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, empty. Kbdank71 16:29, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete - per this CFD consensus is not to break down hip hop albums by year so this container category is unnecessary. Otto4711 (talk) 20:19, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteAs creator of category, agree with nom. Soon to be an empty category anyway. --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:57, 30 November 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.
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:KeepStwalkerster [ talk ] 21:51, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Weakish keep - I think there's a difference between a group of X number of members, two of whom happen to be siblings, and a musical trio composed of three siblings exactly. I don't really care that much one way or the other but I can see encyclopedic interest in this topic. Otto4711 (talk) 19:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because no one's created it yet. Otto4711 (talk) 14:58, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm with Otto on this one. This is a notable intersection. Cgingold (talk) 02:22, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I looked at the members, and the fact that they are trios is not defining. They were mainly know as musical groups and not as trios for the most part. While there maybe a few exceptions, that would mean another category that needs policing. Maybe we need a list of musical families to include all of these? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:02, 4 December 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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: Delete Landmarks are poorly defined; inclusion/exclusion of places and landscape features in different countries appears to be subjective and based on editorial opinion rather than reliable sources. This is a follow-up to the prior discussion of landmarks in Wales. Pondle (talk) 16:41, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I agree whole-heartedly with the nomination and believe it should be extended to the subcats. If the cat and its subcats are repurposed so that they are for things that have been officially designated as landmarks then I would change to keep. Otto4711 (talk) 19:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There is certainly an issue with the definition of landmark, although I suspect that this status could be fairly easily sourced to the relatively small number of items in the categories, but I would not be happy to go to the position we did with historic houses, where none outside the US can be categorised because there are no official lists called this. Johnbod (talk) 20:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
None of the subcategories are tagged. Postdlf (talk) 06:15, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree that whether something is or is not a landmark involves POV issues, but some things clearly are landmarks. I therefore see this as a harmless category. In any event (if not kept), it should not be deleted but merged, but to what? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:57, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
some things clearly are landmarks. That is the entire problem with this category structure. What's "clearly" a landmark to one editor is just as clearly not a landmark to another, so whose judgment do we accept and how is it not OR either way? I find it difficult to believe that there is absolutely no body within any country other than the US that officially designates things to be landmarks that allows us to set an inclusion standard that's a little tighter than "a thing that people recognize." Otto4711 (talk) 18:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Wikipedia, "subjectivity" and "objectivity" are rather fluid terms, that seem to vary depending on what article is up for discussion, especially at CfD. There are landmarks in countries around the world. If the demand is to provide a universally-agreed upon definition, we have none, neither for landmarks nor for any other category in Wikipedia, including Category:LGBT-related television episodes, which set a precedent showing that complete subjectivity is acceptable, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_November_18#Category:LGBT-related_television_episodes. The definition offred here provides rather clear inclusion criteria. Perhaps they can be expanded, but they are clearly adequate to describe what is included. Readers looking for such landmarks are well-served by the category structure, and deleting this parent category accomplishes nothing other than to leave the national category structures unconnected. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The difference of course is that there is verifiable and significant LGBT content in each episode in the category and no reasonable person can deny it. A reasonable person could deny that an object meets the inclusion criteria set forth in this category, which I assume (since it is not spelled out in the category itself and the description that is there is tagged as needing a citation) is "anything that is easily recognizable, such as a monument, building, or other structure" or possibly "places that might be of interest to tourists due to notable physical features or historical significance." What is "easily recognizable" to one person may be unrecognizable to the next and such a broad range of things "might" be of interest to tourists that as inclusion criteria it's worthless. The previous CFD does not show that "complete subjectivity is acceptable" and your claims that it does are nothing more than your attempting to make a point. Otto4711 (talk) 18:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Insert "-related" in the title. That solves all problems. There is a clear WP:POINT issue here. Repeated arbitrary nominations of categories to be deleted is the worst kind of disruption. Alansohn (talk) 19:42, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Alansohn, if you recall, the outcome of the previous discussion was keep, mainly for reasons of standardisation across categories, though perhaps a deletion/renaming nomination could be had for all of these landmark categories on subjectivity grounds or for the British ones alone if it's thought that the phrasing here is out of whack with UK English. So the door was left open for a wider discussion, which was my aim with this nomination.Pondle (talk) 20:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This deletion listing is stillborn, considering that none of the subcategories have been tagged; you can't delete an entire category structure without giving proper notice of everything that it will effect. Notwithstanding that this CFD then can't accomplish anything but to place all its dozens of sub- and sub-sub-categories directly in Category:Landmarks, keep. Given the common meaning of "landmark," any subjectivity involved in determining whether a place/fixed location/monument etc. is "significant" in some way completely 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. In practice then, the landmark category structure simply serves an article sorting function within country, state, county, or city categories: to segregate out places/sites/locations within, from the articles about people, companies, government agencies, history, etc. I don't believe that anyone will confuse this structure as meaning that all of the entries have been officially designated in some way as landmarks, which is the only possible harm this structure could cause; there's no other way it could be inaccurate unless articles that aren't really about places are included. I also think it's incorrect to say (as the category descriptions currently do) that "landmark" is American equivalent of the UK "visitor attractions"; that would instead be tourist attraction, to which visitor attraction redirects. "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, so that would not be an inappropriate merge target (though by all means, merge the visitor attractions scheme here instead). Postdlf (talk) 19:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If the sole function of this category structure is sorting, then it is redundant to the many existing category structures that we already have for buildings, natural features, monuments and so on. If we accept that "significance" equals "notability" then literally every article we have on every building, natural feature, monument etc. is an article about a "landmark". This is not only inaccurate but if implemented to any degree would swell these categories beyond any hope of utility. Otto4711 (talk) 19:24, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not redundant, but a good parent to group those specific subcategories together. Further, this provides a home at the level of subdivisions for which there are insufficient articles to merit type-based subcategories. What else do you do with an article for the only public sculpture in a city? Postdlf (talk) 19:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Is a public sculpture necessarily a landmark? That would surely depend on size and/or perceptions of its significance. Pondle (talk) 20:56, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The sculpture would be in an appropriate subcategory of Category:Sculpture. It would not also need to be in a landmarks category and my feeling is that anyone who is using the category system to find a sculpture article is going to start with the sculpture category, not a landmarks category. This is not necessary as a parent category, as its contemplated contents are already appropriately parented. Otto4711 (talk) 21:12, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The landmarks category is to link it to where it is located, not to keep it from being uncategorized. Most localities are not going to have enough of any specific type of landmark to merit specific subcategories for all of them, nor is it desirable to subdivide categories in that way. So a good balance is for an article to be defined by its location with a category that is more general as to type of feature ("landmark"), and to be defined by the type of feature with a category that covers a larger geographic region. And for those localities that do have more specific subcategories, this can function as a parent within that locality's category to group them. As I've said before, if you have a better name than "landmark," I'm open to suggestions. I think we agree though that "visitor attractions" is not it. Postdlf (talk) 23:46, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existing category structures for anything that might be termed a "landmark" are already categorized by where the structures are located. Geographical features are categorized with other like geographical features, buildings and structures are categorized with other buildings and structures, statues are with statues, monuments, cemeteries, whatever, all categorized together with specificity rather than as the vague and incredibly overly broad "landmarks". Given the, to be blunt, mania that editors have for breaking down categories by geographical regions, it is doubtful that anything that might be included in a "landmarks" category would not be included in a more specific geographical category. If a city only has one outdoor sculpture or notable church or whatever, then simply categorize it at the next level up (Sculptures in Illinois instead of Sculptures in Peoria). Someone looking for sculptures in Peoria, upon not finding Category:Outdoor sculptures in Peoria, is very likely to check Category:Outdoor sculptures in Illinois and they are very unlikely to look in Category:Landmarks in Illinois. I again have no suggestion for renaming these categories because I do not believe that these categories are useful regardless of the name because they are so vague and broad. These are the functional equivalent of Category:Things. Otto4711 (talk) 02:56, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But if someone wants to see what articles we have on notable features in Peoria? You're also overlooking the problem of what to do with all the current subcategory contents of Category:Landmarks in Illinois, for example—dump them directly in Category:Illinois? Postdlf (talk) 03:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Having lived in Peopria, I can assure you that it has no notable features. But for those interested in finding Peoria-related articles through the category system, they are likely to start either with the article Peoria, Illinois or with Category:Peoria, Illinois. Of the articles currently in the Illinois landmarks category I would put the two on state historic sites in Category:Illinois State Historic Sites. Havana Water Tower already has two more specific categories placing it in Illinois, Joliet Prison should go into a "Prisons in Illinois" category and so on. The various subcats all appear to have at least one and in most cases multiple parents other than this one placing them in Illinois that are more specific than the vague "landmarks". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otto4711 (talk • contribs) 04:17, December 1, 2008
Comment: I think Postdlf has presented a very sound and persuasive analysis & argument on behalf of some sort of grouping-category for significant sites/features by location. There is, however, a major issue that needs to be addressed: as has been pointed out, the current name is problematic in a number of respects. What's needed is a name that is readily understood and lends itself to easily applied inclusion criteria. As things currently stand, I'm not entirely certain what sorts of sites & features would/should be included, so we will need to decide what the scope of the category should be. For instance, would "buildings and structures" be an automatic sub-category -- or do only certain buildings and structures belong? etc. etc. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Sticking with our Illinois example, why doesn't Category:Illinois serve to group the significant sites and features of Illinois by location? Isn't it likely that someone interested in using the category system to find things located in Illinois, assuming they don't already know even a single thing that's in the state, is going to start at Category:Illinois? From there all of the various subcats for things in Illinois will be available and say that person then wants to look at, for instance, what other states have notable buildings and structures, they would get to that by accessing the Illinois buildings and structures cat and then going to the parent B&S in the US, then to B&S by country and from there has access to all of the B&S categories for the world. This just seems like having a category structure for the sake of having it regardless of its functionality. Otto4711 (talk) 19:14, 1 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A building with unique design elements or of a notable design or representative of a type of design
A building designated as a landmark
all of these are different. If you were to include say, Category:Buildings and structures in Illinois which of these would cover that? I'd say not one. Are visitor attractions (Category:Zoos in Illinois) landmarks? Maybe some but not all. Clearly Category:National Register of Historic Places in Illinois would be landmarks (#6). Clearly #1 would not be encyclopedic in and of itself. So maybe the approach to take is to use the above items to start a discussion on how Category:Landmarks should be sub categorized. With that we would have better definitions and would be able to start cleaning up the various categories. I suspect that most will be #2 masquerading as #5. But I say this not doing any research. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pending a decision on how to deal with the POV and related issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:42, 4 December 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.
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:KeepStwalkerster [ talk ] 21:52, 11 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Apparently, despite the fact that Homo hop was deleted back in July as 'patent nonsense', this is a real genre: see e.g. the PeaceOUT World Homo Hop Festival. However, it does not seem like an encyclopaedic name for the category; 'LGBT hip hop artists' or 'LGBT rappers' would be more appropriate. Terraxos (talk) 16:25, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've created a stub for Homo hop; if anyone knows more about it please have at it. Otto4711 (talk) 19:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that it would be more consistent with the listings for most other genres; besides which, some LGBT hip hop artists may not identify with the term "homo hop." The term is pretty widely used, though - for instance, try search on it at books.google.com. (Sometimes it is rendered as homo-hop.) I think that Otto's question about categorizing items which are not individual artists is well-taken - see also Category:Queercore which contains individuals, zines, venues, etc.--Larrybob (talk) 21:41, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The Homo hop article may be a stub, but the reliable sources provided establish the use of the term. As such, the category should match the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
A subcategory could be created for the artists, while keeping the general genre category in place as a parent container for that, the head article on the genre, PeaceOUT World Homo Hop Festival and Pick Up the Mic. That, in fact, would be even more consistent with the category schemes for other musical genres than simply replacing this with an LGBT rappers category would. Keep, but move the artists into a subcat. Bearcat (talk) 04:48, 4 December 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.
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, empty. Kbdank71 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Unpopulated; articles in this category have been merged due to insufficient content and lack of notability to one article, which is now in the parent category. Ladida (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless, but are not empty categories deleted as a matter of course? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty cat.--Lenticel(talk) 00:03, 2 December 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.
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, empty. Kbdank71 16:27, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Unpopulated; articles in this category have been merged due to insufficient content and lack of notability to one article, which is now in the parent category. Ladida (talk) 14:07, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless, but are not empty categories deleted as a matter of course? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Only on request, and only if they remain empty for 5 days (and only if they are not emptied as part of a deletion discussion, but for separate reasons). — Arthur Rubin(talk) 17:28, 30 November 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:Portland, Oregon City Commissioners[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.
Speedy rename - capitalization fixes can be listed for speedy renaming; they don't have to undergo review here. Otto4711 (talk) 20:07, 29 November 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.
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 16:26, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - no need for this category with so few articles. Terraxos (talk) 17:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as pointless, as the amin article will provide an adequate list. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 30 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For now, the category has two entries, which doesn't make a category very useful. List of characters in Camp Lazlo includes multiple entries, and could be a source for future articles, but isn't yet. If there are more articles in the future, the category can be reconsidered. Alansohn (talk) 18:34, 2 December 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.
