Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 23 March 25 >

March 24[edit]

Category:Religion in Lithuania 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: upmerge. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:25, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, this container category with only two subcategories is an unnecessary layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:11, 24 March 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:Ships of Egypt[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: split. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:58, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There exist Category:Ships of ancient Greece (child of Category:Ships of Greece) and Category:Ancient Roman ships, both of which are children of Category:Ancient ships. It doesn't make sense for a category including modern ships to be a child category of Category:Ancient Egyptian technology. I'm trying to categorise the new stub Baris (ship). I considered simply creating the new category, but thought discussion might be better as there are several ancient ships in the existing category. PamD 18:14, 24 March 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:Dan Aykroyd[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:38, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 10:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 16:39, 24 March 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:Judges of Australian superior courts[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an ill-defined category that solely houses useful subcategories for judges of specific courts, and isn't repeated in another country that I can find. The "superior" focus means that there is no place for the many articles on judges of lower-level courts to be categorised by the court they sit on. New Zealand has Category:New Zealand judges by court - that approach seems to cover the purpose of this category in a better way. The Drover's Wife (talk) 08:36, 15 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. This would require removing the category from Category:Australian superior courts, which seems to me to be a retrograde step. It may be helpful to create Category:Australian judges by court as a new parent category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • @BrownHairedGirl: - what is the value of the category being in Category:Australian superior courts, specifically, that is so important that it involves complicating the broader category tree? If we create a new parent category over the top of the existing category, lower-level courts would be in the parent category, while higher-level courts would be buried further down the tree in this one. Readers looking for the contents of this category are far more likely to find it from a "judge in court" category tree than knowing that they need to look in the superior courts category. This structure is not used anywhere else on Wikipedia for equivalent articles, and I don't see the point of forcing Australia to stick with it. The Drover's Wife (talk) 04:30, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @The Drover's Wife: I think that the judges should be grouped in the same way as the courts.
There are various ways of slicing the court system of a federal country like Australia. The US categories are divided between Category:United States federal judges, Category:American state court judges and Category:County judges in the United States, and there may be a case for a similar structure in Australia, or some other alternative to the current "superior courts" grouping. But for now the distinction in the Australian court system is made on the basis of superior courts, and I don't see any gain in grouping judges differently to the courts.
The advantage of retaining it is that it keeps a distinct set of judges who operate at the level of case which sets precedent. I don't see any gain from mixing these judges with those of lower courts. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:33, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support I agree with @BrownHairedGirl: that it is preferable for judges should be grouped in the same way as courts. The problem as I see it is that I also agree with the rationale of @The Drover's Wife: because Category:Australian superior courts is similarly an ill-defined category that mostly consists of useful subcategories. In Australia "superior court" is not synonymous with supreme court or precedence - it has a variable legal meaning & includes some courts of limited jurisdiction, eg Family Court and NSW Land & Environment Court, see Judiciary of Australia#Superior and inferior courts. It seems unlikely that readers will know or care whether a particular court was a superior court or not. As for mixing judges, few district court judges are sufficiently notable for an article and I cannot find a category for judges of district courts or any other inferior court. I would suggest we start with the proposed renaming, then if there are sufficient judges of other courts to be listed, they can be added. One subtle tweak would be to sort them by the name of the court rather than the state eg Australian judges by court|Supreme Court of New South Wales rather than the current Category:Judges of Australian superior courts|New South Wales, which duplicates the effect of Category:Australian courts by jurisdiction. We can go through a similar exercise to re-organise the Courts category. Find bruce (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just on one point you mentioned: I specifically brought this up because we do have quite a few articles on lower-level judges: there's a number of County Court judges with articles, and although we don't really have articles on District Court judges that are solely notable for being District Court judges, I think there's enough of them with articles in some states to warrant being grouped by court. The Drover's Wife (talk) 07:13, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 14:09, 24 March 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 Union cricket players[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) 07:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: We do not categorise players by cricket club, unless said cricket club plays at first-class/List A/Twenty20 level - Railway Union has never played matches at this level, so per CRIC norm, this cricket club will not have a played for category. StickyWicket (talk) 13:08, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I would classify playing for a minor club as non-defining as per WP:COP#N. Jellyman (talk) 19:04, 26 March 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.

Roman limes[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 and merge. Deleting Category:Roman limes by province, and merging the others as specified in the nomination. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:26, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete/merge as a follow-up on this earlier discussion, avoiding an ambiguous non-English word while we already have category trees using proper English words with the same purpose (Roman frontiers and Roman fortifications). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support. These categories are not about ancient citrus fruit, so we should not use WP:JARGON to mislead readers or to teach them Latin military terminology. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:21, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consensus at the earlier discussion. I wonder if further merges with Category:Linear earthworks is also merited? Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:13, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong support again. – Fayenatic London 16:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- If we were to keep this limes might be changed to limes to show that this is not the plural of lime, but the nom is a better solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 27 March 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:Linear earthwork[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: speedy rename. – Fayenatic London 22:28, 26 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale categories usually take a plural form. Laurel Lodged (talk) 10:35, 24 March 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:Wikipedia men[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 both. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 05:09, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary categorization that only hinders navigation. The contents can just as easily reside in Category:Wikipedia gender. (Pinging the categories' creator, User:Apokrif) -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:40, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which "2 project pages" do you want to remove? Did you notice that Category:Wikipedia women is not a subcategory of Category:Wikipedia gender (so some pages belong to both categories)? Apokrif (talk) 05:06, 25 March 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:The Killing of Sister George[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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains two articles, unlikely to gain many more. Trivialist (talk) 03:43, 24 March 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:Recipients of the Order of Abdon Calderón[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. A list of the category's current contents is available at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 24. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The stated purpose of the Order of Abdon Calderón from Ecuador is to recognize extraordinary military service. In practice, it was given to high-ranking US military officials with little to no mention of Ecuador in their Wikipedia articles, like US Secretary of Defense George Marshall and US Admiral Chester W. Nimitz. The articles usually mention the award in passing within a long list of honors. If you want to see the clutter this type of category creates at the article level, take a look the train wreck at the bottom of this article. The recipients are already listified here in the main article. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:45, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete With Extreme Prejudice - I've seen that particular train wreck many times. Unfortunately, there are countless other articles with comparable levels of clutter. Anomalous+0 (talk) 10:44, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- If this were an award given by a country to its own military, I might taken a different view, but it is for foreigners whom Ecuador wants to butter up to, as bad as the diplomatic awards that we are currently regularly deleting. Listify if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 27 March 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:Utah Aviation Hall of Fame inductees[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) DannyS712 (talk) 01:05, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING) and WP:OCLOCATION
The Utah Aviation Hall of Fame was established in 1996 and recognizes noteworthy pilots who served in the US Armed Forces and are from Utah. The winners of this award are already listified here in the main article. Clicking through both the articles in the category plus the ones that could be added, the award is usually mentioned in passing along with other honors but doesn't seem defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:44, 24 March 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_March_24&oldid=892990177"