior] Football Championship. I am not aware of a single case where an Australian Rules, American, soccer or other football championship is named in a way that could lead to confusion with the competitions that the GAA has run since the 1880s, but individual cases could be addressed by DAB pages. We have just had lengthy debates over the renaming of scores of articles about these GAA competitions away from the conventional format; we really don't need a similar set of changes to categories. Brocach (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Ancient Christian saints

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 to Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints then purge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)}[reply]
Nominator's rationale Notwithstanding the decision at CFD of November 14, there is a case to be made for this re-naming proposal. This category is about a period of time spanning a few centuries. It is not about the geographical limits of a particular Empire. Long after the demise of the Roman Empire in Britain, for example, people continued to be martyred for their faith. Such people may still be said to have existed in theRoma era, despite the ebbing of the Empire itself. The parent category is Category:Christian saints by period. Two of the other categories in this tree use "era" in their names (i.e. Category:Christian saints of the Early Modern era and Category:Christian saints of the Late Modern era. This "by period" scheme also mirrors the scheme of Category:Christian martyrs by period. In this latter case, the equivalent time period is named Category:Christian martyrs of the Roman era. So the two articles, which are obviously closely linked, should share the same name structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Roman Catholic saints. All these Saints are Catholic. This is, and has always been a POV fork. Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:01, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No actually One has to admire the persistancy and constancy with which you advance this argument. No matter how often it is rejected, you you come out batting. Nevertheless, I must am obliged to remind others that while many Chistians of the Roman era would have considered themselves to be catholic (with a small c) or orthodox or even arian, none would have used the term Roman Catholic - not even the Patriarch of the West. Not until the Great Schism could such a term have been employed. Many would argue for a date as late as Trent. In any case, this category is not concerned with denominations as such; it is concerned with broad periods of time. Such eras usually have more neutral names, precisely so as to avoid religious POV issues such as the one that you have raised. Peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The fact that the split is in the fourth century shows that, once again, the dividing line is at the First Council of Nicaea and the donation of Constantine, therefore dividing the Ante-Nicene Period from the Byzantine era. I don't think the word "Roman" is the road to clarity here. Mangoe (talk) 13:46, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Sainthood only makes sense in the context of a denomination/church, and regardless of what these saints would have "called themselves" they are recognized as saints by the church today known as the Roman Catholic Church, so Benkonobi's proposal makes sense. --JFH (talk) 14:32, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not supported—Defining world history by the dominant city of the Mediterranean basin is not IMO a good idea. If what the Thomastic churches in the Middle East and India claim is true, then there will have been saints (and martyrs) of the time that have nothing to do with Rome and its persecutions. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:09, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose from the very earliest times there were Christian beyond the eastern edge of the Roman Empire, so it is best not to try to tag them all as in some way "Roman".John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:51, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't understand the objections of the last two comments. Both seem to think that the purpose of the nomination is to tie the saints to the Roman Empire. If so, then the assumption is incorrect. The nomination specificaly mentions that it is the geographically neutral era that is involvedf, not the Empire. That is, the generally employed time period that encompasses the time period of the existance of the Western Roman Empire without saying anything about whether or not the saints themselves were part of that Empire. It's possible for Saint Thomas, who may have died in India, to have been in the Roman era, even if not in the Empire itself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood that you were wanting to define a period of time based on one of the dominant cultures. However, doing so adds a European bias to the history of Christianity. From memory during the so-called "Roman era" you suggest there were more African and Asian Christians than European (I don't the source for this to hand). Hence my non-support for this proposal. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename/repurpose - "ancient" is a subjective term - when is the dividing line? Nicaea? Fall of Rome? (seems popular for most other "ancient" categories), 1066? or whatever doesn't fit anywhere (anywhen?) else. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:50, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The whole idea of the "Roman Era" is clearly euro-centric, and ignores the Christians in Ethiopia and the Persian Empire. There was no "Roman Era" in Persia. We should avoid such Euro=centricism in category names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:49, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Ante-Nicene Christian saints then purge. We could have a "Late Antique" category from those purged. I am unhappy about having "early modern", because this has no clear start or finish. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:37, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh all right then I can go along with Ante-Nicene Christian saints. But the martyrs cat will have to be similarly named. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2013 (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:Finnish loanwords

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Finnish loanwords
  • Nominator's rationale first off this is in theory an overcategorization by shared name. We categorize articles by what they are about, not what they are named. In this case though the category itself has been severly misused. For example Molotov cocktail was in the category. Neither Molotov nor coktail is a finnish word. This is a translation of the term used in Finland in the Winter War of 1939 to 1940. The thing did not originate in Finland, and in Finland they would not have used the English word "cocktail", but the Finnish equivalent. We have to lists in place that do a much better job at covering what should be in this category than the category itself does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of the articles currently in the category are comapnies/brands founded in Finland. I am not sure to what extent the names of said companies can be considered loanwords. On the other hand, Sauna, probably is a true loanword, but that article is on the thing, not the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exceedingly ambiguous name. Is this for loanwords from other languages found in Finnish, loanwords in other languages originating from Finnish, or some other definition? If this is for loanwords from Finnish in English, then this is also a WP:Systematic bias name, as it has absolutely no indication of such a restriction. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2013 (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.

Army National Guard

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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Army National Guard and despite claiming by the opposers the new name isn't amigous at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Oppose. Category name and article names are too ambiguous--one can't tell which country is represented. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:07, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Question For the Army National Guard of which nation? There is no other article with a similar name. Armbrust The Homunculus
    That doesn't mean that the article won't exist in the future, there could be another one out there that just hasn't had an article written about it yet. I've proposed a rename of the article too. Also, commons uses "United States Army National Guard" in its category. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:20, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    However, until this happens, this is just redundant disambiguation. Armbrust The Homunculus 20:22, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, that is true; however, I also think it is too "USA-centric" to have it the way it is. One doesn't know by the title which country it is. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:25, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose categories should not be overly ambiguous. These will easily catch the army elements of National Guards through the world, or the air elements. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:50, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Funandtrvl has imitated an RM to move the main article. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is best to make it clear that United States things relate to the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whatever decision has been about whether the articles meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the proposed new titles are ambiguous. Using such a generic term for category names risks miscategorisation, which is hard to detect and causes disruption for both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 9 February 2013 (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.

Air National Guard

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: keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming Category:United States Air National Guard to Category:Air National Guard
  • Propose renaming Category:Squadrons of the United States Air National Guard to Category:Squadrons of the Air National Guard
  • Propose renaming Category:Military units and formations of the United States Air National Guard to Category:Military units and formations of the Air National Guard
  • Propose renaming Category:Facilities of the United States Air National Guard to Category:Facilities of the Air National Guard
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Air National Guard and despite claiming by the opposer the new name isn't amigous at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
  • Oppose. Category and article names are too ambiguous, as they don't identify the country. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:08, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Question For the Air National Guard of which nation? There is no other article with a similar name. Armbrust The Homunculus
    Same as above, the title is too "USA-centric" to think that everyone will know that it is a division of the United States Armed Forces. I've also requested a name change for the article. --Funandtrvl (talk) 20:27, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have the category and the article match. Whatever the outcome of the name at the article move discussion should dictate the category name. bd2412 T 00:13, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
  • Oppose categories should not be overly ambiguous. These will easily catch the army elements of National Guards through the world, or the air elements. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 00:36, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Funandtrvl has imitated an RM to move the main article. Armbrust The Homunculus 11:37, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose avoiding ambiguity is more important in categories, because people never have to look at the categories to add things to them. I guess this also applies to links, but links do not seem to be problematic most of the time, except when people with fairly common names get the link without being the undisputed most notable person with that name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Whatever decision has been about whether the articles meet WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, the proposed new titles are ambiguous. Using such a generic term for category names risks miscategorisation, which is hard to detect and causes disruption for both readers and editors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:41, 9 February 2013 (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:Assassinations by year

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. Note that I am closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 7#Category:1963_assassinations together with this one, and the closing statement is the same in both cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended rationale. There is a consensus that these categories should not exist as presently constituted, but there is no consensus on what do with them. This debate was hampered by being split over two separate discussions, and per WP:MULTI that undermines consensus-formation. However, there is no sign of a consensus being reached in either of the 2 discussions, so even if these categories had all been discussed together, the outcome may also have been inconclusive.
There was no support for splitting Category:YYYY deaths, and no evidence of any precedent for doing so. The YYYY deaths categories are generally treated as fundamental biographical data which should not be divided. The closest precedent I can find is Category:Executed people by century and its subcats such as Category:20th-century executions, which are not divided by year.
The point was made in both discussions that there is a difference between an article about an assassination, and a biography of a person who was assassinated. These categories are currently named as if they were for assassination articles, but their actual contents are overwhelmingly biographies. That could have been an argument for renaming, but the existence of biographical articles in the subcats of Category:Murder by year (e.g. in Category:Murder in 2005), suggests that the distinction is problematic.
There was also suggestions of merging these categories to the YYYY crimes categories. However, it was also pointed out that this raises POV problems: Carlossuarez46 noted that "one person's assassination is another's pre-emptive strike", and it is hard to see how classifying the assassination of a tyrant as a "crime" can fit with WP:NPOV. The same issues arise with merger to categories relating to murder; what if the the 20 July plot had succeeded?
Possible solutions include categorising assassinated people by century, or listifying them. Those and other ideas were not discussed here, but might be considered if there is a further nomination of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Assassinations by year (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Merge Category:1909 assassinations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Only one year has been created and seems not to be sufficient articles to split by year Tim! (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand I'm quite surprised that this does not exists on a broader basis, given that the timing is a strong defining characteristic and a clear aid to navigation. I'm pretty sure that there are other years with notable assassinations and appropriate effort should be devoted to building this structure. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (originator): not being populated is not in itself a valid reason to delete a cat. If there is any justification for separating "murder" from "assassination" in the Wiki category tree, then it seems useful to cross-categorize those assassinations by year. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't have Category:1909 murders either. Plus this is ignoring the fact that these categories are being applied to bio articles, but at some level they maybe should be only applied to articles like John F. Kennedy assassination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think we want to put articles on people killed by assasination into the crimes category. The articles involved here are on people who were killed, there is no reason to suppose they were involved in a crime. This is actually in theory a subdivision of Category:1909 deaths, but we do not subdivide the deaths by year categories by cause, and I see no reason to start. Since both articles are in the relevant deaths by year category as well, we should jsut delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles were on the assationation, instead of on the people who were assasinated, it might be a different story. However I do not think we should put bio articles in the crimes category. Somehow it does not make sense to put John F. Kennedy in the crime category because his being killed was a crime done by someone else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one person's assassination is another's pre-emptive strike. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment more of these categories have been created since this category was put up for nomination here. Is there a way to get a cease and desist in creating these categories. I think before we go further we should decide clearly a-if they are useful, b-if we should put in biographical article, or if we should just put in articles that are about assassinations themselves. c-Actually, either we should use this is a sub-cat of Category:1909 deaths or it shuld be limited to articles on assasinations. I do not think it should be used for both, as it is currently being done with category:1963 assassinations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:56, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not merge to the 1909 crimes category The 1909 category does not have any articles that are about crimes. They are biographical articles that should not be put in the crimes category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:18, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Related to this discussion is the discussion posted here on February 7. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment We need Category:1909 muder victims and Category:1909 murderers. Articles about particular crimes can go in both, e.g. assassimation of JFK. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However none of these articles under this discussion are about crimes. They are all about people. We have a well developed tree of various categories for assasination victims, splitting by year would add another category which really does not make sense. At present we do not split Category:1909 deaths, and I do not think it is wise to do so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. It's useful to have detailed xxx by year cats, as long as there is enough articles to populate them, and this is certainly a clear case here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:27, 25 February 2013 (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:Farms and ranches on the National Register of Historic Places in Montana

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 CfD 2013 February 12. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Ranches and farms are two different things. No reason to combine the two into one category. This would also avoid miscategorization at the parent level where ranches are in the farm tree and farms are in the ranch one. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the rationale, but I don't believe there's a precedent for it under Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places. I think a couple states' cats have a mix of ranches and farms and the cat name is based on which is the majority. As I've been categorizing NRHP articles by function, Montana was the first state I came across that had a near-equal mix of both. Anyway, I'm happy to go along with whatever the category experts here decide, I just want to be mindful about the ramifications so the other states can be consistent. -McGhiever (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything did roll up into Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places but that was split and Category:Ranches on the National Register of Historic Places was created. A bigger problem in these categories is the inclusion of houses. This is for farms and ranches and not farm houses or ranch houses. Someone needs to cleanup up those. Also as noted by this discussion, each state can have a category in both branches. There is no requirement to limit these to one or the other. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there a robust means of distinguishing a large farm from a small ranch? I would guess that it is actually normally the farm house or range house (rather than the land that is designated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2013 (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:Foods named after places

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. The existence of specifically-protected names for foods appears to have been one of the stronger arguments against deletion in the August 2011 CFD. That point was not discussed here, but we already have Category:Products with protected designation of origin (and its national subcats) for such foods ... so this category meets WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Foods named after places
  • Nominator' rationale This is categorizing of things by a shared name, not by a shared characterization. Food are named after places for all sorts of reasons, because they come from there, because it makes the food sound excitring, because someone felt like it. It tells us nothing about the food. We categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. This is categorizing things by what they are named, which we do not do. This is especially bad since some food have multiple names, and the categorzation of the food will then depend on what name we chose to use for the title, sort of like how Looting is in Category:Hindi loanwords only because we chose that name for the article and not Pilaging (which redirects, but it it was the article would have to be in Category:German loanwords).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete Naming trivia, and besides, what do we do with a food named after a place named after a person named after a place? Mangoe (talk) 13:49, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES guideline, which says to avoid categorizing articles by characteristics of its name. A previous discussion on this was here, which ended in "no consensus". Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:12, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; no objective to listifying those with reliable sources OCAT per shared name characteristics. What about Category:Foods with lots of vowels. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:52, 6 February 2013 (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:Historic bars of 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Historic bars of Boston, Massachusetts to Category:Drinking establishments in Boston, Massachusetts
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Probably could be deleted as OC small. If someone really believes that the sole entry should be up merged to both categories, I would not object. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. However since the one article is described as a "bar and restaurant", I am wondering if even this categorization is the best.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete outright The sole member is already put in what appears to be every possible category, so discussion of possible merger targets is pointless. Mangoe (talk) 13:51, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "historic" is subjective (unless being used as an antonym of "not real"), and therefore deletion or merger is appropriate. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:54, 6 February 2013 (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:19th-century buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky

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 CFD 2013 February 12. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the better model on how to handle the naming of this type of classification is what is used in Boston with a series of categories like Category:19th century in Boston, Massachusetts. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create the other category as a parent and add other things to it. Also renaming this to include only those things built in the 19th-century might be worth while, not that there are many buildings in Louisville that pre-date 1801, but if there are I think they should not be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge back to parents This is really a triple intersection of the "when", "historic building", and "place" hierarchies. Better to have the intersection occur at the article level. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2013 (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:Museums of Ancient Rome

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/2013 March 13#Category:Museums of Ancient Rome. The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Museums of Ancient Rome (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Propose deleting Category:Museums of Ancient Greece (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inclusion criteria is simply too subjective. What percentage of a museum's collection needs to fall into this area to merit categorization? If you look at the categories for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not close to 50%! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a standard type of museum. We should categorize museums by broad type, not be specific type of collection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—At first glance I thought that this would be a category of Museums that the Ancient Romans had developed (possibly alongside the Circus). However, I'm disappointed to find that it's modern museums about Ancient Rome. So, rename would be the conclusion. But then I looked more closely at the inclusion criteria only to find that our private collection (which happens to have a few Roman coins) would qualify me to add our house to the category. This being the case, this is not a good way to categorise museums. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name or delete There were museums in ancient Rome? Who'd have guessed? Unless it's meant to say "Museums concerned with Ancient Rome", which is entirely different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have added Greece since it appears that the same reasons for deleting this one would also apply there. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly named category.Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I created both categories to help people looking for museums featuring collections related to Ancient Greece and Rome. The criteria can certainly be tightened and the categories better named to reflect the collections. There are many other categories that are broad enough for flexibility. Wikipedia should not be too rigid but should be used as a helpful guide. If you delete the categories, it will be harder to find museums relating to Ancient Greece and Rome. Jllm06 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featuring is subjective and not a good criteria for determining membership in a category. These categories came up when I happened on the MET article and there are about 11 different collection related categories. If we take your use of 'collections' or even 'featured collections', this is really subject material for a list rather then a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The nominator's rationale could be applied to any of the 100+ sub-categories of Category:Museums by type. There is nothing in the rationale which gives any reason why we cannot have a category of museums which relate to these two topics when we Category:Food museums, Category:Fossil museums, Category:Poetry museums, Category:Sports museums etc.
    A rename is needed to clarify the categories' scope, and some purging may be needed ... but Ancient Rome is clearly a defining characteristic of museums such as the Aquincum Museum and the Capitoline Museums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we limited these categories to museums that had this as their main attraction if would make sense, but we don't, so I think we should just scap these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, that is a concern. Following the MET example, I don't believe that anyone would not classify this in Category:Art museums in New York City. But should it also be in Category:Asian art museums in New York? I would say yes if there was a dedicated building for that purpose. And being in Category:Fashion museums in the United States could probably be challenged. The big problem is how do you devise an objective set of inclusion criteria for these? I think the two in this nomination are not really affected by these issues. However the others discussed here raise some interesting questions that I don't have answers for. I suspect that we will not and should not try to answer those questions here. I do think we need a separate discussion to see if in fact we need to do something and if so what. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This category (and some of these cited as parallels) are mixing up museums with Anceitn Roman material as part of their collections (a performance by performer type category) with museums solely (or mainly) about anciemt Rome. The latter with typically be excavated sites with a museum attached. The British Museum is in a subcategory, but its collections include ethnographic material from lost part of the world. On the other hand, Pompeii and Herculaneum will be solely about Ancient Rome (or rather the Roman Empire, or Roman period). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (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/2013_February_2&oldid=1138397867"