Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 19

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 18 June 20 >

June 19[edit]

Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta[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. – Fayenatic London 08:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category has been created for Governors-General. This category shouldn't cover both therefore. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • NO -- merge the Governors-General back here. That office lasted a mere 10 years and was held by just two people. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The split could have been meaningful if the Governors-General could be parented to Category:State of Malta. However, since the latter doesn't exist, presumably by lack of further content, the split between Governors and Governors-General becomes pretty pointless. So I agree with Peterkingiron that Category:Governors-General of Malta should be nominated for merge back. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 27 June 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:Iranian diaspora political office-holders[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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 5. – Fayenatic London 09:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. TM 22:18, 19 June 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:Organizations based in Mandatory Palestine[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. ℯxplicit 00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the term Mandatory Palestine refers to the time when this geographical region was ruled by the UK, it should follow British spelling. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:14, 19 June 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.

Organizations based in the Palestinian territories[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename per Option B, noting that this also matches local usage by bodies that include the word in their name, e.g. the PLO and Leaders Organization. – Fayenatic London 09:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming under one of the following options:

Option A - "Organizations" to "Organisations"
Option B - "Organisations" to "Organizations"
Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussions have been opened to handle similar issues for other countries
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:Baseball players from Ponce, Puerto Rico[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: double merge for baseball and basketball players; single merge suffices for boxers (since they are already in Category:Puerto Rican male boxers).

Also propose merging-

Category:Basketball players from Ponce, Puerto Rico to Category:Sportspeople from Ponce, Puerto Rico and
Category:Boxers from Ponce, Puerto Rico to Category:Sportspeople from Ponce, Puerto Rico
Nominator's rationale: :Nominator's rationale: Per multiple CFDs, here[1], here[2], here[3], here[4] here[5], and here[6] just being six examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople at the city town level. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all - even if the parent category and its subcats have no overlap, the parent categry will end up with 49 articles, so it doesn't need splitting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also upmerge, respectively, to Category:Puerto Rican baseball players, Category:Puerto Rican basketball players, and Category:Puerto Rican boxers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:23, 19 June 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:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash 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: soft delete while there is no info about the albums. – Fayenatic London 09:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A bit of a pointless category as it contains only redirects all going to the same article which offers no details about the albums themselves. Doesn't benefit readers. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There does appear to be a precedent to keep album categories, even if they are filled with redirects and not articles with actual content. However, the cited discussions were from several years ago. Perhaps consensus on the matter has changed; more input is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 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:Culverts[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. I checked the ones beginning A to P and confirm they are still all adequately categorised as the nominator says – some in "subterranean rivers". – Fayenatic London 09:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are generally about rivers, canals and bridges and are categorized as such - this category is unnecessary. Categorizing some canals (e.g. Lancaster Canal) in Category:Bridges is strange. DexDor (talk) 05:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – even the articles with 'culvert' in their names are in fact bridges. This seems to gather together anything that goes under or over a water course at some point. Oculi (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Culverts are small bridges (see File:Old Enon Road Stone Arch Culvert, northern side.jpg and its article, for example), so it makes sense to have bridges categorised as culverts. However, it's not particularly useful to separate culverts from other kinds of bridges; as far as I can tell, the dividing line is subjective. Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In Britain a culvert is an underground channel, not a bridge, anywhere in size from a substantial yet shortish drain to a lengthy artificially buried river. Ah, I now see culvert tells me the latter is a specifically UK usage. River Moselle (London) isn't a bridge. Has anyone categorised the Lancaster Canal as a bridge? I see the article says "the canal was culverted in three places, despite a local campaign for bridges to be built" so is that something to do with it? Thincat (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I see. But the other folk above seem to be saying culverts are bridges which certainly isn't true where I live. In the light of all this I agree that "culvert" isn't a good name for a category at all. A typical culvert (for me) wouldn't be notable anyway and a big one one would be better categorised as Category:Subterranean rivers or whatever. Things some people call culverts that i would call bridges can be categorised as bridges. For me, Lancaster Canal isn't any of these. It does not seem to be defined by its culverts or bridges. BTW, I'd like to distinguish artificial underground rivers from natural ones. Thincat (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename then purge -- There is room for a category for watercourse (rivers, brooks, etc) which are culverted for a substantial part of their course, but some of the articles are about waterways (such as Lancaster canal) most of which is not in a culvert. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: For consideration of a rename proposal.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:49, 19 June 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.

Historic farms[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 Category:Centennial farms to Category:Century farms, keep the rest. – Fayenatic London 09:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merger of "Centennial farms" and/or "Century farms" into generic "Historic farms". Thanks for notice about this. There's no difference intended between "Centennial" ones vs. "Century" ones; I have a small bias towards choosing to use "Century". Setting up a category redirect or merging "Centennial" into "Century" is fine. Also, Century farms can naturally be a subcategory of Historic farms. However, the term "Century farm" is a designation like a historic site listing which is specific, is recognized by various state agencies, involves documentation that one family owned and operated the farm for 100 years (where "in the same family" and "operating the farm" have to be defined well enough, which may vary slightly by state). This is like the difference between generic historic houses vs. houses which are specifically listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or the City of Los Angeles' Historic-Cultural Monuments or the like. See the Century Farm article which lists the state recognizing bodies. It is temporarily a small category because previous members were lost in the past (perhaps one or both categories were deleted in the past). ["Category:Century farms" was previously deleted by this CFD in 2011, in which !voting participants were ignorant even about what a century farm is. Perhaps Century Farm article was developed more then or after.] There is room for an explicit list of them, but Categories and Lists are complementary (per wp:CLT), and it makes sense to allow the category so that members for a list can be identified. --doncram 04:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.S. wp:SMALLCAT applies to categories with little or no potential for growth. Check out this 23 page list of new Century Farms designated in Iowa in 2016, for just one state's listings, found in 2 seconds of Google searching. I am not expecting that each one of these needs a Wikipedia article. But where they are notable and have articles, putting into a category to group them together is helpful. --doncram 04:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • P.P.S. There were only a couple members when the categories were nominated. Now it includes:
  1. Boyd–Wilson Farm
  2. Brabson's Ferry Plantation
  3. Corbett Farm
  4. Davies Manor
  5. Spencer Eakin Farm
  6. Earnest Farms Historic District
  7. Fairvue (Jefferson City, Tennessee)
  8. Augustus Fanno Farmhouse
  9. Farrar Distillery
  10. Harms Farm
  11. Maden Hall Farm
  12. Maymead Farm
  13. McPhail Angus Farm
  14. Oak Hill Farm
  15. Shamrock Acres
  16. Smithson–McCall Farm
  17. Taylor-Stevenson Ranch
and perhaps more.
Also Jacob Nuffer Farmstead in Minnesota (currently a redlink) is a NRHP-listed one which will get an article and the category sometime, as will many others. Of 2,000+ NRHP entries with "Farm" in their name, it's not easy to see which are designated century farms, but a good number are.--
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 00:42, 19 June 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.

Parodies of Sarah Palin[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, ensuring that the last two members also remain categorised as parodies. – Fayenatic London 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We already have a Category:Cultural depictions of Sarah Palin, which covers a wider scope of portrayals of Sarah Palin than just parodies alone. Also this is more in line with all the other categories which list cultural depictions of celebrities. Shouldn't parody categories be restricted to works? User:Kjell Knudde 15:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
Delete: Agree with nom, this category is redundant. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge to parent category Category:Cultural depictions of Sarah Palin. No reason to leave the articles uncategorized. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • No need to upmerge it. All the articles listed under "Category:Parodies of Sarah Palin" are already categorized under "Cultural depictions of Sarah Palin" too, so we won't lose any articles by simply deleting "Categories:Parodies of Sarah Palin". User:Kjell Knudde 13:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. Parodies are a legitimate form of cultural expression much different from simply the more general "cultural depictions", which could be graffiti or a campaign hat. Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: It looks like I created the Parodies category in November 2008. The Cultural Depictions category was created in December 2016. I have no strong opinion about having these articles in one of these categories vs. the other. KConWiki (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only the last 2 articles in the category clearly belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 22 June 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_June_19&oldid=1138411032"