Category:History of Canada by province or territory by location[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: If I understand correctly, this is some kind of "x by y by y" category, grouping "history of articles" for populated places with a province or territory. It's completely unnecessary and doesn't aid navigation, from what I can see. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Creator's rationale: The category was not created out of the air see: Category:History_of_Ontario_by_location, I did not create this one. I did not feel that it was unnecessary as it houses various history within a province on cities and towns.Hogie75 23:03, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I missed that. Yes, for the much more crowded Ontario history category, this does seem to serve a useful function and should have been added to History of Canada by province or territory by location. I will do so and do a bit of key sorting. Let's see what others say. I won't hesitate to withdraw this, if necessary. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, Category:History of Ontario by location how now been added to the parent category and sorted so that it appears next to "... by period" at the top of Category:History of Ontario. Thing is, it's especially useful in this case because the category contains many "History of foo" subcategories for Ontario cities. The New Brunswick category does contain four bona fide history articles or timelines for NB cities, but also a smattering of geo articles on New Brunswick places and landforms that don't really belong imo. Still, the four history articles alone may make this a useful category to retain. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:14, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete categories and BHG how about renaming Category:History of New Brunswick by city? Steam5 (talk) 07:14, 20 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also BHG, on the Category:History of Canada by province or territory by location it should be renamed without include "by location" to form Category:History of Canada by province or territory. 07:20, 20 October 2013 (UTC)
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 This is clearly not a distinguishing enough trait of people to categorize by. Categorize them by having been in a reality television series, but especially when that is divide by nation, we do not want this trans-national additional category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's use of a royal we ("we do not want") does not disguise the lack of any substantive rationale for deletion. This category groups people who won a reality TV show, and in nearly all cases the winners are clearly defined by their victories; without BB, they would be non-notable. The fact that the category spans several countries is irrelevant. These people share as a common WP:DEFINING characteristic the fact that they won a series of Endemol's Big Brother show, which has been held in various countries but always follows the same basic format. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:42, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think this is exactly the type of overcategorization by award we want to avoid. We already categorize people for having been on this show. Lists are much better. Category clutter is a real problem and needs to be dealt with. The substantive rational is this is an awards category, and those are very, very highly discouraged.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:10, 12 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. This is not an awards category. This is a category for winners of a very high profile competition; it is the winning of that competition which makes them notable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category is well populated and is based around a defining characteristic for the category members. --Orlady (talk) 03:21, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- I am not convinced that the winners are notable, but since with have articles on them, we need the category, despite WP:OC#PERF, because a lot of them are notable for little else. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 13 October 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.
Reality television show performers by performance categories[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 All of these categories violate the guidelines against categorizing performers by specific performance. These work as the general category, but not with this level of specificity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Having all these categories leads to people like Clay Aiken being in multiple categories when they could just be in 1.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As noted in my comment below, there is a total of 1027 articles in these categories, and only 27 of them are in 2 or more categories. Clay Aiken is one of that 0.24%, being in 2 such categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / Oppose Upmerge For most of these people, their participation in a specific reality show is their defining characteristic, and this should be retained as part of the "player by team" system that works so effectively elsewhere. Despite the fact that there will be a player who has played with many teams, or appeared in more than one reality show, the loss of an effective aid to navigation is too significant to justify based on the Clay Aiken example. Why not just have a single Category:People to subsume any and all humans regardless of their reality shows or sports teams and solve this once and for all. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant keep all. The argument in favour of keeping these categories is that they are not routine performers who may appear in many shows; rather their notability derives solely from participation in one particular show, and that few of them participate in a range of such shows. I tested this theory using Catscan2: 1027 articles were in one or more of these categories, but only 25 articles were in 2 or more, while only 1 article is in 3 or more. That looks to me like fairly conclusive evidence that there is very little overlap, and hence little reduction in category clutter from the proposed upmerger. It still looks to me like an ugly form of categorisation, and it feels instinctively wrong. But WP:IDONTLIKEIT is no reason to delete. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:26, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Selective merge and mostly procedural keep - These feel different to me from the standard performance-type categories for works of fiction because so few participants in reality series participate in more than one. I would like to see a larger discussion of the concept in another venue rather than a piecemeal nomination of the structure. That said, merge winners categories to participants categories where they exist. Winners categories are going to tend to be small with expansion at a slow or non-existent rate. Also merge them to Category:Reality show winners which exists. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 17:27, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to merging the winners into the broader contestants categories. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:53, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. There are a lot of people who compete/participate in these shows. Which show they participate on reflects more about them than that they have been on a reality show. I would say that most don't do a lot of crossover. Sportfan5000 (talk) 01:44, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - For reasons stated by Alansohn. --Orlady (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- My guess is that most of these people are notable for little else. I am not sure that they are notable for appearing, but while we have the articles, we probnably need the categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per Alansohn's reasoning. It is far more useful to have them categorized by show than to lump all together in "reality show"-- Brainy J~✿~ (talk) 02:22, 24 October 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:keep. (I considered this discussion in conjunction with the broader one immediately above.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:16, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale These categories are performer by performance. I guess being in a reality television series is notable for some people, but there is no reason to categorie by each show. For example Leila Ali seems to have been in at least 3 reality television series.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 9 October 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:Duško Kondor Civil Courage Award recipients[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.
Delete - non-notable award that is not a defining characteristic of an individual. —dainomite 01:12, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Despite the nom's good intent, this nom comes across as "I don't know anything about this, so please delete it". A little research would have helped ... and we do not have to have a head article to justify a category. A quick google threw up http://www.gariwo.org/en/selected/competition, which sets out details of the award. IT is a relatively recent award, issued by an NGO, so I am inclined to assume that for all its worthiness, it is not very prominent. However, more info would be good; have the relevant WikiProjects been informed? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:53, 11 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete This is not a defining award.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 18 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just two entries. ...William 13:09, 9 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: There are only two articles in this category, and two in the other. Seems like overcategorization to me, and not very helpful for navigation. QVVERTYVS (hm?) 11:24, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as creator (I think). They are *groups* or cells of the resistance and thus deserve their own sub-category, as "resistance members" do. The fact that there are not many articles in the category yet (ultimately there would be 10-ish) is neither here nor there.Brigade Piron (talk) 20:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Categories are not "deserved" or merited, they are created as needed. We do not need a category for 2 groups. Biographical categories are a special case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, but I cannot find anything which says that categories of 2 should be deleted. Look at WP:SMALLCAT, it certainly has potential for growth (as the article Luxembourgish Resistance should make clear):
“
A category which does have realistic potential for growth...may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time.
Reply@Brigade Piron:. Per WP:CAT#Overview, categories are a navigational device. They help readers navigate around a set of similar articles, and if that set is too small, they use their utility and start to become an impediment to navigation. Categories are not "deserved"; they are created when a group of articles which forms a category that conforms to various criteria and meets a minimum size. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- These are essentially the same thing. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 13 October 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.
Nominator's rationale: These 4 categories currently contain only 4 articles - all of which are about multi-purpose venues. That Bandy has ever been played in a stadium (e.g. until 1989) is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of that stadium. DexDor (talk) 04:32, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a coherent part of a well-established system of classification: Category:Sports venues by sport. The categories will stay small because of the limited popularity of bandy outside Sweden and Norway but this is perfectly fine. Also these venues are used by professional bandy teams and the indoor ones had to be designed for the very large ice surface. In other words, bandy is an integral part of the identity of these stadiums. 70.52.108.34 (talk) 14:42, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We should not be allowing categories such as these unless they are wholly or mainly for that sport. Cricket grounds and football stadiums may host otehr events or sports occasionally, but they are dedicated to the sport. Of the 9 articles, there are possibly 3 dediucated to this sport, the rest being multi-purpose, which also applies to the American and Russian candidates. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:12, 13 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In general these are not places dedicated specifically to bandy, they are places that are used for ice skating, bandy being one form that takes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 18 October 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:Rivers used for whitewater recreation[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: That a river has (for a short part of its thousands of years of existence) been used for whitewater recreation (as well as possibly for other purposes such as irrigation and transport) is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of the river. List_of_whitewater_rivers should be upmerged to Category:Whitewater_sports. For info: This category is hopelessly incomplete (e.g. few of the many rivers in the UK that have been used for kayaking etc are currently in the category). DexDor (talk) 04:20, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I agree. Having been quite involved in Category:River surfing in years past (the wikipedia topic and not the activity, alas) the nominated category is too broad. We should continue to have categories to group specific whitewater breaks and locations, tidal bores, or even entire rivers and streams if they're principally whitewater and notable for this activity. But the mighty Saint Lawrence River has notable whitewater recreation at Habitat 67 (standing wave) and the surrounding Lachine Rapids, yet it would be non-defining for the river as a whole, as it does seem to be for rivers in this category. Delete or perhaps rename and repurpose for whitewater recreation spots, similar to Category:Surfing locations, which do not include entire oceans or seas, for obvious reasons. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:06, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a defining characteristic of the river involved.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:34, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Purge and Repurpose -- Many rivers will have stretches of whitewater and also long stretches of placid water. We therefore should not be categorising rivers, unless the whole river is whitewater (which is probably unusual). A list article might list rivers and indicate in a subsequent column where there was whitewater on it, but a category cannot do that. "rivers with some whitewater" would suffer from the same kind of objection as performance categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:44, 24 October 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.
Leaning oppose Eden Quay is the only member not to receive significant coverage (in a very short article). I don't know why Liberty Hall is not included, or Kilmainham Gaol either. It seems pretty defining for most or all. The very local and small scale of the rising makes this different from categories for the French Revolution, Arab Spring etc. At the same time you can get them all from the main article. Johnbod (talk) 04:29, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The Easter Rising is one of the key events in modern Irish history, and arguable the key event. The action took place in many locations in Dublin, most notably the General Post Office, Dublin (GPO); there would be no doubt that the Rising is a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the GPO. However, it is less defining of other places:
Saint Stephen's Green is notable as the major city centre park, as a transport hub, as the location of some well-known building (Shelbourne Hotel, Iveagh House, Royal College of Surgeons and the Shopping Centre) and as the most notable example of the Guinness family's philanthropy to Dublin. The Rising is mentioned in para 7 of the article, which seems about right for a brief episode in the Green's history.
Tara Street was one of several locations of British artillery during the Rising, but that's really just a historical footnote; Tara St is not even mentioned in the Easter Rising article. The street has no prominent commemoration of those events, and it is defined by being the location of Tara Street railway station.
Mountjoy Square's role in the Rising was merely as a meeting point for some of the leaders
There are many other locations in Dublin which are significant in the history of the Rising. Some of them are the locations of big armed battles, others of skirmishes, and many more of smaller incidents. For example Portobello Bridge is where Francis Sheehy-Skeffington was arrested, but it is not defined that event.
The problem with any category such as this is that its possible member articles range from those such as the GPO which clearly belong, to those such as Portobello Bridge which are clearly not defined by the Rising. If we include all possible articles, the category would be huge, and dominated by trivia; but any attempt to moderate the sprawl would require either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE judgments or WP:OC#ARBITRARY criteria. This sort of information is better presented in an article. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 10 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (with some regret) -- The Easter Rising is a key event in Irish history, but the locations are in the nature of performers in the Rising (a performance). The category thus has the same objections as performance categories. There is also a subjective element as to how deep inot the subject the category goes. Peterkingiron (talk) 08:36, 14 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete. A specific event is rarely defining to a location. Locations continue a long time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:26, 21 October 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:Places involved in Caesar's invasions of Britain[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: Being "involved in an invasion" is not a permanent WP:DEFINING characteristic of a place (e.g. Walmer). For info: This is the only "Places involved in ..." category in WP:EN. DexDor (talk) 04:11, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. A more definable alternative might be Category:Battlefields of Caesar's invasions of Britain. However, that would exclude Portus Itius. There does seem to be a category of military geography and archaeology lurking here somewhere, but I don't know what to call it: Category:Military geography of Caesar's invasions of Britain (as a subcat of Category:Military geography)? The present-day identity of sites referred to by Caesar in both Britain and Gaul is often the subject of debate, but trying to determine the geography of his campaigns is an established scholarly enterprise. "Military geography" would encompass scholars' efforts to determine key places in campaign routes and sites of camps as well as of battles. Cynwolfe (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete places are not involved in events, they are used in events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 18 October 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.
