Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 24 January 26 >

January 25[edit]

Category:Legends Football League venues[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Low-level league played in stadiums not specific to American football. WP:NONDEF and fails to satisfy exception by WP:OCVENUE. –Aidan721 (talk) 23:26, 25 January 2023 (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:Ottoman Baroque architecture[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 & rename. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 23:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: New WP:SMALLCAT with only main article and one subcategory. All content is also in the one subcategory, so easiest to delete this. Since they aren't making any more of these (the Ottoman Empire is over), no likelihood of expansion. These are Category:Buildings and structures of the Ottoman Empire.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 08:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: per my edit summary here, it would be more appropriate to delete and redirect Category:Baroque mosques to this category, as it's an unnecessary subcategory but not a sufficient one on its own. Most important examples of Ottoman Baroque are mosques but the category is too narrow to accommodate non-mosque examples of Ottoman Baroque (of which there are still many) and too vaguely named to be recognized as referring to the Ottoman context ("Baroque mosques in the Ottoman Empire" is better, but still unnecessary). I've added Mihrişah Sultan Complex to Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture just now, another example of this style which isn't a mosque, and there are many other buildings which could fit here in the future if the articles either exist and haven't been sorted or don't exist but could be created in the future. Either way, it's appropriate to have a broader category for Ottoman Baroque buildings. Not opposed to a rename instead, as long it's clear. R Prazeres (talk) 08:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Probably should be of, but expected to be speedy later.
  2. Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture was just made (today) by R Prazeres. It was duplicative and not necessary, so I've quickly nominated it for deletion.
  3. Article Ottoman Baroque architecture was also made by R Prazeres a few months ago. The term is also called "Turkish Baroque". As centuries older style "Ottoman architecture" is rather different than 19th century "Turkish Baroque", the more descriptive name is "Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire".
  4. Category:Baroque mosques was made only a year ago, so it's fairly recent. These are all in the Ottoman Empire.
  5. It would be silly to delete and redirect Category:Baroque mosques, as these are by far the most numerous examples, cross-categorized under long standing Category:Mosques.
  6. These are all Category:Buildings and structures of the Ottoman Empire.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:30, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • This response is astonishing, and seems to miss the point that Wikipedia is a work in progress. Why would we stick to unclear, imprecise, and potentially misleading category names, when we have the actual common terminology laid out in the main articles according to reliable sources? Why would we insist on an independent WP:OR classification in the categories just because it previously existed, with no basis in sources or even the articles?
  • To the main point: I've already explained the issue at that category's talk page here: "Baroque" architecture and "Ottoman Baroque" architecture are not the same thing, even if related. There may be actual examples of traditional European Baroque (Revival) architecture within the empire after the mid-19th century, the only relevant article currently being Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, but everything else belongs to a specific and recognizable subset of Ottoman architecture, not of Baroque architecture in the same tradition as European churches. If you need more context then read Ottoman architecture or the sources cited there; that's what they're for.
    • So if we want to use the older Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire as the main category for Ottoman Baroque buildings, then it needs to be renamed accordingly and the single church article should move elsewhere, as it's neither the same period or same style as the mosques. If not, then by all means delete it per WP:SMALLCAT if you like.
  • Re: #3: I don't even know what point you're trying to make here. Ottoman Baroque architecture was actually created two years ago, not months ago, (and is thoroughly sourced, I might add) and is an expansion of the subtopic covered at Ottoman architecture. The "Ottoman Baroque" or "Turkish Baroque" actually corresponds largely to the 18th century, bleeding into the early 19th century, and it's part of Ottoman architecture as I already said, not a separate thing. If we do not want to have subcategories for substyles or subperiods within the 600-year history of Ottoman architecture (a reasonable option if it reduces further confusion), then we could delete the "Baroque mosques" and "Ottoman Baroque" categories altogether and move the mosques simply to Category:Ottoman mosques (for example), if we agree on that. Otherwise, it's a reasonably clear category per the articles.
  • Re: #5: I literally just explained that they not all Ottoman Baroque buildings are mosques, so why keep only the category that excludes relevant examples?
  • Either way, the solution is not Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire as is. R Prazeres (talk) 19:51, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Please learn our practices. These are not people. No matter that some literature calls it "Ottoman Baroque" as a shorthand, that usage means Ottoman Empire, not Ottoman Turks people nor Ottoman (furniture). We have naming conventions and many other guidelines that specify Wikipedia:Categorization of people by nationality demonym as a prefix, and by country "the Ottoman Empire" as a suffix. Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire is long standing. Stop making categories that do not follow the guidelines. Enough said.
William Allen Simpson (talk) 23:02, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
You've obfuscated this question beyond recognition. This is about an architectural style, it has nothing to do with WP:PEOPLECAT, nor is this a country category. It doesn't matter where the term "Ottoman" is coming from, it's simply a label in line with common and published terminology on the topic. "Baroque architecture" on its own is absolutely not. "Some literature", as you insultingly dismiss it, is the majority of relevant scholarly literature on the topic, it's literally what Wikipedia is supposed to follow per WP:RELIABLE and WP:COMMONNAME. Your personal interpretations of these art history terms, whatever they are, are irrelevant by comparison. I see nothing in WP:CATNAME that argues in favour of this unclear point you're making, and you're requesting that we instead ignore fundamental content policies for some tenuous status quo argument. R Prazeres (talk) 00:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • A question - are all Baroque mosques within the former Ottoman Empire, or are there also mosques in this style beyond its boundaries (e.g., in Morocco, Oman, or Iran)? If the latter, then the proposed new category might be better as a subcategory of the current category. Grutness...wha? 12:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are all mosques built within the Ottoman Empire, yes, as reflected in the current contents. There is no such thing as "Baroque mosques" in general, in reliable sources, unless as a shorthand for Ottoman Baroque. R Prazeres (talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, as I mentioned already there are other buildings which would be properly categorized as Ottoman Baroque, per the main article and its sources, but are not currently in any of the categories discussed here. From a quick survey: Büyük Yeni Han, Tomb of Abdul Hamid I, İzzet Mehmet Pasha Mosque, Hacı Beşir Ağa Mosque, and possibly Hatice Sultan Mansion, in addition to other monuments which do not yet have their own articles. R Prazeres (talk) 07:29, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Marcocapelle, @RevelationDirect, and rename Baroque mosques? — Qwerfjkltalk 21:55, 2 February 2023 (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:Theatres that have burned down[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:Burned theaters Category:Burned theatres in line with parent; no consensus to delete. (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 21:58, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like an oddly titled category. Given that other similar categories (e.g., Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by tornado, Category:Buildings and structures destroyed by flooding) use the proposed form, it would make sense for this to follow suit. Grutness...wha? 02:03, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 25 January 2023 (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:Storm articles needing translation[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Very rarely populated. Articles about weather events are generally placed under "History articles needing translation from ___ Wikipedia" instead. Numberguy6 (talk) 18:31, 25 January 2023 (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:Indigenouism Artists[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 14:10, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT for just three people, whose head article was deleted last year per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenouism as an original research attempt to advance a novel thesis invented by the article's creator rather than a recognized or established genre of art. So clearly this can't be a defining characteristic of these people, if it isn't one that reliable sources would ascribe them with. And even if there were a basis for keeping it, it would have to be renamed "Indigenouism artists" for accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions anyway. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if nom is correct the articles in this category should be edited too, in order to remove Indigenouism artist from the body text. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    •  Done as this term was not verified from the extant English-language citation. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — WP:NOR inverse WP:C2D: deleted main article.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:17, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as above. – Fayenatic London 22:59, 1 February 2023 (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.

Museums in the United States 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: Rename Timrollpickering (talk) 21:30, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Relevant history:
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2023 January 15#Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state and city
Nominator's rationale: It only makes sense to replace city with populated place as "city" is not representative of the categories within. And it's counterintuitive to make an additional tree for towns/townships as well since it would worsen navigation. This also allows for existing split trees to be merged into a common branch to improve navigation. A museum or any building or any organization is not defined based on whether the place has city or town status. –Aidan721 (talk) 15:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a vote, and not really rooted in any kinda of WP policy, but I hate the term "populated place" as it's used here. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- With the widespread use of city for quite small places in US, I do not think it is necessary to make a change, but I am not voting as I do not really know. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are places in these categories that are legally not recognized as a city and do not belong. –Aidan721 (talk) 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This is not a vote, and not really rooted in any kinda of WP policy, but I hate the term "populated place" as it's used here. fuzzy510 (talk) 04:02, 26 January 2023 (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.

Old English names[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/merge Timrollpickering (talk) 21:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parents categories. The second and third categories here were tagged by PotterPayper (talk · contribs) without starting a discussion, but in related edit summaries he stated "Old English" is the name of the Wikipedia article for the language, "Anglo-Saxon" more commonly refers to the culture in England during the Dark Ages, though as a term it's become contentious among scholars. – Fayenatic London 09:35, 25 January 2023 (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 Historic Places Trust Category I listings[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 "historic places". (non-admin closure) Qwerfjkltalk 22:01, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
not tagged
Nominator's rationale: In doing a GA review of Evans Bay Patent Slip, it came to my attention that Heritage New Zealand (also renamed!) now uses Arabic numerals instead of Roman numerals for its categories. This is not my topic area, so I am unfamiliar with the recency of change, but I do believe a rename discussion is warranted.
These same two changes will need to apply to Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings by region and all of its subcategories as well as Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category II listings (Category 2), Category:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category II listings by region and all of its subcategories. I will more properly tag in the morning if someone else does not. Outside of renamed categories, there would also need to be adjustments for relevant entries called by Template:Infobox designation list.
Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 07:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed; I'm with Paora on this one. I set up the category tree initially and at that time, it reflected what was in place then. But things have moved on and if we are making any changes, we might as well do it properly. Schwede66 22:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Support this as part of the rename. Again, not my field. Editing the CfD to reflect. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 04:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I have added to this list (but not immediately tagged) the other Category categories. I have also designated another 20 categories in the NZHPT category tree for speedy renaming, including the parents of all of these. Sammi Brie (she/her • t • c) 05:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy is only for uncontested. So many related were contested, they have to be done here. Once losing there, cannot do it over again. Don't worry, I've done the multi-nomination, although it took more than 4 hours!
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename as above. Can we get category redirects from the old names as well? Stuartyeates (talk) 09:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, category redirects are an automated process for common names that passing editors might accidentally use. These names are so complicated and specific that it is better they are replaced entirely.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 10:19, 2 February 2023 (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:Del E. Webb buildings[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 21:27, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Appears to have been created by a COI/U. This essentially amounts to a client list. Graywalls (talk) 06:57, 25 January 2023 (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:HC2 Holdings[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 Timrollpickering (talk) 21:26, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Speedy rename: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 01:21, 25 January 2023 (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:Philosophy of Aristotle[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) William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:12, 27 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose merging Category:Philosophy of Aristotle to Category:Aristotelianism

Nominator's rationale: This is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic - all of aristotle's philosophy is referred to as both "the philosophy of aristotle" and "aristotelianism" interchangeably. All of aristotle's philosophy is also studied by philosophers regardless of this distinction - the subjects mentioned in the lead are either philosophical disciplines (logic) or studied by philosophical disciplines (biology and physics by philosophy of science, justice by ethics) - car chasm (talk) 00:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC) withdrawn per Marcocapelle[reply]
  • Oppose, the target is about Aristotelianism after Aristotle, that is an important distinction. A discussion about the names of the two categories could be useful though, the names are currently not distinct enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
    Gotcha, I'll withdraw it and update the category descriptions to be more clear. - car chasm (talk) 07:03, 25 January 2023 (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/2023_January_25&oldid=1140904026"