Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 May 12

< May 11 May 13 >

May 12

Category:Lepidoptera of Senegal

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Heliothela ophideresana or Frosted orange moth). Note: Each of the categories contains about 5 articles (including lists) but the lists (example) show that there are hundreds of articles that could be in these categories - i.e. in most cases editors have not been categorizing articles in these by-country categories. Example previous CFD: vertebrates DexDor (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support common sense that insects don't respect national borders. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - as the main editors of these pages (other than the nom) are the serial offender user:NotWith and the blocked user:Look2See1 their initial creations were misguided. Category:Moths of Nigeria etc were upmerged by cfd in 2014. Oculi (talk) 09:26, 13 May 2018 (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.

Landmarks

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: Not merged or deleted. Some smaller scale nominations may be able to refine the contents as necessary. Timrollpickering 11:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories
The following container categories become empty after the above merging:
Nominator's rationale: it is too subjective to assign an article to a landmark category. By far most articles that are currently in these categories are buildings and structures and we already have a Category:Buildings and structures for that. But who decides on whether a building is a landmark or not? Besides, according to the header, landmarks in American English is equivalent to tourist attractions and we already have a Category:Tourist attractions for that. While as regard to British English, note that Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom and Category:Landmarks in the Republic of Ireland are very poorly populated. So the proposal is:
to manually purge the few articles more generally about landmarks to an equivalent Tourist attractions category
to manually purge the few articles about natural landmarks to an equivalent Landforms category
and finally to merge the remaining majority of articles about buildings and structures to an equivalent Buildings and structures category by bot, as listed above
When all is done, Category:Landmarks may be turned into a category disambiguation page, linking to Category:Tourist attractions, Category:Landforms and Category:Buildings and structures.
Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support (purge+merge or delete), but there's more landmark categories than those listed above (e.g. Category:Industrial landmarks in Atlanta) and the categories should be tagged. In the sample I looked at most/all of the articles that are about a building/structure are directly categorized in buildings&structures categories so deletion (rather than merge) might be an option. DexDor (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2018 (UTC) (adjusted DexDor (talk) 19:36, 13 May 2018 (UTC))[reply]
  • Thanks for spotting, I accidentally skipped the deepest levels of the tree and they have a lot of additional categories. I did not add Category:Industrial landmarks in Atlanta though; this probably deserves a separate discussion. The categories should be tagged indeed, I think this may be done with a day or maybe two days. I would be okay with deletion (rather than merge) as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to the latter, some of the merge targets do not even exist yet (e.g. for parts of Boston), so in those cases I would rather rename the categories to buildings and structures than delete them. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural oppose. In some cases, e.g. Category:Landmarks in Chicago (which I see you didn't include here; thank you), the term "landmark" refers to entries on a defined list, and the only subjectivity is on the part of the agency (typically governmental or a historic-preservation organization) adding entries to that list. Are you certain that there's not a single such "defined landmark" category in your nomination list? If you were careful to avoid such categories, great, and I'll support deletion because your rationale makes complete sense; but unless you can certify that, doing a mass nomination risks getting rid of good categories. Nyttend (talk) 15:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at several of the articles in that Chicago category (e.g. Great Chicago Fire) and the text made no mention of the landmark status (and the articles were in many more appropriate categories) so I'd be in favour of deleting/merging that category (prune and rename might also be a possibility). The alternative to a mass nomination is to pick on (for example) one state as a test cfd, but that would likely face objections for not covering every state. DexDor (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the Chicago category was not included is hopefully an exceptional coincidence, that was because the category was not part of the Landmarks tree at all. I am afraid that editors do not realize there is a special status involved when adding articles to the Chicago category. Possibly an alternative is something like Category:Dallas Landmarks (not nominated) but as DexDor pointed out, it has to be a defining characteristic to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would be strongly opposed to doing anything with the Chicago category, except for the possibility of renaming; changing its function or deleting it would be just as bad as deleting Category:National Register of Historic Places in Chicago. The fact that landmark status is not mentioned in the article is no reason to trash a normal category with no problems. Nyttend (talk) 19:07, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That subtree is screwed up already - are you aware that you're proposing to leave Category:Artists from West Virginia in the landmarks category?? Or maybe you'll just agree that the parenting of lots of those is just amiss. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Carlossuarez, an art tree belongs neither in a landmarks category nor in a buildings category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support looking at a few of these, there is nothing to indicate the landmark status is other than an author's opinion; we have many categories for items that are actually accorded protection from a governmental entity due to landmark status - these are those categories. As to the procedural objection; it's a damned if you do and damned if you don't include everything (either someone will say, why not include this one, too; or there are too many that have nuanced differences to be combined in a single nomination); here, whatever hasn't been nominated so far will get cleaned up later; there is no suspicion that what was included/excluded was part of some agenda. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - but I'd suggest that, where appropriate, equivalent categories for monuments and destroyed monuments should be created/used. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support in principle, but this will need to be done manually, with landmarks that are not buildings or structures purged to a more appropriate category. If the content is the result of an official listing, then the category should be renamed to reflect that sourcing. Similarly inappropriate cases such as highlighted for West Virginia need to be resolved by purging. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at a sample of articles in these categories (e.g. Salah Bey Viaduct) and every one was in the obvious categories (e.g. all those that were buildings/structures were already in a b&s category). It's unlikely, for example, that a bridge is in a landmarks-of-country category but not in a bridges-of-county etc category. Thus I think it would be safe (and simpler) to do a straight delete. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Dog Rock is a landmark, this is another of those one size fits all wording without regard to how different speakers use the english language. Landmark applies to any feature that used as guide whether its natural, or man made, building, tree, or rock. Building and structures can be landmark but they arent exclusively a landmark, nor inclusively. In WA a tree stump paint to look like person and Fred is a landmark, another is a rock with PTO painted upside down on it, even 44 gallon(200l) drums are used as landmarks. Lumping thousands of articles and categories into one discussion is fraught with poor outcomes. Gnangarra 05:13, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - in the Australian context for a start, a landmark does not default to a building and structure category in a large number of examples. My experience of countries travelled - landmarks can be non-man made, making this whole discussion quite strange. Niagara Falls, and many other natural feature come to mind, thst although there might be the urge to purge the landmark and default to landform - I do think it is missing the point of what landmark means in some parts of the english speaking world. JarrahTree 05:22, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
not all tourist attractions are landmarks either, and not landmarks are tourist attractions, landmarks are used as guides to help navigate. Gnangarra 06:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is Adana American College for Girls used as a guide to help navigate??? This is the first article in the first nominated category and most articles are like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well be given its history and location, though I dont enough about Turkey to be able to judge this. This nomination is a broad stroke across all countries as I said before english is used differently in different areas, as the nomination includes the australian use of landmarks my point is that the broad brush doesnt fit the australian usage, as landmarks are more than the proposed recats to buildings, tourist places, and landforms. Categories are meant to help people find content dropping the term landmark across 1000's of article doesnt help people find anything. Gnangarra 10:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as indicated by JarrahTree and Gnangarra not all landmarks are buildings or structures but can include natural features. I think that it is too simplistic approach to just rename the category. Dan arndt (talk) 05:56, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is to purge and merge - not to "just rename". DexDor (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on the grounds that not all landmarks are buildings or structures. Bubba73 You talkin' to me? 05:57, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you haven't properly read the whole nomination. This is not just about renaming to buildings and structures. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The main article here is landmark: "A landmark is a recognizable natural or artificial feature used for navigation, a feature that stands out from its near environment and is often visible from long distances. In modern use, the term can also be applied to smaller structures or features, that have become local or national symbols." Dimadick (talk) 06:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nomination is not about changing the content of the article. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:42, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dimadick has just made a comment to help inform the discussion as to what a landmark is by reminding us that we have an article the category structures are based on how the articles about the topic defines the topic. Gnangarra 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As mentioned above, most landmarks are locally designated by a local governmental agency or chamber of commerce/tourist office. That settles the question of ambiguity. And its functionality would be crippled by the renaming . . .renaming across hundreds of categories. When a user of wikipedia goes looking for something to see in an area, they will not search for buildings, but landmarks has a specific meaning to them. I discovered this kind of category by finding a known location (a landmark) in a city I was visiting and saw the category for other landmarks. That is the kind of path we provide to assist users to find other similar content. In other words, landmark is far more functional to the purpose of a category, as an aid to navigation. Trackinfo (talk) 07:08, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as it does not work for the Australian category, as per User:JarrahTree and User:Gnangarra. We have 30+ articles on significant individual trees in the Australian category. Landmark is a normal English word for thingswhich sometimes overlaps with tourist attractions, etc, but may be only of interest to locals (e.g. as a form of navigation in remote areas). Many of these categories are "curated" by a WikiProject; I think we should let those WikiProjects interpret landmarks as in their local context in terms of supercategories and subcategories. Kerry (talk) 09:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose WP:CHICAGO has List of Chicago Landmarks and the subcategory Category:National Historic Landmarks in Chicago. These are legitimate reasons to retain Category:Landmarks in Chicago.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I am very willing to accept that Australia is an exception per WP:ENGVAR, I am also willing to accept that Chicago is an exception because it requires a different rationale (WP:NONDEF instead of WP:SUBJECTIVE) but it goes too far to drop the entire nomination because of these exceptions. Even if it would be true that "most landmarks are locally designated by a local governmental agency or chamber of commerce/tourist office" (I have not seen any evidence of that claim) then it still leads to subjective classification because editors are not aware of it (if they were aware of it, they would mention it in the article text, but that's not happening). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:26, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as per previous decade-old discussions on these categories at CFD here and here. These provide a valuable grouping/sorting function for readers that no other suggested replacement I've seen comes close to accomplishing. The concern of confusion with formal landmark designations by some organization, or of subjective opinion by editors, is misplaced. Given the common meaning of "landmark," any subjectivity involved in determining whether a place/fixed location/monument etc. is "significant" in some way arguably overlaps with the determination of whether it is notable—a "landmark" then is just a specific place/site/location for which Wikipedia has an article. And the number of different formal landmark designations actually helps support the need for a generic parent; how else to group, for example, Category:National Register of Historic Places in Illinois, Category:National Historic Sites in Illinois, Category:Illinois State Historic Sites, and Category:National Natural Landmarks in Illinois, among others, if Category:Landmarks in Illinois is deleted? Not to mention the nonformal, yet still clearly-defined Category:Outdoor sculptures in Illinois, Category:Forts in Illinois, Category:Mounds in Illinois, etc., etc. There are clearly many landmarks that are not buildings or structures, and I'm at a loss to see how it would serve readers to split these up. The term "landmark" is also not the same as "visitor/tourist attractions" (as was also suggested ten years ago), regardless of overlap; "visitor/tourist attraction" necessarily invokes some claim about the site's popularity and the corresponding behavior of visitors/tourists, while "landmark" is indifferent to that aspect. One can have a landmark that tourists ignore (or are even prohibited from, maybe accessible only to scholars/scientists). postdlf (talk) 18:53, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I'd like to remind you of WP:AGF, its common for Australian editors to join discussions that impact Australian topics and that the strong negative comments is not the result of some collusion as you imply but a clear indicator that english is a language where its use varies so one size doesnt perfectly fit all. I'd appreciate seeing all the data and methodologies you used while reviewing the categories(and the 1000's of articles) in this nomination to ensure that they do indeed fit within your proposal that must have been a significant task. Making that data available may help us understand the complexity of the nomination that we can comment on areas where we dont have the advantage of local knowledge to immediately respond on those cases, it may also help us to find a better solution that enables alternative comments to allow for the variances in the use of english. This is suppose to be a discussion to reach an acceptable consensus for the benefit of the community as a whole not a gladiatorial challenge where there can be only one winner. Gnangarra 23:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I would appreciate a retraction and an apology that "It's hard to believe that this is a coincidence". Your proposal was automatically reported here Wikipedia:WikiProject Queensland/Article alerts (and doubtless many other WikiProjects) where I saw it on my watchlist. I had no prior discussion with any other contributor (Australian or otherwise) prior to reading the proposal. Kerry (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any other U.S. state's landmark category would have pretty much the same range of subcategories, so my argument is not dependent on just what will play in Peoria. postdlf (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Like ones in Category:Cultural heritage by country (to which tree much of these could be moved) another international group that fail to be useful by having very varied contents. Support restricting "Landmarks" to categories for an official list using that terms. But no international parent using the word is needed, as too variable. Oppose blanket merges to "buildings and structures" cats, as obviously many are not. Someone should go through them carefully. But who will do that? Johnbod (talk) 00:34, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nobody else is volunteering, I will. Please note that I do realize these categories do not just contain buildings. But I'm also expecting that the larger amount of natural landmarks are already in an appropriate landforms category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated nominator's proposal after this discussion
to manually purge the few articles more generally about landmarks to an equivalent Tourist attractions category (if not already in that tree)
to manually purge the few articles about natural landmarks to an equivalent Landforms category (if not already in that tree)
to rename categories to Buildings and structures if that category does not exist yet, as listed above
and finally to delete (per DexDor) the remaining categories, with the exception of Category: Landmarks in Chicago‎, Category: Landmarks in Australia‎ and the latter's subcategories
When all is done, Category:Landmarks may be turned into a category disambiguation page, linking to Category:Tourist attractions, Category:Landforms and Category:Buildings and structures.
- Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose this doesnt address the issue that the articles in the categories are legitimate landmarks, and the moving of articles to other categories that are not synonymous with landmarks in no way helps or improves readers ability to find those landmarks. The "updated" proposal is what the original nomination proposed and fails to take into the account any of the issue raised. Gnangarra 07:49, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as applied to Category:Landmarks in New York City and its subcats, where the landmarks are a legal designation by the New York City Landmarks Preservation Commission. Jim.henderson (talk) 00:56, 19 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jim. The text at Category:Landmarks in New York City says it's for "Widely recognized landmarks in and around ..." (i.e. no mention of a legal designation) and in my sample of articles none mentioned the NYCLPC. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • (as nom) I see there are too many exceptions for one global nomination. This needs to be done country by country or city by city. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 22 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • surely you did all of that before nominating this proposal, I suggest that this isnt done done via adhoc deletion discussions where some areas will be lost because people just werent aware of the discussion which will create a category tree with holes than swiss cheese. Please use an RFC as landmarks will continue to be a valid classification for subjects. Gnangarra 00:27, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not sure what is meant by "exceptions", as most of the discussion opposed to pruning or deletion was based on the plain meaning of the word "landmark", with representative examples given as to the problems with getting rid of this category structure. I also don't see the point in an RFC as there is no broader principle in question here beyond the content-sorting question, and trying that after an unsuccessful deletion nomination would smack of forum shopping. The best way forward for dealing with a category structure you do not like but you do not have consensus to delete is to ignore it. postdlf (talk) 15:08, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        • I dont expect this to go straight to an rfc because that would be forum shopping. What is suggested is that Marcocapelle consider what they are trying to achieve, along with the responses in this discussion do the research across all the categories and articles then get wide input before if ever coming back to CfD. The suggestion is because Marcocapelle revised plan of doing CfD's country by country or city by city has a really pointy feel, of I'll get these deleted one way or another despite consensus. Gnangarra 01:01, 25 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support purging but not necessarily merging. For example, the Landmarks in New York City designation contains some articles that are actually designated legally as landmarks, and others that are just cultural landmarks. These categories really have to be cleaned up into buildings/structures, natural landmarks, and legal landmarks, as mentioned by the OP. epicgenius (talk) 00:16, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support removal of vague "landmarks" categories per above, in favor of specific designating organizations described in categories: like Category:LPC Landmarks in New York City and Category:Designated Chicago Landmarks or Category:CCL Landmarks in Chicago. ɱ (talk) · vbm · coi) 16:59, 14 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/rename and purge categories that represent a legal and WP:DEFINING designation conferred by an outside agency; delete the ones which represent editors subjectively adding every random thing that exists at all. It's also worth noting that landmarks aren't necessarily always buildings; a natural feature, such as a large tree or a mountain or a lake, can also be a landmark, so simply merging them to "buildings and structures" categories isn't always a blanket solution for all of the content in a "landmarks" category. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 25 June 2018 (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/2018_May_12&oldid=850996185"