Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6[edit]

Rivers and canals[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 as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rivers and canals of Ljubljana to Category:Rivers of Ljubljana
Propose splitting Category:Rivers and canals of Saint Petersburg to Category:Rivers of Saint Petersburg and Category:Canals of Saint Petersburg
Rationale: We have no other categories which group these bodies of water together in such way. Note that in the case of Ljubljana, the category only contains rivers; I'm not opposed to creating a canal category there should there be enough to justify it. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:40, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: I've created the category 'Rivers and canals of Ljubljana' instead of 'Rivers of Ljubljana' because it includes the canal Mali Graben (a natural canal, in any case not defined as a river but as a creek). There are at least two other canals in Ljubljana: the Gruber Canal [sl] and Curnovec [sl], both notable. However, as long as we don't have articles on all the three, I don't see a particular need to split the category. --Eleassar my talk 07:12, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Eleassar: The English Wikipedia article on Canal begins with "Canals and navigations are human-made channels for water ..." I think there might just be a translation issue here. Which river/creek/"canal" is the one at question here? RevelationDirect (talk) 10:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Eleassar:A creek is still a river; and for something, in English, to be called a "canal" requires that it be human-made. Based on this, Mali Graben is a river and not a canal. As I explicitly stated, I'm not opposed to subsequent creation of a canal category, should it be appropriate - only that, as of right now, the category only contains rivers. Note my Saint Petersburg nomination, included here, what I would have done if there had been an article about a canal in the Ljubljana category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:08, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, are you sure? (a source would be welcome - stream defines creeks/brooks as small to medium, and rivers as large) If so, then it is not a problem. Gruber Canal (a canal dug to drain the Ljubljana Marshes) is of particular interest/notability here. Or should it be 'Gruber Channel'? --Eleassar my talk 11:13, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Eleassar may be thinking of "channel". There are channels on the surface of Mars, but not canals. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:18, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support: Let's keep canals separate. If streams are an issue, then you could use 'Rivers and streams of Ljubljana', as per Category:Rivers and streams of Denmark...Jokulhlaup (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds good to me. Then when the article 'Gruber Canal' is created, we put it in the category 'Canals of Ljubljana'. The category should be named 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana' then (to include Mali Graben). --Eleassar my talk 08:56, 26 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Now that we're on the same page with the terminology. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:26, 27 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not entirely clear in the later part of this discussion whether the target should be 'Rivers and streams of Ljubljana' or 'Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana'. The former name fits better in the category tree (see Denmark example as mentioned in the discussion, or the sibling US category). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:33, 4 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It's clear this will be renamed, but we need to decide if it's "Rivers of Ljubljana", "Rivers and streams of Ljubljana", or "Rivers and creeks of Ljubljana".
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support original nomination (rivers) per Od Mishehu. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am inclined to accept the creator's explanation. "Canal" is cognate with "channel"; certain of the canals of Venice (e.g. Grand Canal) are probably not artificial. I am reluctant to encourage great use of "creek" as this has a very different meaning in America from Britain, where it means an arm of the sea, perhaps one that dries out at low tide. Creek also has a technical usage in British Customs administration referring to a place where goods could be landed that was not a legal port (but that just complicates things further. However, I would like to see us keeping the canals tree for artificial waterways, which may mean that a few things named as canals will be excluded from the canals tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:56, 12 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:Piccadilly[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. Arguments for deletion were mostly based on the fact that many of these articles represent either organizations based in Piccadilly but not defined by their headquarters location or buildings that belong in the subcategory. These were strong arguments and support purging the category if anyone cares to do so. When I took a cursory look through the articles, though, I found several which do not fit in the subcategory and go beyond just an organization's headquarters. I'm not going to list this at WP:CFD/W/M because it's unclear exactly how far purging should go, but at the very least, organizations who merely have their headquarters in this location can be removed by any interested editor. If the result is a WP:SMALLCAT issue, renomination is encouraged. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:51, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: except for the subcategory, it largely consists of companies and institutions that have their address on Piccadilly, London. I don't think Wikipedia should serve as an address book. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:14, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Makes little difference to me, I think Category:Piccadilly is perfectly encyclopedic IMO.♦ Dr. Blofeld 12:16, 25 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 00:14, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not convinced the street is defining for buildings in many cases. Categorizing tenants of those buildings by their mailing address seems very undefining. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (but no objection to rename adding London) -- Yes, Piccadilly is a main street in the West End of London, but it is also used for the district around it. I do not think we are dealing with mere registered offices of companies, but organisations that are genuinely based there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 12 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:Objects formerly considered planets[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:23, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category doesn't really group together similar topics - e.g. the Sun was considered a planet by some people in medieval Europe and Pluto was considered to be a planet from 1930-2006. This sort of thing is much better handled as a list - and there is already such a list at Planet#Former_planets. This category causes various odd categorizations such as putting Sun into Category:Planets and into Category:Astronomical controversies. DexDor (talk) 22:08, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although a cultural history of astronomy can be interesting, objects in space should be categories by what they actually are based on modern science. Otherwise, we'll have to place The Sun under Category:Ancient Greek chariot racers because of Helios. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:20, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The subject is adequately covered by the list in the section treated as a main article. Categories are a navigation aid. Those looking for an article Pluto will go straight there. The fact that is has joined Ceres and a few more as minor planets does not merit retention of this. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 12 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:Articles created or expanded during Geographical Indications in India Edit-a-thon 2016[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't normally categorize articles (and in this case it's the article pages rather than their talk pages) by who has created/edited them - it can lead to ownership issues, incorrect categorization etc. Note: This category is unparented (apart from being categorized as a hidden category). It is much better for initiatives like this to use a list (e.g. Wikipedia:WikiProject_India/Events/Geographical_Indications_in_India_Edit-a-thon#Articles) which can show redlinks, note if an article became a GA etc (than to add a category tag to the articles themselves). Example of a discussion about a similar category (although that was categorizing talk pages): Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_10#Category:Articles_created_or_improved_by_Dundee_Oral_Health_Wikipedia_Group_2016. DexDor (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Move to Talk Page if Kept I think this was intended as a talk page category based on the template it is using. Even there, the ability of this category to facilitate collaboration has probably passed. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:21, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • If kept, move to talk page -- it is at best an administrative category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:08, 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.

Category:List of ships of the Royal Canadian Navy[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Incorrectly named category (afaics there are no other "List of ..." categories). See User_talk:Robert_Brukner#.22List_of....22_category. DexDor (talk) 21:26, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category creator's rationale: sounds great to me. Please feel free to change it as soon as possible. Robert Brukner (talk) 22:04, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, having "list" in the name was apparently a misunderstanding. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:07, 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.

Category:Brazilian people of Levantine-Greek Orthodox Christian descent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT and can be upmerged. Note that a previous discussion concluded with Greek Orthodox categories being merged to Eastern Orthodox categories. ~ RobTalk 19:54, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both what religion one's ancestors had is not defining to otherwise-notable people. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:53, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per precedent. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:55, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- Within the area of the former Ottoman Empire, there was a millet system under which everyone was classified according to their religion. This made religion a quasi-nationality. How deep this should be reflected in expatriate descent categories is something on which I am uncertain. It may be that at that level there can be some merger of denominations, but not in the countries of origin. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 12 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:Auxiliary net laying ship classes[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; category has remained empty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 15 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We don't need both of these categories. They are auxiliary ships, but the relevant article is at Net laying ship, so I would suggest kepping Category:Net laying ship classes‎ of the two. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:34, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Andy Dingley: Hi! How are you? Lets coordinate. The category Category:Auxiliary gateship classes is connected to the very structured Category:Auxiliary ship classes, and via that category linked to numerous other categories of auxiliary classes. Why don't we just use the one? So please go ahead and delete Category:Auxiliary net laying ship classes, and might as well consider also deleting Category: net laying ship classes Robert Brukner (talk) 17:18, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Net laying ship classes‎ can be a sub-category of Category:Auxiliary gateship classes. There is just no requirement for parent-child category names to pattern-match each other. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't blank entries whilst they're still under discussion. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:52, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
hey, if that was me, sorry. I didn't see the link to this discussion. Robert Brukner (talk) 17:23, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're referring to Category:Auxiliary net laying ship classes then don't worry about it. I created that page, and I'm saying go ahead and delete it. I would, if I could. Robert Brukner (talk) 17:40, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The members have been moved out, making it difficult to discuss anything relevant. Category:Aloe-class net laying ships was one, Category:Ailanthus-class net laying ships another. Eventually these are rooted at Category:Net laying ships, a subcat of Category:Auxiliary ships. As both of these are some years older, I think both of the "* classes" cats should be deleted as dupes of these. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:14, 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:Financial terminology[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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 07:21, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:NONDEF, there aren't any articles about terminology in here, it's all direct content about finance. No need to merge, all articles are somewhere in the tree of Category:Finance already. (For a comparable nomination, see e.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_24#Category:Statistical_terminology). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:21, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've checked the articles in the category one by one recently but I must have overseen this one. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:51, 6 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:Nimr al-Nimr[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) 03:51, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT, WP:SMALLCAT. The contents of this cat relate entirely to the same person or set of events, and therefore, all of the articles are wikilinked to each other already as necessary. MSJapan (talk) 05:25, 6 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_6&oldid=1074816864"