Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10[edit]

Category:Television series filmed in Atlanta, Georgia[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:29, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistent with other category names. JDDJS (talk) 23:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. For consistency reasons. Dimadick (talk) 07:58, 17 June 2016 (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.

Abbasid Caliphate[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: implement Fayenatic london's alternative merge. There's clear consensus that something needs to happen but differing opinions on how that should take place. The alternative merge seems to be a good place of compromise that most people seem to be at least somewhat supportive of. Perhaps allowing some time to see if this tree will develop further could be beneficial before diving right into more nominations involving this tree (although any lingering anachronistic issues should be taken care of with a separate nomination ASAP). -- Tavix (talk) 17:45, 10 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only six pages total in this whole tree. Not even enough to maintain century categories in the establishments tree. The typical year/decade targets in Asia and the Abbasid Caliphate would also be left with just one page, so upmerging to centuries on those. WP:SMALLCAT. ~ RobTalk 17:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- another thicket mown down. Keep up the good work. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:59, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - there is some kind of overkill going on here. Instead of developing trees, some users are trying to kill them in infancy. There is a general agreement that anachronism is to be avoided, but on the other hand past entities trees' are becoming deleted. I've personally begun developing this category tree and with some help Abbasid Caliphate can be a vast category tree - we are talking of a dominant Empire lasting for centuries!!!GreyShark (dibra) 05:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative proposal Comment - i think we should merge/rename all anachronistic Iraqi categories into Abbasid tree (already reviewed for historical accuracy):
  • Also similarly propose regarding other recently recreated anachronistic Iraqi categories:

Cheers.GreyShark (dibra) 06:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please don't make a bolded vote twice. The alternative proposal can't happen as part of this discussion since none of those cats have been tagged but I would support that as another nom. ~ RobTalk 06:39, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Fixed for clarity.GreyShark (dibra) 14:28, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against "Arab World" cats, which refer to Arab World - a very ill defined concept. Theoretically Arab World can include every territory with past or present presence of Arab communities (all across the world). On the other hand, Arab League cat can be a well defined location, being a League of specific states. Furthermore, i would prefer to keep Asia as the top cat and not going into modern Middle East definitions, which is a pretty much Euro-centric concept (unlike West Asia).GreyShark (dibra) 15:10, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I would support upmerges to centuries but strongly oppose an Arab world tree, both because that geographical area changes based on time period, is not well-defined, and overlaps the Middle East in the modern day. ~ RobTalk 16:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also agree with centuries; and also disagree with Arab world as too vague. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge as nominated. Such a mess has been made, it's almost as if it's easier to start afresh with these issues. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge as nominated. Per GO and others. Johnbod (talk) 13:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BU Rob13: the Abbasid category tree has about 3 times more categories than mentioned (!) - how come you mention only part of the relatively large Abbasid tree? It creates a false image that there are not enough categories.GreyShark (dibra) 06:33, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Just look at the Category:Years_of_the_8th_century_in_the_Abbasid_Caliphate, Category:Years_of_the_9th_century_in_the_Abbasid_Caliphate, Category:Years of the 10th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:11th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:Years of the 12th century in the Abbasid Caliphate, Category:Years of the 13th century in the Abbasid Caliphate.GreyShark (dibra) 06:37, 30 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Greyshark09: Those are in the history tree, which I haven't included in this nomination. This nomination focuses on the establishments tree, although certain history sub-cats which are only an extra layer of categorization for establishments were included in the nomination. ~ RobTalk 12:55, 30 June 2016 (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:Music by place[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:Music by location and Category:Arts by location. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 01:24, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Sometimes all you have as a reason is feeling. Geographical location feels more precise and better fitting than place. It also fits better to the parent categories name Category:Music by geographical categorization. CN1 (talk) 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
As always, before responding, please read my responses to other comments, as much insight into the matter is only tickled out of me when I have to respond to the thoughts of others and copying the info into the rationale feels redundant. CN1 (talk) 09:39, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What all these subcategories have in common is, that they are defined by their geographic location.
What makes a place?
Its location.
So the thing the category actually categorizes by, is the location.
The discussion fortunately found no consensus, because some felt that location fits better.
CN1 (talk) 09:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alt rename, the word "geographic" is redundant. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:37, 18 June 2016 (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:Monumental crosses in Ireland[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 and merge according to nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All the member articles are about high crosses. – Fayenatic London 15:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: the individual articles in the 2nd and 3rd categories should be removed, not merged, as they are already in the corresponding sub-cats for High crosses. – Fayenatic London 15:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose They are part of the Category:Monumental crosses by country tree structure. Also, not all monuments are crosses, high or otherwise: Anna Livia (monument) is not a cross. If anything, the High Cross tree structure should be abolished. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What has Anna Livia (monument) to do with anything? Merging crosses into "Monuments and memorials" doesn't imply that all those are crosses. The high cross tree is far more useful than this one, if one had to choose, which we don't. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry - misread the direcrtion of the merger there so have struck those comments. I still think that the proposed category is a better container than "High". Outside of the British Isles, it's entirely possible that someone might conclude that it's part of a structure that includes Low, Medium, High and Really Quite High crosses. The current name makes this error less likely I think. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:26, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support In terms of crosses "monumental" correctly means anything larger than about 3 feet, and I think almost all the "Stone crosses" category would be correctly so described. The Monumental crosses tree seems to contain a very arbitary mixture of larger high crosses and Celtic crosses, plus outside the British Isles ones that would be more accurately described as "colossal", eg Valle de los Caídos. I'd like to see clearer criteria, & a rename. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Category:High crosses in Ireland is an appropriate category for a particular genre of archaeological structure. It is appropriate to have an all-Ireland category, as they date from many centuries before the 1922 partition. They are monumental, but are not memorials. They were perhaps originally the equivalent of a church building before any were built - a place where a congregation met - or a teaching aid. Purge of anything that does not fit (e.g. war memorials). Peterkingiron (talk) 19:06, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural comment I can't see how Category:Monumental crosses in the United Kingdom is viable if this nom goes ahead. Should it not be included in the nomination? Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:53, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That contains things like market crosses, modern war memorials and the Dartmoor crosses that are not "high" in this sense, so I think its ok. Johnbod (talk) 12:14, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Laurel Lodged, I have added that as an additional merge target. – Fayenatic London 07:47, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Upmerge the entire High Cross tree structure to Monumental Crosses. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2016 (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 with dual American and German citizenship[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. The general consensus is that this category would set a precedent for a set of categories that would almost entirely fail WP:NARROWCAT and WP:CATDEF. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:34, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. Are we going to create this for every possible combination? We would end up with 46 000 categories. Nymf (talk) 10:51, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The start of a slippery slope of overcating. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 12:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Better to categorize in both than create a whole new tree that doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another requested enhancement candidate for being able to search for articles in 2 or more categories, but we don't want to start this morass. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For info: an intersection of Category:American people and Category:German people lists thousands of people (e.g. Albert Einstein). DexDor (talk) 10:40, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep German nationality law, as well as that of many other countries, typically forbids dual citizenship, so the individuals listed here are distinguished. Seriously though, I get that citizenship is a dicey subject but I don't understand the immense dislike for this category.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:04, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category has a Kosavar refugee who came to the US via Germany and an NBA player born in Germany but who grew up in Utah. Neither one of these people seem defined by the nexus of American and German culture/citizenship. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:30, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter what the cultural and/or political inclinations of these people are, this category is merely noting a significant legal anomalies.--Prisencolin (talk) 23:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are intended to group together pages on similar subjects - not for "noting a significant legal anomalies". DexDor (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom etc. DexDor (talk) 10:30, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Such people will have their former identity recorded a normal expatriate or descent category. Rules on nationality vary. Those with dual British and foioan nationality would be so numerous that we would not want to have anything of the kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:09, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and allow expansion.
    This is not just an interesting convenience intersection, but often a relevant, even WP:DEFINING aspect of biographies. For obvious reasons, dual citizenship is particularly relevant and regularly cited in WP:RS for sportspeople, politicians, but also for criminals, victims of violence abroad, and people eligible for diplomatic support. For other kinds of personalities it is casually cited, stressing a special relationship to a second country.
    It is also not replaceable by Category:American people and Category:German people, as these are diffusing categories. Jermaine Jones might be debatable, but Emre Can clearly is a German rather than a Turkish football player, as is German–Tunesian citizen Sami Khedira, in spite of their dual citizenships. Also, an intersection of Category:American people and Category:German people would also yield people who gave up one citizenship to become naturalized in the other country.
    Would we end up with 46.000 categories? Unlikely, as many combinations are legally impossible, nonexistant or negligible. Would it be a problem? No, we have an almost fully developed tree Category:Bilateral relations this would be a subscheme of. --PanchoS (talk) 11:11, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Being a dual citizen may be often cited in RSs, but RSs often (e.g. when referring to criminals and victims) use phrases like "a married father of 2" - i.e. not every fact that may be important to include in a biography is a good characteristic to categorize an encylopedia article by (categorization should primarily be by why the person is in the encyclopedia). Why is diffusing categories relevant? DexDor (talk) 06:49, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We don't need separate categories for every single combination of citizenship. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 15 June 2016 (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:Crux gemmata[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 arguments against are stronger. While set categories are generally plural, we also must use the WP:COMMONNAME where possible (which has no plural in English) and our guidelines also say we should use the names of main articles where possible. We often have exceptions to the usual singular/plural rules for categorization where there exist exceptions to singular/plural rules in the English language. This appears to be one of those cases. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:49, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We use plural names for set categories holding articles about individual objects. The main article is Crux gemmata and the Latin plural would be cruces gemmatae, but that Latin plural is not a recognised English expression, so let's use English. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree the Latin plural would be OTT, but these are normally called by the Latin name in sources - really, not every Jewelled cross is a crux gemmata (if small enough to be worn round the neck for example). Johnbod (talk) 12:15, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- While in theory this should be plural, it would be OTT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs) 12 June 2016
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:Social problems[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: upmerge as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:36, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge as the difference between Social problems and Social issues is not clear. In article space, social problem is a redirect to social issue. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 10 June 2016 (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:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players[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 and merge to Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball) players. – Fayenatic London 12:08, 23 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a confusing two categories. It appears a bunch of teams happen to share a name, but they're completely unrelated otherwise. For some reason, they're even sharing an article at Syracuse Stars (minor league baseball). We could try splitting these by iterations, although the information in the article makes it hard to know where one team starts and ends. We could also split by league. Alternatively, we could give up on splitting and merge Category:Syracuse Stars (1877) players here. It makes little sense to have one split out and all the rest not. Also, as it stands, Category:Syracuse Stars (minor league) players is an ambiguous name when we have the other category in existence. ~ RobTalk 06:08, 10 June 2016 (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:Insects of Oman[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: upmerge as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:37, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That, for example, Amyna axis is found in Oman is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of that species. Another issue is that these categories tend to be very incomplete - for example Category:Insects of Yemen currently contains 15 articles, but there are over 100 butterfly species alone in Yemen. Examples of previous discussions about categorizing animals by whether they occur in small (on a global scale) countries: insects, Middle East. DexDor (talk) 06:06, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – per nom and similar discussions (examples of User:NotWith's many creations). Oculi (talk) 08:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – per nom. In this case a regional category seems to make more sense. Insects do not seem to care about political borders. Dimadick (talk) 08:00, 17 June 2016 (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:1934 establishments in the Tuvan People's Republic[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 Category:History of the Tuvan People's Republic and Category:History of Tuva, but delete the rest ... without prejudice to recreating them if there is a significant number of articles to populate them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:18, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One page for all of these categories, which clearly provides no useful classification. Upmerge to the most relevant establishments category and then delete the empty categories as per WP:SMALLCAT. And no, you didn't misread; this entire tree is for a single page. Note that the single page is already in Category:Tuva (which would have been the other plausible upmerge target). ~ RobTalk 05:39, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. This is categorization ad absurdum. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this can better be discussed in a fresh nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Point taken. I've added a comment on my earliest support vote. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:05, 18 June 2016 (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 Iran[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was deleted last year - categorizing by countries (rather than by larger regions) leads to a large number of category tags on some articles and often (as currently in this case) the category forms a very incomplete list. Lists (in this case List of mammals of Iran) are a much better way to cover this information. The one article currently in this category is already in Category:Mammals of the Middle East so no upmerge is needed. DexDor (talk) 05:34, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a category with a single item. Dimadick (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the same reasons as before and as an improper re-creation. WP:G4. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:45, 10 June 2016 (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:Top lists[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, but weakly. NO sign of any great enthusiasm for these categories, bur definitely no consensus to delete. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:34, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge as duplication of Category:Lists of superlatives. Trivialist (talk) 13:56, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'm not sure about this. The target has lists of things that are or were the top one at a point in time. These "top lists" list selections that were in the top 100 / 500 etc over a period of time. So, the two sets have something different in common. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak oppose , in addition to what Fayenatic london mentioned, there is also the element of objectivity. Items in the Lists of superlatives are objectively measurable superlatives while Top lists mostly contains top items based on election or judgment. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Oppose I think this might be an exception to WP:TOPTEN since we're not grouping by the items on that list but the lists themselves and that may be defining. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:07, 10 June 2016 (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:Glimcher Realty Trust[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: Renamed. (non-admin closure) Omni Flames (talk) 01:43, 19 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Glimcher Realty Trust no longer exists. The company is now known as WP Glimcher, and the WP Glimcher name is used on their malls, such as this page, which says "Managed by WP Glimcher" at the bottom of the page. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 02:50, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Discussion, as this is essentially a shopping malls category, should we really categorize shopping malls by owner, while ownership may very easily go from one company to a next? Is this a defining characteristic? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 05:24, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept per nom. I wouldn't be opposed to a broader discussion of whether individual properties were defined by their REIT. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:09, 10 June 2016 (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:2016 in San Jose, California[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow-up nomination to the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 28. This should likely be discussed as well, especially given that the parent Category:2016 in the San Francisco Bay Area has been deleted. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion for or against deletion; this is merely procedural. ~ RobTalk 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article is adequatedly parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:19, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per precedent. Overly narrow, given the content we have. --PanchoS (talk) 08:55, 15 June 2016 (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:2016 in San Francisco, California[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: no consensus. Any further nomination should consider this alongside Category:2014 in San Francisco, California. It might want to consider merger to multiple parents rather than outright deletion, and to consider these categories in the context of Category:2000s in San Francisco, California and Category:2000s in San Francisco, California. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Procedural follow-up nomination to the discussions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 28. This should likely be discussed as well, especially given that the parent Category:2016 in the San Francisco Bay Area has been deleted. Please note that I'm not expressing an opinion for or against deletion; this is merely procedural. ~ RobTalk 05:18, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The article is adequately parented. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Can't see how this is procedurally a follow-up of any of these CfDs. The category is sufficiently populated, with San Francisco being a city that should generate enough content for per-year categories, at least for the more recent years. --PanchoS (talk) 08:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given that we deleted a city and year category for San Jose and deleted the parent of this category, it seemed worth a discussion. (Still not expressing an opinion.) ~ RobTalk 15:22, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep at least for the for the years of the 2010s decade. It looks like SF generates just enough content to populate these categories decently. If not kept, it should be upmerged to its parents. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 20 June 2016 (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:Wikipedia categories named after cities[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/rename/delete as per nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:32, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
nominated categories
Merge:
Rename:
Delete:
Nominator's rationale: As a follow up to this recent discussion, I suggest that for these hidden "administrative" categories, we do not need to draw distinctions between cities and other types of populated places. So I suggest that we eliminate the Category:Wikipedia categories named after cities tree in favour of the broader Category:Wikipedia categories named after populated places tree. I do not believe that drawing a distinction between different types of populated place is useful in the administrative context. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:14, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – there is no need to split these admin categories into types of place. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I don't see the advantage of this technical breakdown by type of populated places. (Note, though, that I also don't see the advantage of this entire category tree.) RevelationDirect (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other "Named After" Nomination There is an open nomination for Category:Wikipedia categories named after awards located here. Your input (pro/con/other) is always welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 14:16, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I'm not even sure there is an agreed international definition of what constitutes a city.Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete wholly unnecessary self-reference. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:16, 13 June 2016 (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:Oceanic string quartets[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: upmerge to Category:String quartets. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 18 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: String quartets are categorised by country, not by continent. Further, the adjective from Oceania is Oceanian, not Oceanic (an oceanic string quartet would be one situated in the middle of an ocean, not one in Oceania). Jack of Oz [pleasantries] 04:21, 10 June 2016 (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:Cyprus peace process[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: withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:30, 20 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not saying the situation in Cyprus was outright "peaceful", it is no longer determined by a violent conflict. The ongoing process is about reconciliation or, more precisely, about the possible reunification of Cyprus. PanchoS (talk) 10:22, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - frankly i'm neutral, but for others i would like to note that "Cyprus peace process" has 11200 hits on Google, while "Cyprus reconciliation process" has 102 hits on Google.In Google Books (mostly reliable sources) - we have 364 hits for "Cyprus peace process" and none for "Cyprus reconciliation process". By the way, we certainly need an article on this topic, so when this discussion is finished, i shall start one.GreyShark (dibra) 11:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As soon as someone creates a stub article on the topic, I'll favor speedily renaming this category to match it. In the mean time, I have no preference and no objection. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion: "Cyprus reunification process"? The articles on various plans use this word as the goal. – Fayenatic London 08:24, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: @Greyshark09: @RevelationDirect: pinging contributors again. – Fayenatic London 15:05, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: I actually started writing an article about the (proposed) Reunification of Cyprus (no, not the currently linked Annan Plan) a few weeks ago. Of course that reunification process is not completed, and it may fail again. But even if there were a full breakdown of the process, it probably won't ever be abandoned as an idea, similar to the Korean reunification, the Unification of Romania and Moldova or the Chinese unification, but different to these in that it isn't (necessarily) based on ethnic nationalism. Actually, this is a slightly different perspective to the reconciliation process that indeed in the literature is usually referred to as "peace process". I'm happy to withdraw my nomination until the dust has settled, but would like to invite you, Greyshark09, RevelationDirect and others to team up with me in writing one or even both articles on this topic. This is no talk forum here, but we might want to use this discussion to come up with a plan how to organize the topic and basically how to proceed from here. --PanchoS (talk) 16:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 03:55, 10 June 2016 (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:Fireworks festivals in Canada[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:23, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a followup to a previous CfD that succeeded in deleting a number of narrow per-country categories for fireworks festivals. We're usually trying to have broader categories first, before intersecting one concept with the other. Therefore it would be preferable to have a robust set of categories that cover everything about fireworks in a country (festivals, law, companies etc.), before further subdividing. If this approach yields, say, more than five articles for a country like China, a Category:Fireworks in China category could be (re)created. PanchoS (talk) 02:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For the record, I'm listed as the original creator here, but that's only because I was the closer of the original discussion, which nominated some categories for deletion, but listed this for simple renaming as it was larger than the deletion candidates — so my action as closer was to rename this as nominated, but to relist the deletion candidates as a consensus had not quite formed on that part of the nomination. However, as the relisted discussion, linked by PanchoS above, achieved a new consensus about how to handle this and the USian sibling, I have no objection to the nomination. Bearcat (talk) 04:41, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @PanchoS and Bearcat: Category:Fireworks festivals is a subcategory of Category:Fireworks shows but both categories seem to contain the same type of events. Perhaps it's feasible to keep the bigger country categories by merging festivals and shows. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:18, 19 June 2016 (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:Cartography journals[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: upmerge to both Category:Geography journals and Category:Cartography. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:20, 23 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Cat contains 1 article and 2 redirects. Even if there were more entries, I don't really see the utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals". Upmerge to Category:Geography journals. Randykitty (talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. did you try googling for "cartography journals"? it'd have readily provided an abundance of such publications, thus demonstrating the potential for growth of this category. the fact that you see no utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals" only shows how much you know about the subject. not only is cartography a notable topic on its own, but it's also not entirely contained within geography, re: navigation, surveying, geodesy, etc. your proposal is equivalent to deleting a medical specialty journal category. fgnievinski (talk) 08:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: as I said, even if there exist more journals, I don't see any need to split this category off. Cartography belongs in geography. --Randykitty (talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear that this is too small to justify a category at its current size. The question that should be discussed further is whether there's potential for growth or not.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 01:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose While cartography and geography have some overlap, cartography is not wholly in geography. Topography of the Moon, Brain mapping, human genome map--these could all be considered as topics in cartography, but not geography. Hence. there is utility in separating these two fields. I understand the smallcat motivation for deletion, but this cat has links to both Category:Geography journals and Category:Cartography. If this cat is deleted, Marcocapelle has the right idea--articles need to be upmerged to both parent categories, so the journals don't lose their link to cartography. In terms of potential for growth, Journals in Cartography, GIS, and Geovisualization shows 22 journals with impact factors and thus probably notable. There seems some potential for growth, but the articles need to be written. --Mark viking (talk) 03:58, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that grouping together journals on subjects as diverse as brain mapping, genetic mapping, Moon topography, and the history of cartography (in the sense of making maps of the Earth) makes no sense at all. Indeed, none of these subjects (except for the history one) is in the category "cartography". I am quite certain that readers of, say, Human Brain Mapping would be flabbergasted to find that journal categorized as a "cartography journal" (which in addition is a subcat of "Earth and atmospheric sciences journals"). Heck, I am sure that even cartographers will not consider those subjects to be part of cartography. --Randykitty (talk) 11:00, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I am, or was, a neuroscientist. We used mapping techniques--Voronoi diagrams, chloropleth maps, traditional map color LUTs-- all the time in mapping studies of the cortex. And we called them maps. It is Human Brain Mapping, not Human Brain Plotting. Cartography is about map making. This historically meant geographic map-making, but the field has broadened in scope since then to encompass general visualization techniques for spatial information. --Mark viking (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is all true, yet nobody has ever called this kind of mapping "cartography". That term has been used almost exclusively for geographical mapping (I'm sure you'll be able to find the odd example where somebody used "cartography", but my point is that 99% of the time people do not associate brain or genetic mapping with "crtography). Nobody ever talks about "Human Brain Cartography" or "gene cartography". --Randykitty (talk) 08:42, 14 June 2016 (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/2016_June_10&oldid=1079915078"