Category:Historic railway stations in the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I was going to make this a container category and then had second thoughts. Historic is really a subjective term so inclusion criteria here is a challenge. Since virtually all of the content is in the clearly defined Category:Railway stations on the National Register of Historic Places, maybe deletion to eliminate the extra level of navigation would be the best solution. If kept, needs to be marked as a {{container category}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not as a Container: I looked to see what the 4 articles that were loose in the cat actually were. 1 was a brand new station and 1 was on the NRHP so I moved both of those out. TheGettysburg Railroad Station article is pretty compelling to make a claim that the station is historic. Winslow (Amtrak station) is probably less compelling but it is still a historic structure with period architecture. Although I agree "historic" is vague and could be open to abuse, it looks to me like the cat is being used sparingly to group historic railroads that no one has bothered to nominate for the NRHP. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:51, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification: It occurs to me I should be conservative about moving articles out of cat when it is nominated for deletion, even if I favor keeping the cat. These were good faith changes to articles that never should have been included, not an attempt to bias the discussion by clearing out the cat.RevelationDirect (talk) 23:26, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The problem is that historic is somewhat ambiguous and highly subjective. With no main article, it makes its use in a category name very problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:49, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No argument that "historic" is open to conflicting interpretations. But this is part of the gigantic Category:Historic preservation subject tree which has tens of thousands of articles under it, each one making its own claim for being historical. Are you thinking that only government registries be allowed to identify a building as historic for our purposes? RevelationDirect (talk) 00:46, 7 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, but we need to do something. In this case, we have a reasonable alternative. As this category exists now, it is becoming a dumping ground for populated places that mention having an old station. So if we have to choose between cleanup and deletion, deletion seems like the better choice. Of course if we could get an objective definition of historic then we could look at this again. I'll also throw another option on the table. We could create Category:Railway stations completed in yyyy under Category:Buildings and structures completed in yyyy. This removes the historic subjectivity and still groups these by period of construction. If by year is too fine, it could be by decade. Precedent exists with Category:Bridges completed in yyyy. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:09, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
A cat with 2 articles is a "dumping ground"? I don't share your sense of urgency on this one.RevelationDirect (talk) 01:53, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category is really fallout from the persistent urge to label every place that a train ever stopped at as notable, so here we have a category which is rolling up actual station buildings as opposed to platforms and timetable names. There is already a structure under Category:Railway stations by year of establishment and all the LIRR examples are categorized within it; if we put the others under that structure we would obviate this category completely. Mangoe (talk) 02:18, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At the risk of seeming flakey, I've changed my mind now that I see the cat in broader use. None of the articles are incorrectly placed, but appears to be so broad as to include articles with little in common beyond being a RR Station. I added date cats to all articles to facilitate relying on year of founding cats.RevelationDirect (talk) 09:07, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both – Historic is indeed a subjective term and is a non-starter as a category name. Is 1980 historic? Which stations are not historic? Why has Rednal and West Felton railway station been chosen as the sole non-US representative for this creation? (Ah, user:Hike796.) Occuli (talk) 14:55, 12 December 2010 (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:rename all. Kbdank71 16:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest disambiguating to match main article Against (American band). "Against" is ambiguous, and there is another band of the same name. The eponymous category may or may not be small enough to delete, I'm not sure. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:53, 2 December 2010 (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:speedy delete; category has remained empty. This shouldn't serve as any type of consensus-based "precedent" because the rename was apparently done by the nominator prior to the nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:58, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was replaced by one with a more accurate name: Category:Audio amplifier manufacturers. The amplifiers made by these companies do not amplify sound, they amplify electrical audio signals which are then converted into sound by loudspeakers. (Sound waves cannot be amplified, though they can be focused with an acoustic horn.) Binksternet (talk) 18:48, 2 December 2010 (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.
Comment Maybe you shouldn't be producing these non notable articles and nonsensical redirects.--J3Mrs (talk) 19:23, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment – any listed building is notable so the article Round Maple is fine as are most of the redirects (from listed buildings to their sections in Round Maple). And WP:categorizing redirects is often a good idea. I am however struggling to see how it helps to categorise a number of redirects to Round Maple in Category:Round Maple. Occuli (talk) 20:12, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Non-Notable Articles: That just replaces one problem with another though. A cat with 5 articles is usually viable in my opinion but not if all but one of those articles aren't notable. I put the notabiity flag up on them although I probably should have just nominated them for deletion.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - redundant category as all the constituents end up back at the same page. I'm not sure that redirects should even be in a category should they - doesn't seem terribly helpful to the reader. Nancy talk 21:01, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, redirects in some cases should be categorized. This is especially true when the category would not apply to the article that is the target. Say the redirect was for a song, then it could have appropriate song categories but the target album article should not be categorized as a song. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:08, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I categorize redirects occasionally, but I've never buit a cat around them.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete its an either or decision really as the redirects are also in Category:Babergh which has 175 articles including Round Maple and two sub-categories one of which is Category:Round Maple. Using google to search for the buildings there's nothing of apparent substance to raise any expectation of possible furture expansion as such the redirects themsleves are questionable. Therefore its unlikely they'll become articles in future I agree the category just isnt necesssary. Gnangarra 12:57, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I saw that and thats all there is nothing more and the classification indicates there is nothing else beyind the time it was built Gnangarra 11:32, 6 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per !vote and comment by 3Mrs. Kudpung (talk) 08:18, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only 1 of the articles in the cat is viable. If additional notable articles are created, the cat can be recreated.RevelationDirect (talk) 11:12, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Listed buildings are notable per Occuli, otherwise we wouldn't have [[Category:Grade II* listed buildings in Suffolk]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Crouch, Swale (talk • contribs)
If there is a consensus that these articles are noteworthy beyond you and Occuli, I'll favor keeping the cat.RevelationDirect (talk) 12:24, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Crouch, the buildings in this category are not Grade II* listed. They are only Grade II (no star). Big difference. Nancy talk 12:40, 5 December 2010 (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:administrative close: already speedily deleted as an empty category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:54, 13 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note: - The category was emptied by me earlier in order to avoid a user wading through numerous categories/subcategories just to reach an article currently unrelated to any of those categories and subcategories, per rationale above.RadioKAOS (talk) 08:26, 2 December 2010 (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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:50, 23 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete Not useful, it only means present day architecture, and thus is a loose concept with shifting meaning. No point categorizing articles on such a basis. Elekhh (talk) 06:03, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Shifting meaning, changes over time, term used historically to discuss a wide range of architecture. Binksternet (talk) 18:58, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While its a term that shifts with the times it does cover a dozen or so different styles as such it should be a higher level category with no building articles all of which should be in the style sub-categories. Gnangarra 13:18, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Note that the list of styles you seem to be referring to is non-NPOV mixed with aberrations like the timeless concept of Eclecticism, structural types such as Hyperboloid structure and Tensile structure - which are not styles and not limited to one historic period or another. Note that the reason presented above is not only about the shifting nature of the term (which would only mean constant re-categorisations) but also the "loose" and subjective nature of it. For a 20yr old person a building from the 1960s is not contemporary, whereas for a 60yr old person it might be. Moreover any referenced definition of "contemporary" would be instantly outdated by the very nature of the concept. Everything was once contemporary, but what is today contemporary? Is very good to debate that but is not useful and not neutral to categorise articles based on one POV or another. --Elekhh (talk) 03:31, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Category:Contemporary architecture is a time period category, not a style one. The precedent is Category:Classical architecture and Category:Victorian architecture, which then have the style/school subcategories that architectural historians have designated. This category can have all the style subcategories and lede links removed, and simply be a category clearly defined and limited to architecture created after 2000 or of the last decade. Current architectural theorists and more qualified editors can determine accurate style subcategories later. I attempted the latter recently and apologize for my major mistakes. Category:Contemporary architecture can also be a category for general readers to locate/discover articles on recent architecture worldwide.--Look2See1t a l k → 19:03, 4 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So post-2000 would be haphazardly defined as contemporary (any reference?), and many might disagree. And what would be the difference to Category:21st-century architecture? --Elekhh (talk) 00:40, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Binksternet and WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE. Look2See1's rationale for keeping, it seems to me, illustrates the subjective and "shifting meaning" of the term. The parent stub article states that it is for buildings "being made at the present time," illustrated prominently with the undeniably "contemporary" Guggenheim Museum Bilbao... completed in 1997, before Look2See1's proposed cut off. The parent article is basically just a See also list with a few pictures: not the basis on which to build a category, one that will forever be in flux. What so we do 10 years from now? Empty the category repopulate it with more contemporary "contemporary" architecture? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:34, 5 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. More examples which confound the definition can located in books such as:
Contemporary architecture, 1970–1984: Mirror of the times, Helmut Weihsmann (1986)
Contemporary architecture in Germany, 1970–1996: 50 buildings, Gerd de Bruyn, Gerd Zimmermann, Inter Nationes (1997)
Contemporary Architecture in Germany, Werner Marschall (1962)
Contemporary Architecture in the Arab States: Renaissance of a Region, Udo Kultermann (1999)
Contemporary: architecture and interiors of the 1950s, Lesley Jackson (1994)
Contemporary architecture: 1980–1981, Volume 2, Anthony Krafft (1980)
And one early standout, Zodiac 3: International magazine of contemporary architecture from 1950. Binksternet (talk) 01:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is equivalent to having a category for "Buildings built this year". If the time frame always changes, the category is useless. --Kbdank71 16:58, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as subjective since the inclusion criteria change over time. Of the two keep opinions above, one is saying this is a is a time period category and the other its a term that shifts with the times making the case that the inclusion criteria is objective over time. This classification is best addressed in the article Contemporary architecture (which needs help) where you can identify when the various styles of architecture became contemporary and when they were no longer considered compensatory. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The 1812 book, Observations on the varieties of architecture used in the structure of parish churches: to which is added a description of the characteristics of the Saxon, Norman, and Pointed Arch styles ; list of churches now remaining, built by the Saxons ; an account of bishops and others who were architects ; and the contemporary architecture of the various periods[1] addresses contemporary architecture and might have some information for the category. -- Uzma Gamal (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge appropriate articles into Category:21st-century architecture and/or [Category:Buildings of year 20xyz] — until other expert editors clarify, agree upon, and create "after postmodernism" style categories under existing Category:20th-century architectural styles and upcoming Category:21st-century architectural styles. FYI: the nominated category was modeled on Modern art and Contemporary art that the fine arts use with ease for works and the buildings that house them. Clearly from the serious discussion above that is not transferrable, so support DeleteCategory:Contemporary architecture, with replacement expectations of future clearly defined accurate style categories.—Look2See1t a l k → 06:08, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Best you do that yourself if you think is useful, since you placed all content into this category. Please don't create "Category:21st-century architectural styles" unless you can demonstrate is useful. --Elekhh (talk) 20:47, 22 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no problem here as any future potential "[Category:21st-century architectural styles]" was in a sentence after "until other expert editors clarify, agree upon, and create"....—thanks—Look2See1t a l k → 02:30, 23 December 2010 (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 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:merge. Kbdank71 16:59, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another poorly named "by modus operandi" category by User:Stefanomione, at least as far as I'm concerned. Doesn't aid navigation; just upmerge to Robbers. Please, if others agree with at least some of these noms, do take a look at Stefanomione's contribs, I fear I have only scratched the surface with my Cfds of his over the past few days. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:47, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge. Choice of target for robbery is not what is typically meant by "modus operandi". Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:51, 3 December 2010 (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 17:03, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A particularly pointless offering from Stefanomione, as its sole parent Category:Bandits is a redlink, and it has as its only content Category:Mexican bandits, who are already adequately categorized elsewhere. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:44, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bandit is usually just a thief or robber who is as yet uncaptured, so these can easily be accommodated by the other categories. Good Ol’factory(talk)
Comment I certainly don't agree with the last two comments at all; there are many historical brigands etc who could have articles, & fit here. At the moment they live in Category:Outlaws, which is quite large (now the Mexican subcat has 8 members). Robbing a liquor store doesn't make you a bandit, whatever the newspapers say. Johnbod (talk) 10:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It depends on what sense of the word you are restricting or expanding it to fill. "Bandit" has a potentially quite broad meaning; the meaning you advance is one that restricts its meaning to perhaps the most popular single meaning of the term. That's kind of the problem with the term--it's too squishy and depends a lot of individual interpretations. Category:Outlaws, Category:Thieves, and Category:Robbers seem to me to be better, on balance, because they are a bit more precise in meaning. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:11, 9 December 2010 (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:no consensus. Kbdank71 17:05, 16 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Here's another one from Stefanomione that I just don't get: can't the category contents all be easily accommodated by the parent, which also has the benefit of being much more clearly named? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose upmerge KIA like MIA is a very specific term, where as war related deaths have a broader scope like the inclusion of Joel Barlow an American envoy who died of exposure, Len Supulski NFL player killed in a training accident in WW2 or Erwin Rommel, where as KIA are people like Alfred Shout, or Gary Gordon mainly military people who died during an event where the opposing forces engaged each other. Gnangarra 13:49, 3 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I'm inclined to agree with Gnanarra: KIA/MIA has a specific meaning. It's possible that the three immediate members ought to be put in one of the subcats, though. Mangoe (talk) 21:44, 3 December 2010 (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: The prodigious Stefanomione created this, for a reason I cannot fathom. He simultaneously Category:Activists by role, as a redirect to this. If we really need to subcategorize Category:Activists to serve as a container for contents of this category -- and I'm not sure we do -- then Category:Activists by type would seem to be suitable, with the added advantage of using a commonly understood terminology in Wikipedia categorization. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 02:32, 2 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to something, Category:Activists by type would be an improvement even if it's not a perfect solution. I've never heard "modus operandi" used in this sense before—typically it's used in the sense of how a criminal carries out his nefarious deeds, so the category is nothing if not extremely POV against the activities of the activists. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:50, 3 December 2010 (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.
