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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This shouldn't be controversial. What was once Mombasa District became Mombasa County. While we now have separate articles for the county and Mombasa city, the latter indicates that the boundaries of city and county are the same—essentially a consolidated city-county in US parlance. So this category is redundant to Category:People from Mombasa. BDD (talk) 16:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reason to have this category when everything is already in the Mobasa category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 19 July 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.
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. Yes there was a discussion, but the category only has one member at present and probably only has 3 valid members so, at this time, it is too small. If there are more members in the future, recreation can be considered. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:04, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is difficult to tell because you purged the category and we cannot see what was in it. Please consider restoring the articles while we discuss. At the moment, with no information other than the category names, I'm opposed to the deletion - genderqueer and queer aren't the same thing. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:58, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that was my mistake. I should have come here first but it was only after I recategorized the individuals that I realized that I needed to come here. I usually confine my editing to typos, restructuring articles and straightening out grammatical mistakes, not creating or deleting pages or categories.
Here were the three individuals who, in totality, composed the category Category:Queer actors:
There was a fourth individual but I've gone through all of the individuals listed in Category:Queer men and Category:Queer women and can not find another non-pornographic queer actor (there is a different category for that). So, it must be that #4 has had Category:Queer men or Category:Queer women removed from their Wikipedia profile.
The impetus for my action is because I thought four individuals wasn't substantial enough to have a separate category when the same individuals could be listed under Category:LGBT actors and then also the Queer women or men category.
Another example is Category:Queer models where there is only one listing, Madison Young. Like Queer actors, there is a general category, Category:LGBT models that includes models that are gay, lesbian, bisexual, transsexual and transgender...shouldn't queer models go under the same category?
I realize that this touches on issue of sexual politics but I guess I don't understand why categories specifically for LGBT don't also implicitly include Q. If this is the case, should there be no umbrella LGBT categories and only separate L, G, B and T categories for every occupation, nationality, etc.?
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is removing the ambiguous term "modern" (sometimes 1990+, sometimes much earlier) from category names. I think all the articles in this category are about weapons introduced since 1990, although there are a few poor-quality articles (e.g. Bombkapsel 90) where I'm not certain. DexDor (talk) 06:10, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Modern is too ambiguous. I mean, 1990 means we have modern starting after post-modernism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:53, 19 July 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.
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 to delete. Given the different nature of some of the trails, it may be helpful to have individual nominations for these. There may well be a consensus to delete some or to seriously purge them out, but that's hard to discuss or discern in this broad nomination. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:50, 6 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorisation of places of historical interest by trails which pass through them. Tim! (talk) 06:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the lot. This is a diverse collection of trails and categories that cannot be treated as if they are all alike; if there are concerns about the inappropriateness of individual trail categories, nominate them individually. For now, I'll speak to the reasons for keeping Category:Appalachian Trail. The Appalachian Trail is a U.S. National Park Service unit; as such, many places along the trail are components of the park unit and thus should be considered to belong in the category. Furthermore, the 200+ pages in the category and its subcategories are not just about locations on the trail (as the nominator's rationale suggests), but include trail-related lists, topics related to the trail's history, sections of the trail, books about the trail, and organizations that exist because of the trail. --Orlady (talk) 15:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC) Also non-free images specifically related to the topic of the trail. --Orlady (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Trans Canada Trail is another keeper. This "trail" is actually, according to its article, a network of recreational trails across Canada, with the intent of creating a single trail from coast to coast. As such, membership in the Trans Canada Trail is a defining characteristic for the individual trails that are the subjects of articles in the category. --Orlady (talk) 17:07, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Even Appalachian Trail is a problematic category which contains for example the subcategory Category:Rivers on the Appalachian Trail which is not defining for the rivers categorised therein e.g. Carrabassett River contains only a trivial mention of the trail. Tim! (talk) 18:39, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We shouldn't throw out the baby because we don't like the bath water. Users do seem to have put pages into some of these categories that arguably aren't appropriate to include, but the need to establish better inclusion criteria does not justify wholesale deletion of the categories. --Orlady (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, based on your research, Category:Trans Canada Trail makes sense with a clarification of the scope which I just did. I would request that this one be removed from the nomination based on the inclusion criteria now in place. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am leaving in it for now as it could benefit from a rename at least, for example to Category:Trans Canada Trail trails, to avoid the general problem that places on the trail could be placed in the category. Tim! (talk) 06:08, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That rename will get lost in this discussion. If you are willing to remove it, I'm willing to nominate that for a rename as you propose. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That proposed rename won't work. The category topic is defining for articles like Trans Canada Trail, which is about the whole network, and Railway Coastal Museum, which is about the "mile zero" at the eastern terminus of the Trans Canada Trail. The proposed rename would leave those articles out of this category, which would be a dumb thing to do, IMO. --Orlady (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to see how Places on the Juan Bautista de Anza National Historic Trail is being misued, Category:Simi Hills has been made a subcategory. Articles such as Santa Susana Field Laboratory have no mention of the trail at all. Tim! (talk) 18:44, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purge/delete - remove articles about places/buildings on/near the trails (and any articles with even less connection with the trail) from these categories and delete any categories that only contain such articles. This is not a good way to categorize places; we don't (AFAIK) have categories "counties that <motorway> passes through", "hills visible from <train line>" etc. Category text should state that it's only for articles for which the trail is a WP:DEFINING characteristic - which excludes any articles about places/buildings that existed before the trail (it shouldn't really be unnecessary to state this, but ...). DexDor (talk) 18:11, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with that approach is that it is near impossible to monitor it unless you have someone who is willing to check the contents of the category on a regular basis. Then, what happens when that editor decides they no longer are interested in doing that or in editing at all? You get back to the current problem. While clarifying inclusion criteria helps, it can still be subjective. Your proposal leaves the encyclopedia with a long term maintenance issue. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:19, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I just found, and removed, List of Delaware River tributaries in the rivers subcategory for the Appalachian Trail and there was no mention there at all. This is an example of what can build up in categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That's a different read. If most of these would be deleted as the result of a cleanup, then just say delete them, it is easier to gain consensus that way. As with any large nomination, when there are exceptions, the end result is frequently for no consensus. If this happens here, the close should clearly allow cleanup, even if the result is an empty category that can be deleted under CSD:G6 or individual renomination if the contents are minimal. Which categories do you believe would be retained after cleanup? Or are you just saying that the purging would identify the ones can can be deleted? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are a few articles in these cats for which the trail is a defining characteristic (e.g. Appalachian Trail Conservancy and A Walk in the Woods) - see the comments above by Orlady and even the CFD nominator. Also, at least one of these categories has subcats that are not in the nom. That's why I didn't !vote just delete. DexDor (talk) 05:39, 18 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with this is that while these are all called trails, they are really a bunch of separate things: hiking trails, historical areas, large geographical areas, etc. For example, it might be inappropriate for a bunch of random things in the vicinity of the historical OT to be thrown into Category:Oregon Trail, which covers half of the western united States, I think it would be appropriate to include historical sites along something like Category:Freedom Trail, because the 'trail' is nothing but a series of historical sites in a small, well-defined area. So I'm going to say keep in general while reserving the right to vote purge for individual items on the above list. Gamaliel (talk) 21:56, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I say keep them all. If someone is going on one of these trails, they might look up certain places they might not find in on of the a trail guide book. FriscoKnight (talk) 023:41, 17 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not defining and traveloguecruft. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete most or all, but Comment - The mass deletion here is a bit too much for me to wrap my head around. The general concept of tourist trails is obviously not a good fit for categorizing things, mostly because the tourist trails themselves may be somewhat flexible or arbitrary in their criteria, and may change over time. The association with the "trail" might even be a trivial, non-defining aspect of the item. BUT I can imagine a trail (likely an actual trail, not simply a tourist designation) in which the places on the trail are defined by their association with the trail. So I'm not comfortable with a categorical deletion of all "trails" categories and "place by trail" categorization. --Lquilter (talk) 10:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Please note that the nomination misrepresents some (if not all) of these categories. These are not all historic heritage trails and their contents are by no means limited to "places on the trail." --Orlady (talk) 13:03, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
need to redo this nomination The central problem is that these are not all trails in the same sense. The Oregon Trail and Mormon Trail are historic routes of emigration to the point of leaving physical marks in the landscape. They are not comparable to interpretive walks like the Freedom Trail. Personally I think categories for the latter type should all be deleted, but at any rate until we sort that out it's going to too hard to interpret the responses here. Mangoe (talk) 16:06, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Purge of articles not about the trail and its function. Looking at Category:Mormon trail most of the articles are clearly related to the trail, not just things that happen to be on the trail, but there needs to be a clear connection that existss. I would support deleting the Freedom trail category though, and others that are not histical routes. Oregon and Mormon keep, Freedom go, California and Sant Fe probably keep as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would say purge Baldwin City, Kansas from the Santa Fe trail cat, if we had an article on Palmyra, Kansas that actually talked about the place that was on the trail that would be one thing, but Baldwin City was a replacment city founded in 1858 after the trail was mainly no more.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per -Orlady, - Epson291 (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the ones not invented by modern Tourism Bureaus, but that have genuine history. So keep the medieval pilgrim routes & lose the Yorkshire, Cleveland Ways etc. Only places directly on the paths, and other articles that are directly relevant. Don't know what that would mean for the US ones, but eg the Wonderland Trail (1915, 150 mi hiking trail) would be out. Johnbod (talk) 16:20, 22 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete-- This is a misuse of category space. The categories should be called "Places on the Oregon Trail" etc. However this is in the nature of a performance (place) by performer (trail) category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:41, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep units of the National Park Service (US). National Historic Trails aren't average hiking trails or a tourist attraction invention; they are functioning units of the National Park system (Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route, for example). Likely best to break up this proposal, since these are different types of "trails." For National Historic Trails, the historic sites or areas along the trail are what make up the trail - the entire reason they were created. --JC1008 (talk) 19:37, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Orlady's rationale. The AT in particular is an NPS unit, not unlike a national park. Bms4880 (talk) 14:29, 2 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep per Orlady and other keep rationales. This mass deletion i just another re-active approach to a mixture of categories related only elements of their names. An especially glaring error is that this nomination includes the deletion of an article Washington–Rochambeau Revolutionary Route for which this is the wrong forum and is a perfectly legitimate article in any case. Hmains (talk) 03:05, 3 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've corrected the nomination to refer to the category (which is CFD-tagged) rather than to the article. DexDor (talk) 03:49, 3 September 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.
