Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 April 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 8 April 10 >

April 9[edit]

Categories:Andronikashvili, Khimshiashvili and Kherkheulidze family[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.
The result of the discussion was: keep the first, delete the others. The pages Khimshiashvili and Kherkheulidze now have links to both other pages not previously listed from their family categories. – Fayenatic London 14:52, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Totally useless and redundant categories for petty nobility in Georgia so I suggest we delete them. Thanks. Jaqeli (talk) 16:59, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- the first seem to have been hereditary nobility, and should possibly be kept as Category:House of Andronikashvili. The other categories are too small to merit a categoryand should be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andronikashvili as it includes 11 articles and, I'm sure, more are forthcoming given the number of notable persons the family produced. Not so sure about the Khimshiashvili and Kherkheulidze.--KoberTalk 15:53, 22 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Andronikashvili cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:25, 23 April 2014 (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:Mammals of Monaco[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge all. The Bushranger One ping only 00:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
List of categories to be merged to Category:Mammals of Europe
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, the European rabbit has been found in Monaco is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that species. For info: An example of a previous similar discussion is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_16#Category:Moths_of_Andorra. NOTE: The categorization of list articles etc should be checked - e.g. List of mammals of Sweden is in Category:Lists of biota of Sweden, but this may not be the case for all the lists. DexDor (talk) 18:48, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support in principle. The only cat I am familiar with is Category:Mammals of Scotland and I am happy for that to be merged. I have used Category:Endemic fauna of Scotland to list species only found in Scotland and this seems to me an appropriate approach. Listing common species by every country they are found in is unnecessary per arguments at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_March_16#Category:Moths_of_Andorra. Ben MacDui 07:30, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Same as the recent merge of Category: Moths of..., these kind of categories are worthless, instead list articles should be used. --Sander Säde 14:37, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Per nom. Endemic categories are on the other hand defining on a national level. Arsenikk (talk) 07:51, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nominator....William 11:52, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Location in a small country in a wide range is not defining for mammals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 12 April 2014 (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:People from Candia, New Hampshire[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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 01:57, 18 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 3 entries. ...William 12:08, 9 April 2014 (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:Presidents of the Brazilian Senate[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.
The result of the discussion was: split.
Pinging the nom Good Ol’factory to see if they still feel like implementing the split. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:25, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. This proposal was hacked out at speedy renaming (see copy of discussion below). Essentially, what is being proposed is the creation of two separate trees, one for the Senate of the Empire of Brazil and one for the current Federal Senate. ("Senate of Brazil" and "Brazilian Senate" can refer to either of these bodies.) The proposal is that we would have categories for members of each of the two bodies, and both of these would have subcategories for the presidents of the bodies. I propose linking these through hatnotes and not having any general Category:Members of the Senate of Brazil or Category:Presidents of the Brazilian Senate to house the subcategories for the Empire and for the current Federal Senate. (If the proposal goes through, the closer can ping me and I'd be happy to implement it.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:44, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion which led to proposal
  • Comment -- The Empire and subsequent republic are successive regimes in the same country. If these had the same institutions, I see no reason for a split. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:29, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • As above, User:BlackFalcon's rationale was: "It seems to me that, due to the political significance of the transition from empire to republic, it would be more useful to separate these two periods of the Senate's history." I also can see the usefulness of splitting the two "regimes". Under the Empire, senators generally sat for life and only those making a very high salary were eligible for election. Under the federal republic, they are elected to limited terms. I would be OK with grouping them all together, but then that takes us back to the original issue, which is the need to name these categories consistently to "Senate of Brazil". Note also that the members of the Senate of the Empire of Brazil are already subcategorized. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:41, 23 April 2014 (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:Reservoirs and dams in Australia[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.
The result of the discussion was: split/delete/rename per revised nomination. – Fayenatic London 15:13, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Dams and reservoirs are two different things. They have two dedicated parent categories Category:Dams and Category:Reservoirs. This is a follow on to this discussion. Note that not all reservoirs are created by dams. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:05, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split per nom, who is absolutely correct in stating that dams and reservoirs are two different things. Often they are the same but we have to cater for the many cases where the subject is one or the other but not both. --AussieLegend (✉) 08:34, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think I'm finally beginning to understand your statement after looking at many articles. I think we have a language usage difference here. My impression is that most of the articles called a reservoir are mostly about the dams. They generally say the reservoir was built when in fact it was the dam that was built, the dam creates the reservoir. Also usage leaves me believing that calling the dams 'walls' is also common. The articles do talk about the amount of water impounded by the dam. I think in other places, these articles would be called dams, so I suspect that there is something here related to local usage and naming. Since no names for the dams is generally provided, the correct change is to categorize the articles as both dams and reservoirs. In fact in the articles almost all of the categories are for the dam tree and only one for the reservoir tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • split almost per nom Split to dams AND reservoirs categories, not dams OR reservoirs which makes it seem like there is a choice to be made in each case between using dams categories or using reservoir categories, but not both. Hmains (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think the term you are looking for is "and/or". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 10 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yea, there are a few cases where and/or might be needed. I have already fixed one of these by creating a redirect and that is correctly categorized. As I have the time, I'll try to move of the target subcategories into these and then move all of the content into those. I don't believe that violates the spirit of the nomination since much of the content is already in the subcategories. For the ones I do this on, the and/or cases will be resolved with redirects. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:03, 10 April 2014 (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.

Arizona/New Mexico Territories[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.
The result of the discussion was: rename/split (in some cases, merging) per nom, using "New Mexico Territory" for 1846/7. – Fayenatic London 15:01, 26 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
All nominations
Nominator's rationale: Arizona and New Mexico didn't become states until 1912. According to the corresponding articles, they were under New Mexico Territory from 1850-1863, and in 1863 Arizona Territory was split off. I don't know what to call the 1846 and 1847 New Mexico categories, since they were in the middle of the Mexican-American War. (I hope I caught everything.) Kennethaw88 • talk 01:51, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. We should reflect the conditions on the ground in these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:58, 12 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. No anachronism.GreyShark (dibra) 20:36, 13 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- And I would suggest that we use New Mexico Territory from the time of US conquest, even if the territory was not formally organized until 1850. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:32, 20 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At the present, we do not seem to have any contents that far back. I'm not fully convinced we need to split out from the broader US categories before 1850 after the start of US control.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:27, 23 April 2014 (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/2014_April_9&oldid=1090391637"