Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 January 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 29 January 31 >

January 30[edit]

Constitutional referendums 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: keep, leaving it to User:BrownHairedGirl to expand the tree as indicated. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:24, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale We don't really do referendums that are not constitutional referendums. The categories currently contains none that could not comfortably sit in the nominated target. I think it unlikely that this will change. The contents seems to be about those rare occasions in which multiple referendums took place on the same day. While this is barely newsworthy for an article, I can see no justification for a category to contain them. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:59, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: WikiProject Ireland has been notified. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:16, 30 January 2017 (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:Casuarius[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 to parent as nominated. – Fayenatic London 23:54, 16 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All articles in Category:Casuariidae belong in the only subcategory, Casuarius. Lophotrochozoa (talk) 19:35, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category is small enough that it might as well be upmerged. But I'm not sure if Casuariidae necessarily covers exactly the same topic as Casuarius; it's not clearly monotypic when fossils are considered. I've added Emuarius to the family category, based on our Casuariiformes article, and restored the Casuariidae article from a redirect. There's a recent study that suggests Emuarius should be grouped with Dromaius without making an explicit assignment to Dromaiidae. One way or another, there will need to be an article (and category) for a family that includes Emuarius and other fossils. Plantdrew (talk) 04:15, 4 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or reverse merge? The proposal seems to suggest an upmerge while the rationale seems to suggest a downmerge. Please clarify. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, an earlier discussion about this same category was closed as keep. While consensus may change, this is still relevant information to keep in mind. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:31, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - One is redundant, but I think we need to see a precedent for where the cat should be. I'd suggest the widest clade, since potential fossil relatives may not be in the same genus. FunkMonk (talk) 13:34, 17 February 2017 (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:Lussivolutopsius[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: administrative close, category appears to have been deleted already per WP:G7 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 15:01, 30 January 2017 (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:2017 mixtape albums[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nebulous term. —swpbT 14:53, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Well-established/well-defined scheme. Should the entire Mixtape albums category scheme be reviewed with appropriate subcategories being nominated as well? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:25, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not really a "nebulous" term, but rather a well-defined concept in hip hop music. And as noted, there's already an established scheme of Category:Mixtape albums by year, with categories for almost every year all the way back to 1997 — so there's no reason to single this one out for isolated treatment different from the others. Bearcat (talk) 23:49, 5 February 2017 (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:2017s avalanches[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. —swpbT 14:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The nominator @swpb depopulated this category immediately before nominating it for deletion.[1] That defeats the purpose of a CFD discussion, because the category has effectively been deleted already. there is no point in anyone !voting to keep the category, because there is nothing to keep. So I have reverted the depopulation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually two problems here. First, there's the question of whether we actually have enough avalanches to split them out by individual year instead of just leaving them in the existing scheme of categorizing them by decade — and secondly, even if categorizing them by individual year is justified, this would still have to be renamed as Category:2017 avalanches, because 2017 is an individual year and not an entire decade. Since Category:2010s avalanches isn't large enough to really need splitouts by individual year, I believe this should just be deleted — but if consensus does lean toward subcatting them by year anyway, then it still definitely has to be renamed. Upmerge not needed, as the two articles categorized here were never actually removed from the decade category anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Both articles are already in Category:2010s avalanches, which is sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to the extent new ones are added, the 2010s category isn't overpopulated that division by year makes sense. 03:25, 7 February 2017 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carlossuarez46 (talk • contribs)
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:2016s avalanches[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization. —swpbT 14:49, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. The nominator @swpb depopulated this category immediately before nominating it for deletion.[2] That defeats the purpose of a CFD discussion, because the category has effectively been deleted already. there is no point in anyone !voting to keep the category, because there is nothing to keep. So I have reverted the depopulation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:54, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are actually two problems here. First, there's the question of whether we actually have enough avalanches to split them out by individual year instead of just leaving them in the existing scheme of categorizing them by decade — and secondly, even if categorizing them by individual year is justified, this would still have to be renamed as Category:2016 avalanches, because 2016 is an individual year and not an entire decade. Since Category:2010s avalanches isn't large enough to really need splitouts by individual year, I believe this should just be deleted — but if consensus does lean toward subcatting them by year anyway, then it still definitely has to be renamed. Upmerge not needed, as the sole article categorized here was never actually removed from the decade category anyway. Bearcat (talk) 16:13, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The one article is already in Category:2010s avalanches, which is sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 5 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per my above. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:26, 7 February 2017 (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:Air Transport in Ibiza[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small category. If not merged, it should be renamed to Aviation in Ibiza. – Fayenatic London 08:57, 30 January 2017 (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: New Zealand Dames Commander of the Order of the British Empire[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 22:21, 8 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect -- Sorry for the delay in replying. I had not considered a merge. What is your opinion? Thanks. Quis separabit? 02:22, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I have been reconsidering. I think I had a misperception. Sorry, guys. CFD WITHDRAWN BY NOM. Quis separabit? 18:30, 8 February 2017 (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:Married couples among space travelers[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) 17:19, 6 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is definitely not a defining characteristic. Pichpich (talk) 04:12, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'll also add that this isn't categorizing "couples" but rather individuals who are married to other astronauts - An important distinction, and if this were kept it would need a rename to better reflect what it is categorizing. The category name implies it is categorizing articles about specific couples (i.e. Brangelina, which doesn't even have it's own article) as opposed to individuals. VegaDark (talk) 09:02, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm also not seeing how this would be defining. Maybe if it were people who married in space... Mangoe (talk) 13:10, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - Isn't the term "married couples" tautological anyway? Mattximus (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I did not find this information immediately or easily on the internet when searching for it. The rather clumsy title was lifted straight from another archive wiki page. Please propose a better category if you are not happy with it. My personal favorite would be "astronaut couples" which is short and succinct. Mlindroo (talk) 03:47, 31 January 2017 (CET)
  • Delete; non-defining characteristic. The category system does not exist as a way to create lists for every individual bit of information that might happen to be applicable to one or more people; we categorize on characteristics that are central to a person's basic notability, not on every random fact about a person's life. If we kept this, we'd then have to start keeping "Astronauts who were married to politicians" for Mark Kelly and "Astronauts who were married to writers" for Sally Ride — but astronauts are not defined by the occupation of their spouse, and the basis for a category is defining characteristics, not the fact that a few people out there might be curious about what's essentially a bit of trivia. Bearcat (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We might possibly have a category for spouses of space travellers. The astronauts should be in their own categories uncluttered by articles on their spouses, though their alleged notability will often be inherited (suggesting NN). The fact that an astronaut is married is also NN. I so not think I have heard of cases where both spouses are astronauts; if there are some such couples, that would be worth a category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 5 February 2017 (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:Municipal districts in Nova Scotia[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 leave redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: (See previous CfD here withdrawn by nom for history.) The official name of this municipal status type in Nova Scotia (NS) is "district municipality" not "municipal district" as evidence by NS legislation that is the primary and definitive source of official municipal status type names, the Municipal Government Act, and other provincial publications such as this. Hwy43 (talk) 02:38, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Additional background: Nova Scotia (NS) has 12 district municipalities, British Columbia (BC) has 50 district municipalities, and Alberta (AB) has 64 municipal districts. Statistics Canada (StatCan) recognizes all as census subdivisions (CSDs) for census purposes. However, for decades, StatCan has incorrectly classified NS’s "district municipalities" as "municipal districts" (like AB’s municipal status type) in its CSD type classifications. As a result, the error is perpetuated through numerous official census publications. For example, the census profile for Guysborough then explicitly states, in error, that the CSD is a "municipal district". As StatCan is traditionally one of the most definitive and reliable sources for population and demographic information for Canadian communities, its error has been observed and replicated into Wikipedia as perceived common usage. Hwy43 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Summary of last CfD: Last time around, this was initially opposed by BrownHairedGirl per WP:COMMONNAME as Google News gave only 16 hits for "district municipality" "nova scotia", but 114 hits for "municipal district" "nova scotia" and because five of the twelve subject articles had "municipal district" in their titles, which would have created WP:C2D issues at that time. It was also opposed for the time being by RevelationDirect until some article names were first changed. The CfD was therefore withdrawn by the nominator. Hwy43 (talk) 02:52, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Response to Google News hits: A close look at the Google News hits that were originally provided above by BrownHairedGirl reveals that the majority in each search actually refer to district municipalities and municipal districts beyond NS. For the "district municipalities" search, all but three refer to "district municipalities" in BC, Ontario or elsewhere around the world. There are three however that refer to NS’s district municipalities using the proper term. [3] [4] [5]

For the "municipal districts" search, the vast majority refer to municipal districts in Alberta. Of the few hits that remain truly in NS, the majority of them refer to "municipal districts" as being electoral districts (i.e., wards) within regional or county municipalities. [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] Dartmouth is no longer a municipality in Nova Scotia. It is within the Halifax Regional Municipality, while Richmond is a county municipality. In the Barrington article, it is evident "municipal district" is being referred to as the ward within the municipality vacated by an elected official. For full disclosure, there are 4 hits of the >100 that perpetuate the StatCan mischaracterization of NS’s district municipalities. [11] [12] [13] [14]

This scrutinization reveals that the common name of the municipality status type is inconclusive using a Google News search. Given this, it is advisable to default to the official name of the municipal status type. Hwy43 (talk) 02:55, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Response to WP:C2D issue: A move of the five of the twelve articles that had "municipal district" was discussed here. The consensus was to move all twelve articles to the format of Municipality of the District of "Foo" to align with the official legal name format of these municipalities. Ten of the twelve were moved in short order. Redirects were in the way for two. Formal RMs were initiated and both were moved (see here and here). Therefore, there are now no C2D issues between the twelve articles and the proposed category name. In the first discussion, there was also agreement between myself and another editor that "District municipalities in Nova Scotia" was the appropriate title for this category, while another editor was non-committal after being provided with evidence that: 1) the common name for these types of municipalities was inconclusive; 2) the current state of "municipal districts" was ambiguous and confusing; and 3) "district municipalities" was precise and accurate. Hwy43 (talk) 03:23, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@BrownHairedGirl and RevelationDirect:, my nomination is back after implementing some article moves based on your past advice and the case from before is now copied, pasted and adapted above. I'll notify the WikiProject and others previously involved in the main article move discussion referenced above. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 03:28, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Now that the pages have been moved, and official names are used there is no reason not to also move the category to match. Mattximus (talk) 14:51, 30 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. I'm not grokking all the complexities of why this has turned into a fustercluck — but we should indeed describe and categorize populated places by their correct legal status, rather than squeezing them into alternative terms. Bearcat (talk) 16:17, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. Sorry, I don't have the energy to go through all the details again, but I see @Hwy43 has done tremendously detailed research into the terminology and presented it very clearly, so I want to withdraw the objection I made last time around. It would be quite wrong to let it stand if I haven't considered all the new evidence.
    Just one point: if the category is renamed, please keep the existing title as a category redirect, since it is a likely guess or search term. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:57, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with BrownHairedGirl that a category redirect be left behind. This is totally appropriate given how StatCan has used the alternate term for decades now. Cheers, Hwy43 (talk) 01:54, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Thanks for doing the leg work here with the articles first. No objection to a category redirect. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:13, 5 February 2017 (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/2017_January_30&oldid=1138410858"