Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 28 June 30 >

June 29[edit]

Category:MTR stations built on reclaimed land[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. – Fayenatic London 11:36, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Option A
Option B added upon second relisting
Nominator's rationale: Current naming is a bit too specific and it doesn't have a proper parent category. Jc86035 (talk) Use {{re|Jc86035}}
to reply to me 10:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is a one-article category for a group of MTR stations in Hong Kong. If kept MTR should be expanded, an issues that applies to a whole tree. However do we need this category at all? Peterkingiron (talk) 13:29, 10 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I created this category to categorize railway stations in Hong Kong ONLY (I don't know this kind of category other than Hong Kong in fact) cope with the Chinese version of this category. If no other category names are appropriate, I suggest keeping this category name. Ckh3111 (talk) 01:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whether a building is on reclaimed land or not is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the building, so it's not a trait that requires categorization under any name. Bearcat (talk) 14:04, 11 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Bearcat (and then cfd the similar category for public housing) - there's no need to categorize buildings by characteristics of the history of the land they are on. DexDor (talk) 19:01, 12 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment People who proposed to delete the category did not know the backgrounds of Hong Kong infrastructure. Ckh3111 (talk) 07:04, 13 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment, while relisting I have added a similar category to the nomination based on User:DexDor's comment. @Jc86035, Peterkingiron, Ckh3111, and Bearcat: could you please indicate whether or not the two categories should be treated the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 18 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, Hi, Marcocapelle! These two categories can be considered to be the same category like "land reclamation in Hong Kong", but they should be considered to exist independently. Ckh3111 (talk) 10:10, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Both may be legitimate categories, but they are (and should be) Hong Kong specific. "reclaimed land" is potentially a subdivision of Hong Kong. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:56, 25 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC) [reply]
  • Comment, there is no clear consensus (yet) about whether or not to delete the categories, but there is some consensus that if kept it should clearly be Hong Kong specific. Therefore I added an option B to the nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as a non-defining and non-interesting property; anyone using them to navigate to articles will wonder why it exists, as none of the articles I looked at mentioned it. So much of HK is built on reclaimed land that classifying things by being built on such makes no sense; Whole districts are built on reclaimed land, so if you know a station or building is in that district you know that it’s on reclaimed land. But it’s the district that’s defining, not this property.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 02:35, 1 July 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:Albums produced by the Beach Boys[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. – Fayenatic London 11:06, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just include the individual members when they produced an album. Now it has subcategories for albums produced by the individual members, which is not produced by the band as a whole. Plus, this doesn't actually tell me *who* produced an album as the band's line-up changed over time. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:48, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep
WP:SYNTH: Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any of the sources.
WP:PRIMARY: Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.
  1. In real life, bands are recognized as entities, not as the sum of its members. The album officially states: "Produced by The Beach Boys". This does not equate to "Produced by X, Y, and Z from The Beach Boys". If it did, then we would be adding Category:Ringo Starr albums to everything by the Beatles. After all, Sgt. Pepper is by the Beatles, and Ringo was a Beatle during Sgt. Pepper.
  2. "This doesn't tell me 'who' produced the album" is a fallacy. Bruce Johnston was a member during the recording of Smiley Smile, but he made zero contributions to the album.
There's similar discussion related to this kind of thing at Talk:Imagine (John Lennon song)#Yoko Ono.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 10:08, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • needs rethink of scope - sounds good in theory to identify which members of the Beach Boys produced which albums though possibly better suited visually as list article where the combinations and performers can be identified. The current structure has 1100 Bel Air Place by Julio Iglesias, of which only track 4 was produced by Brian Wilson with the beach boys singing backup vocals seam a song bow to claim Brian Wilson produced the album Gnangarra 04:55, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Removed the cat. The personnel section only says that Wilson wrote the vocal arrangement - he did not officially produce the track.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 12:47, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
There are only a handful of albums produced by "The Beach Boys". Many of the albums in those individual categories are actually compilations, 99% of which were not produced by the Beach Boys or any of its members.--Ilovetopaint (talk) 09:03, 23 July 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:Articles with contributors link[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. This seems to rely on template:Infobox medical condition. – Fayenatic London 12:13, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An artefact of a trial that ended years ago, from the talk page, the linked (archived) discussion, and the instructions that no longer work. It’s being added to articles by templates, so will be easy to remove - and easy to recreate if one day someone decides to add something like it again. But right now it serves no purpose. JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 15:04, 29 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:Romantic period research academics[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:Historians of the Romantic period, as this seems the best fit within Category:Historians by period. – Fayenatic London 11:21, 31 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Option A, rename to align with sibling categories. Option B, upmerge to Category:Romanticism per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:41, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fayenatic london: It's okay as an interim solution, as you're right that some siblings are named differently anyway. In the end, presumably, all categories should be aligned with the main article Romanticism. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:55, 27 July 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:General economics and teaching[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 per precedents for other JEL classification code categories. – Fayenatic London 12:58, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as redundant and overlapping with existing categories, for general economics we already have Category:Economics and for teaching we already have Category:Economics education. See also this earlier discussion about Category:General economics. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 29 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:Buildings and structures in West Toodyay[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. Arguments to merge have sufficiently been countered by those in favor of keep. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:26, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. Pointless single-article category with no prospect of imminent expansion. West Toodyay is a small settlement, and we don't even have a Category:West Toodyay. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:08, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose - the category is neither pointless or no prospect of expansion, a close examination of the currently expanding Toodyaypedia project will show the former structures and structures that are being expanded in the current expansion of the toodyay project - if this gets deleted, it will almost immediately need to be re-created to make up for the described buildings - also the separation of the two - West Toodyay, and Toodyay is important and will become obvious as the toodyaypedia articles are adequately identified JarrahTree 10:13, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. I have no objection to re-creating the category if and when the new pages actually exist. In the meantime, it is an impediment to navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:24, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose the articles exist but, there is a problem in that West Toodyay was formerly Toodyay, the current Toodyay was formerly Newcastle, 100 odd years ago the names were changed due to newcastle WA being confused with newcastle NSW(see). about 50 years prior to that the main trading centre became Newcastle following three very significant floods, it really one of those fascinating stories you stumble across. Back to the Category, I started on the categorising of West Toodyay but thought that the way the articles had been written it wasnt clear that they were the "old toodyay" many are disambiguated as Toodyay so I stopped and started a discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia#Toodyay_vs_West_Toodyay_vs_Newcastle because the reference material uses Toodyay. Yes West Toodyay is a valid category, even the buildings will be but first we need to clarify how to address the changes. This will also alter a lot of article about early European exploration as what is now West Toodyay was where they set out from not the current Toodyay Gnangarra 10:40, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Reply. That's all "will be". I wish you good luck in creating the articles, but per WP:CAT, categories exist to provide navigation between articles. Until those articles exist, the category serves no purpose. If and when the articles are created, the categ can easily be-created. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:09, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • reply the articles exist, I stopped because of the need to clarify the complex naming issues first. Gnangarra 04:38, 1 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please read - Category:Buildings_and_structures_in_West_Toodyay now, sigh... or Wikipedia:WikiTown/Toodyaypedia or for that matter Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Western_Australia JarrahTree 11:50, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Wikipedia:WikiTown/Toodyaypedia/Stage 3 lists all of the articles in the current phase of the project. There are currently five articles that have been written but are waiting to be wikified and moved to article space; all five would be in Category:Buildings and structures in West Toodyay. Mitch Ames (talk) 12:59, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – SMALLCAT says (with my emphasis here) "Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members". There is nothing in the definition of Category:Buildings and structures in West Toodyay that restricts it to "a few members". There were more than "a few" buildings and structures in the town. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:36, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merge – West Toodyay is listed on the Shire of Toodyay's Municipal Inventory as having a "considerable" level of significance, with multiple sites/buildings/structures of interest, more than a few of which have articles. That would seem to justify the existence of the separate category. The Category:Buildings and structures in West Toodyay currently has 6 pages, and there are 5 more pages that, although still in project space, have been written, and I am working through the list to wikify them and move them to article space. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Even Toodyay has a population of under 5000, which is too small to need its own categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
... population of under 5000, ... too small to need its own categories — According to which guideline? Mitch Ames (talk) 09:53, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – the question is whether Category:Buildings and structures in Toodyay is so vast that it needs to be split into subcats. The answer is no. Oculi (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • a merge is nonsense West Toodyay and Toodyay are two different places, this isnt like merging magenta flowers and red flowers colours under one category. Gnangarra 04:36, 1 July 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:Rural Municipalities in Ilam[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: Moved as proposed. The topic has drawn little interest, and the prospects for a clearer resolution via relisting are unrealistic. The moves, as proposed, impose consistency. bd2412 T 01:05, 7 August 2017 (UTC)
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming for third-or fourth-level administrative divisions within a country. Note: an alternative would be the native name Gaupalika, but the article is probably at that name primarily as a means of disambiguation from the Canadian use of rural municipality. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fayenatic london (talk • contribs)
Copy of Speedy discussion
  • Consider upmerging to parent categories. Only 4 out of the 75 Nepalese district categories have a subcategory like this, it's questionable whether it adds value to have this extra split within the populated places of districts. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:44, 10 July 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:Doctor Who multi-Master stories[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 7 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created with the same purpose as Template:Multi-Master stories, which is also requested for deletion; this category has a mere one link, may have two in the future, but outside of that, it's not required at all. -- AlexTW 00:42, 29 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_29&oldid=1138411065"