Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 31 February 2 >

February 1[edit]

Category:Libraries for the disabled[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). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:05, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are all libraries for the blind/visually-impaired, not for all manner of other disabilities. Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:50, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've never come across any other sort of library for disabled people.Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 13 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Neither have I. Anomalous+0 (talk) 08:49, 14 February 2019 (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:Half Man Half Biscuit[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 consensus of this ddiscussion, and many many precedents of deleting eponymous categories for musicians where the topics are already interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Nominator's rationale: With only albums and songs subcategories, which already interlink from one another, an eponymous category for this band simply isn't necessary. WP:OCEPON StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 02:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: - hmmmm. Once you do the delete, do you propose leaving the existing subcats as-is? Wouldn't the better option be to merge the subcats into this one and delete those subcats? A really paranoid android (talk) 23:41, 8 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Eponymous categories are discouraged unless an act has a large scope of articles to place in them (eg. Category:Britney Spears). Per the songs and albums projects, an artist's songs and albums should be placed in an appropriate Category:Songs by artist and Category:Albums by artist sub-category even if the act has an article for only one song/album. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 16:11, 10 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The rationale boils down to, "the subcategories are well-populated, and good housekeeping means that the base category is clean; it is therefore not needed". There is an obvious flaw in this logic: a messy base category with poorly-categorised entries would not be vulnerable to that argument.
The fact that the subcategories link to each other is good. The nomination overlooks the fact that readers couldn't find them without a base category.
Merging song and album categories looks like a really bad idea. A category which populated both Category:Albums by artist and Category:Songs by artist feels horrible to me.
It is incorrect to say that the nominated category contains only the two subcategories. It also contains the article Half Man Half Biscuit.
The nominated category is used in Template:Half Man Half Biscuit – which, very correctly, is included in several articles and contains no redlinks.
I fail to see how deletion of this category would help readers in any way at all. For me, ease of navigation for readers trumps all other considerations. Narky Blert (talk) 22:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, every eponymous category is going to have its eponymous article as an entry. There is nothing else but the songs and the albums though. This would suggest every single artist that has albums and songs categories (and only albums and song categories) should also have an eponymous category, which will just lead to overcategorization per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 04:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This seems like an entirely reasonable organization of information. bd2412 T 16:03, 15 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, per guideline and we have deleted many categories like this before. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:30, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Argumentum ad antiquitatem. Narky Blert (talk) 05:16, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    Not quite... There's a difference between invoking tradition for its own sake and stating that we have, on many prior occasions, considered the value of categories just like this one and found them to be lacking. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Other than the main article and 2 subcats, the only other page that I found that could be categorized here is the template—in other words, hardly enough content to warrant an eponymous category. The main article, as stated above, and the navigational template serve as gateways to the album and songs subcategories, which are also interlinked. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 13:34, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Plenty of albums and songs that already link to the main article in this category. No clear navigational benefit to keeping. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:04, 2 February 2019 (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.

Jabal al Akhdar[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: undiscused moves by now-blocked sockpuppet reverted, without prejudice to any future CFD proposal to rename them. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:56, 1 February 2019 (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:Railway stations by city[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) 08:04, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
added later
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT: single-item container category, with no reasonable prospect of expansion. The Athens subcat contained only 1 item, but added 4 more; it is v unlikely that any other Greek city BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is just adding a layer of navigation (both for readers in the country or by city trees. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:06, 2 February 2019 (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.

Theatres by city[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: dual merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: pointless single-item container catefories wih litle or no prosepct of expnansion, so they fail WP:SMALLCAT.
Their creator @Anatol Svahilec seems to be doing something similar with other topics, such as railway stations (see their category creations), and I hope taht they will desist pending a consensus on these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:52, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support This is just adding a layer of navigation (both for readers in the country or by city trees). RevelationDirect (talk) 04:07, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Also, the child categories should be upmerged into the other category they were removed from, Category:Theatres by city. - Eureka Lott 15:06, 3 February 2019 (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:Wave mechanics[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) 07:20, 16 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: main article is a dab fgnievinski (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think wave mechanics is a fine subcategory of waves. 'Waves' containing types of waves', 'wave mechanics' concerning the mechanics of waves. The dab page at Wave mechanics is nonsense to me. No one calls Schroedinger mechanics an unqualified 'wave mechanics' (although 'quantum wave mechanics' is used). WP:2DAB would apply. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I'm inclined to agree with Headbomb -- it makes good sense to separate out the articles pertaining to wave mechanics instead of having them mixed in with all the other articles in Category:Waves. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I suspect there is considerable room to create several rather more focused categories (sub-categories) out of the two that we have here. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:09, 9 February 2019 (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 from the Province of Rome[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. Despite the unwieldiness of the proposed new new title, there is consensus here to rename as proposed, based on the current title of the head article: Metropolitan City of Rome Capital.
That article has been moved 5 time since its creation in January 2015, each time without any sign of discussion, so it is unclear whether the current title accurately reflects WP:AT and relevant guidelines. Other subcats of Category:Metropolitan City of Rome Capital have been moved without discussion, some via CFDS (which shouldn't have happened, in view of the inconsistency) and at least one by an un-notified move of the category page, while Category:Rivers of the Province of Rome‎ still uses the old title.
This is all a bit of a mess; the best procedural path would have been a WP:RM discussion on the head article, followed by a group CFD nom of all the subcats. If editors have concerns about the title chosen here, please start with an RM discussion on the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I know the cat tree was named after People from the Province of foo, but the Province of Rome was renamed to the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. So, the cat should use the name of the second-tier administrative area (first tier is region) at that time or current name? Matthew hk (talk) 23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2019 (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:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name[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) 10:58, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose of this triple intersection? How is the fact that a book has the Divine Name a defining thing for a book? Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Actually this does seem to be a thing. Whether and how the Tetragrammaton is represented in a manuscript is considered significant in the scholarship of Biblical texts. That the the nom talks about a "book", rather than different manuscripts of the same book (or, in fact, tiny bits of it) suggests she knows little or nothing about the field. All the articles seem to mention this matter, many going into some detail - eg see Papyrus Fouad 266. Since the articles (like many of the MS fragments) are very short it does seem defining. Just because a drive-by editor does not immediately understand the purpose of a category is not a reason for deletion. If not kept, listify. The name might be improved. It used to be Category:Septuagint manuscripts with the Divine Name, but as the category note points out, there are in fact several different Greek translations of the Bible, besides the Septuagint. The category has been around since 2014 btw. Johnbod (talk) 15:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, at least four other Greek versions, for a start. But it isn't a triple conjunction. Would a rename to Category:Greek biblical manuscripts including the Divine Name help? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The presence of the Tetragrammaton is important to theological scholars (and possibly relevant to individual historical artefacts' notability) but isn't really a defining attribute for the purpose of the category system. Overall, I think this is redundant to categories such as Category:1st-century BC biblical manuscripts. The issues regarding the Septuagint v. other versions are unrelated (and have separate categories such as Category:Septuagint manuscripts). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - Category:Ancient Greek biblical manuscripts using the tetragrammaton. The present headnote says it "includes" them, which is unsatisfactory. The headnote should say that they contain the tetragrammaton or characters representing it. This is a significant subset of such MSS. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments – At least one of the manuscripts in this category, 4Q120, uses the Greek trigrammaton ΙΑΩ (surprisingly a red link), so a name with "tetragrammaton" may not be fully accurate. Also, if kept, I would suggest the title should contain "manuscripts that contain/display/include/use..." instead of "manuscripts containing/displaying/including/using...". Lastly, isn't "Early" more appropriate than "Ancient" in the context of dating Bible manuscripts and versions? -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:26, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2019 (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:Hospital buildings in Australia[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:Heritage-listed hospital buildings in Australia. If any need to be purged as outside that scope, but are notable on heritage grounds, then I suggest creating a list and including them in that list. – Fayenatic London 10:28, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. They are adequately characterized as hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They're not hospitals, they're hospital buildings which are specifically notable. Categorising nurses' homes, heritage-listed structures within notable hospitals, or abandoned former buildings of continuing hospitals as just "hospitals" is incorrect and unhelpful to readers. All of these structures are notable because they're heritage-listed (though it's plausible similar articles could be notable for other reasons, they don't presently exist): this category is essentially an Australian equivalent of Category:Listed hospital buildings in the United Kingdom and Category:Hospital buildings on the National Register of Historic Places (both subcategories of Category:Hospital buildings), except it doesn't specify a specific register because Australia devolved its equivalent of the NHRP to the states in the 2000s. As the nominator has other similar nominations going of categories whose contents were just plain old hospitals, I'm not entirely sure they ÷even looked at the contents of this one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 10:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • ALT rename to Category:Listed hospital buildings in Australia, just like its British sibling. That makes the purpose of the category a lot clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • This would shift it out of whack with the Australian category tree, which doesn't generally have categories amalgamating "heritage-listed" and "type of thing". "Listed" without further clarification also makes no sense in an Australian context. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are not hospitals but buildings which house or used to house hospitals, and are preserved for cultural heritage reasons. They should not be in a category tree for organizations. Dimadick (talk) 14:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as is clearly these are buildings and the category name should reflect that fact Hmains (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we call them heritage-listed hospital buildings? As far as their relationship with hospitals goes they should be in Category:Defunct hospitals in Australia‎ Rathfelder (talk) 19:45, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • None of these are about defunct hospitals either. Firstly, several of these are still in use. A nurses' home is still not a defunct hospital. Former buildings of ongoing hospitals are not "defunct hospitals": the hospital is not defunct if it ceases to use a notable building. I organised this category to have no overlap with Category:Defunct hospitals in Australia, because this category specifically refers to buildings - articles on institutions don't belong here. The Drover's Wife (talk) 22:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. They are hospital buildings and not hospitals .Shyamsunder (talk) 11:10, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clearly The Drover's Wife has put some thought into this. I'm quite happy for these articles to be categorised together. But if we are not careful all the other hospitals in Australia will appear in this category too. The note on the category page is clearly intended to stop that, but in my experience such notes dont have much effect. It's easy not to see them. I think the name of the category has to be clearer. Perhaps Notable hospital buildings in Australia? Rathfelder (talk) 15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, everything on Wikipedia is notable, so that is not a useful descriptor. It's either heritage-listed or nothing at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category is specifically for articles about buildings that are notable. Plenty of hospital buildings are mentioned in articles about hospitals where nobody suggests that the building itself is notable.Rathfelder (talk) 17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Heritage-listed hospital buildings in Australia to match industrial buildings in Queensland. I assume Heritage-listed is the appropriate local term. Some will have been converted to other purposes; others will be still in use to that merging to defunct would not be right. Please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    • To be clear, I oppose that rename and oppose relisting with a clear consensus to keep. This is not necessarily a category solely for heritage-listed buildings; it could well be that a hospital building was, for example, architecturally notable. There is no "heritage-listed buildings" category tree in Australia: moving an Australia-level article "to match" a Queensland-level article that's out of sync with the rest of the Australian category tree is a strange suggestion. The Drover's Wife (talk) 09:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Purge and then rename to Category:Heritage-listed hospital buildings in Australia, per User:Marcocapelle and User:Peterkingiron. This category is attempting to capture something which does not fit within current category structures and probably is too nuanced for categorization (based on the title, no one is going to think this is for "hospital buildings which are specifically notable" and not just "hospitals"). -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is no category tree for "heritage-listed buildings by type" in Australia, so what you're advocating means creating a random outlier that doesn't fit with the entire rest of the Australian category tree. The title is exactly what it says on the box, hospital buildings as opposed to hospitals, and any unlikely confusion is easily explained away by the category note. It's hardly "too nuanced for categorisation" - we categorise all kinds of buildings by type, and there are tons of notable hospital buildings on Wikipedia. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fair enough, but then my next choice would be to delete this category since, at present, it is a random outlier that doesn't fit with the rest of Category:Hospital buildings. I am not questioning the notability of the buildings, but I am struggling with the somewhat amorphous boundaries of this category—for hospital buildings, not hospitals (although most articles about hospitals should cover both the legal entity/organization as well as the building in which it is located), that are "specifically notable" due to a variety of unrelated/unconnected reasons. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • Most articles about hospitals would, indeed, cover both the organisation as well as the building - but articles about physical buildings do not. They aren't articles about hospitals, they're about buildings, and removing the category for what they actually are means that they inevitably get awkwardly miscategorised as hospitals - there's just nowhere to categorise them if you delete the category for what they actually are. We have this structure for many types of buildings, and I'm not sure why you seem to have difficulty with this one. The Drover's Wife (talk) 05:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • @The Drover's Wife: I wouldn't have any difficulties with this category if there existed Category:Hospital buildings by country; however, I suspect the distinction between Hospitals in Foo and Hospital buildings in Foo would very quickly become blurred in practice. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
            • It already does exist, as Category:Hospital buildings, just with a few national differences in application because of differing category trees between countries. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:44, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
              • The only national-level categories I see in Category:Hospital buildings are for heritage-listed buildings. For me, that is a difference in scope, not just a difference in application. I think my point stands that, without an additional qualifier (e.g. "heritage-listed"), it is impractical to maintain a distinction between Hospitals in X and Hospital buildings in X categories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment a possible use for the category under its present name but not the proposed "heritage-listed" name would be any buildings that remain on the former site of the Royal Adelaide Hospital. the hospital moved entirely to a new site in 2017 and the state government is renewing the old site under the title "Lot Fourteen".[1] Not all of the buildings are to be demolished, but I don't now if any of the kept ones are not heritage-listed, and even less if they are or will become wikinotable buildings. --Scott Davis Talk 01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is exactly the sort of case as to why I'm vehemently opposed to an outlier category for "heritage-listed": there are many other "types of buildings" categories of which many of the entries have articles because they're heritage-listed, but there are always buildings notable for other reasons. I can think of quite a few in similar situation to the old RAH that would pass WP:GNG. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Of the 20 articles, 19 are about heritage listed buildings. The other one is not primarily a hospital building at all. Rathfelder (talk) 15:58, 2 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are notable non-heritage-listed buildings, however, and that is not sufficient grounds to create an outlier that doesn't fit with the entire Australian category tree. The Drover's Wife (talk) 21:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There may be such buildings, but there dont seem to be any articles about them. And why would Australia be different from the rest of the world in this regard? Rathfelder (talk) 08:14, 7 February 2019 (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/2019_February_1&oldid=888468063"