Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 January 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 17 January 19 >

January 18[edit]

Category:Soccer stadiums[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 00:32, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These 2 unparented categories appears to contain only stadiums from Bangladesh, so it should be merged to the existing category BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:42, 18 January 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:Cricket grounds in Asia[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: delete both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:17, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneeded categories now superseded by the relevant "Cricket grounds in [country] category", also unnecessarily duplication. S.G.(GH) ping! 15:21, 18 January 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:Pet Turtles[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: delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:32, 26 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Pet turtles (currently/recently at CFD). Incorrect capitalisation. DexDor (talk) 14:42, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete/merge newly created category duplicates existing category. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:29, 19 January 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:Association football grounds[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 00:33, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Should be merged to older category for same topic. Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:26, 18 January 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:Association football stadiums[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 00:34, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Should be merged to older category for the same topic. Del♉sion23 (talk) 13:22, 18 January 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:Dams in fiction[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: delete. If I may comment; dams in fiction MAY actually be a worthy category, IF there are any notable dams in fictional works. What this category is (was) however was fictional works that feature dams, and that's why it was busted. The Bushranger One ping only 00:35, 1 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be a category of games which feature dams as locations, for example they contain a mission to bomb a dam, which is overcategorisation by locations featured in fiction. Tim! (talk) 09:56, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm surprised by the contents of this category, as it doesn't contain "Earthquake!" disaster film or "Dambusters" war film ; as these are not deigned to be compatible with the category, it seems less useful categorization. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:32, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then add them, if you like. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no indication that this genre exists or is notable. Frankly my dear, Category:Damns in fiction may be a better one... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:17, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way too specific a category. We do not need to categorize by all types of objects that have appeared in fictional works.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 24 January 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.

Early Commercial architecture[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 to Category:Buildings designated early commercial in the National Register of Historic Places. This is a difficult debate to handle, as there is evident consensus that the name as it stands is not at all suitable. The disagreement centres mostly on how to describe the things collected by the category - as architecture, buildings, designations, etc. I do not think that including the word 'architecture' is suitable from reading the debate, and the suggestion by Vegaswikian is closer to the facts of the matter, and also deals with the IP's fair point to do with the vague meaning of 'early commerical', but is not clear grammar. The linkage of Chicago to this does not appear to be supported without internal interpretation of the sources, i.e. original research in the Wikipedia sense. Therefore, I think the name I have taken here will provide a middle-ground through all the various proposals, and is straight-down-the-line of the narrowest fact of what's in the category. A slight liberty taken in expanding the acronym, as that is typically done in category names. If this outcome is considered entirely unsuitable, then I suggest that deletion should result from a logical conclusion that in such a case, there is no suitable name at all for the category, i.e. it should not exist. -Splash - tk 21:02, 5 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This nomination also requests the deletion of the parent Category:Early Commercial architecture (which has no subcats except for this one), as well as all three of its child cats: Category:Early Commercial architecture in the United States by state, Category:Early Commercial architecture in West Virginia, and Category:Early Commercial architecture in North Dakota.

Simply put, no style called "Early Commercial" (i.e. "EC") is widely recognised. There's a good reason that Cat:EC in the USA is the only subcat of Cat:EC — the only place this term occurs as a style name is in the database for the US government's National Register of Historic Places (and documents/webpages derived from it), and "EC" is a designator they (and pretty much they alone) use for these buildings. Also look at Early Commercial architecture: it's a redirect to an article on the National Register's architectural style categories, rather than being an article about a separate style. Moreover, the relevant section has just two sentences: one mentioning that the style is assigned to hundreds of buildings, and one offering an unsourced guess that it's a larval form of the Chicago School. All of these taken together mean (1) there's no established style with this name, and (2) we really don't know exactly what's meant by the sole source that uses this name. Why should we have a category system based on this name? Nyttend (talk) 01:04, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Yes, that 2nd sentence says (unreferenced) "The style may be a subtype/predecessor of the full Chicago School style architecture." There's no main article and we're not even sure that "Early Commercial" is in fact a style, or just a term used buy the register to describe unrelated early commercial buildings. Delete. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:27, 18 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not about commercial structures that developed separate from other structures from the beginnings of human civilization, so is a highly ambiguous naming scheme, considering the "main aritcle" redirect target, it also seems to imply that human history starts with the beginning of the United States. -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:34, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename. The NRHP is a huge resource, listing over 1 million items in the USA, predominantly buildings and structures. Its style nomenclature probably has some quirks in it, but the fact that a building is listed as a significant example of a particular style (and thereby worthy of protection) is very much a WP:DEFINING characteristic.
    However, since the style itself is not defined elsewhere, its usage is POV ... and per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV, the label "Early Commercial" should be attributed to the NRHP. So the category name should include that attribution. How about Category:NRHP-listed Early Commercial architecture? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 19 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename per the above recommendations of Shawn in Montreal and Brown Haired Girl. --Caponer (talk) 18:28, 20 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But the whole point is that we don't know what it is! How in the world is this defining? Since when do we categorise based on terminology from one source? WP:DEFINING notes that "a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently" use to define the subject. It doesn't even appear in all but one of the sources whatsoever. Nyttend (talk) 04:22, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So everyone is satisfied that what the NRHP calls "early commercial" is the same as Commercial/Chicago style? "Early commercial" could be used by the NRHP in these cases in a generic way, simply to define function of an earlier group of otherwise miscellaneous buildings, not a style, could it not? Do we know that all the buildings have the stylistic elements mentioned in the historic society page? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 11:54, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If we're not satisfied with it, we can't know what it is, making the category thoroughly non-defining and thoroughly useless. Earlier commercial buildings such as the Red Horse Tavern and Faneuil Hall aren't classified as "early commercial" — I can't remember ever seeing the term applied to buildings anywhere close to being truly "early", even in American terms. Nyttend (talk) 13:25, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't agree. BHG offered a perfectly reasonably solution, categorize them merely as a NRHP designation. I just worry that your proposed solution will make things much worse, if we use a category to advance the notion that all these early commercial buildings are therefore synonymous with the Chicago style merely because of the shared use of the word "commercial." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:35, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, because that would definitely include buildings such as Red Horse Tavern and Faneuil Hall: they're early commercial buildings, and they're NR-listed. Again, the NR has a lot of bizarre architectural designations that aren't at all good for categories — they're unique and nowhere near defining: reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently do not define anything as "early commercial architecture". In the past, we've gotten rid of categories based on the NR's architectural designations, including "Bungalow/Craftsman architecture" on 2013 March 21. While the NR is reliable for numerous purposes, it's definitely not reliable for standard architectural terminology. Why must we be wedded to their quirks for our categorisation system? Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 22 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: I take your point that NR is not reliable for standard architectural terminology. I agree with it.
    However, what you propose to do is to take that terminology and read as being equivalent to a completely different terminology, without any source to justify your assumption that this is what the NR intends. (You have a source which shows someone else making that equation, but nothing linking it to the NR). This is classic WP:SYN.
    What does it matter whether the NR uses standard architectural terminology? Suppose that the NR was listing buildings under a classification "looks silly". That's not a standard architectural category, and never will be; but as a reason for being added to the NR list, it would be a thoroughly WP:DEFINING characteristic. Same goes for these "early commercial" listings. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The difference is that we have reliable sources saying that the "Commercial Style" is Chicago, and we need to let those reliable sources define how we categorise our articles. Otherwise we end up having categories dedicated to monstrosities such as "Bungalow/Craftsman". Architectural professionals don't even use this concept of "Early Commercial". By having a category for it, we're telling them that they omitted a style. Who are we to tell them that they're wrong? Moreover, where do you get the idea that being Early Commercial is the reason that these properties were added to the NR? The only way to tell whether the specific architectural style is the reason for listing is to consult the nomination form or other internal documents; if you've done that, please say it. Yes, many of these locations qualify under Criterion C, architectural significance, but C is also applied to properties listed for reasons such as their architect — NR internal documentation notes that only some of the Samuel Hannaford and Sons TR properties were architecturally significant, but all of them were listed under C because they were designed by a prominent architect. Moreover, many properties have architectural styles given, even though they weren't listed for their architecture. For example, Hampton Hall (Franklin, Kentucky) got listed because of its place in local history, because it's a great example of an early 19th-century farmstead in southern Kentucky — the architecture itself isn't critical to being listed, but the NR still lists an architectural style. The mere fact of them mentioning the architectural style is frequently totally unrelated to the reason for the building's significance. Finally, a longer response will be given if you want it; there's so much internal evidence for not depending on NR classifications that it would make this a great example of a wall of text if I just kept on going. Nyttend (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: Sorry, but that doesn't add up.
    First, you say that there are reliable sources saying that the "Commercial Style" is Chicago. So far you have only presented one source, which is the one used in the head article ... and with all due to respect to the Dictionary of Wisconsin History, it's hardly the gold standard for architectural history.
    Secondly, the head article says (in an unreferenced section) that the use of "Chicago School" for the 1880s and 1890s is disputed by several historians.
    Thirdly, you dispute the significance of the NR's labelling, but still want to use it as the basis for populating a category with a difft name.
    Finally, recognising that the NR uses a particular type of classification doesn't mean telling anyone else that they are right or wrong. There are many fields of study in which several different classification systems exist in parallel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:56, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"early commercial" is not acceptable to me. If we choose that option, then this category tree should be deleted As I state before, this has nothing to do with the emergence of separate commercial spaces at the dawn of human civilization -- 70.50.148.122 (talk) 05:47, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it's nothing to with commercial spaces at the dawn of human civilization. It's to do with the tyoe of building which the NR describes as "early commercial". If their listings include anything from the dawn of human civilization, they don't describe it as "early commercial".
BTW, "not acceptable" to me comes across as WP:IDONTLIKEIT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:28, 23 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming the category but Strongly Oppose calling it "Chicago school architecture" and oppose calling it "Chicago style architecture." The Chicago School primarily refers to designs by some notable architects (e.g., Louis Sullivan) and others who they influenced. In contrast, this National Register category has been used for a large number of buildings whose only common feature is that they are commercial buildings built using construction technologies that became available in the late 19th century. It is important to note that the source that Nyttend found uses the term "Chicago style" (not "Chicago school") and says only that this style "is sometimes termed the 'Chicago Style'". This category is most emphatically not about the Chicago school and the basis for naming it "Chicago style" is very weak -- that would not be a defining characteristic. Let's call this something like Category:Architecture of the NRHP Early commercial style. As BHG has pointed out, the NRHP designation is a defining characteristic. I'd like to put "Early commercial" in quotation marks, but I don't think we can do that. --Orlady (talk) 01:20, 25 January 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_January_18&oldid=1086356261"