September 6
Category:Roads in Orange County, California
- 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: Snowball Keep (Clear concensus on basic issue.) - WP:NAC ~ Cgingold (talk) 06:37, 12 September 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Consistent with naming conventions; LA County and most cities use "streets" rather than "roads" pbp 22:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Don't rename: As most entries in this category are numbered routes, either keep the original name or add other entries and rename it as "Category:Transportation in Orange County, California" Allen (Morriswa) (talk) 23:25, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep per Category:Roads in California by county and Category:Roads in the United States by state. (There are both streets and roads: they are different. See eg Category:Roads in Los Angeles County, California and Category:Streets in Los Angeles County, California.) Oculi (talk) 23:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose I have spent my entire time in urban areas, and most places people drive around here that are notable enough to have articles are roads, at least they aren't normally streets.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:29, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose. "Road" is a more inclusive term, because a street is one of several types of road. All of the category's current contents are roads, but hardly any are streets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:51, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- keep as is 'Roads in the United States' is a complete category tree that covers roads in the US, US states, etc. This is part of that tree. No valid reason to delete Hmains (talk) 17:31, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose - There is a discrepancy between the two. The roads categories are populated by highways and the like, while the streets categories cover common city streets. For more information on the difference between the two, see the scopes of WP:USRD and WP:USST. USRD covers state highways and such, while USST covers notable city streets. TCN7JM 12:20, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Colonial schools in India
- 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 2013 SEP 17 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:32, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Rename Category:Colonial schools in India to Category:Schools in British India
- Nominator's rationale The defining thing about these schools is that they existed in British India. Not that they were in some way "colonial" whatever exactly that would mean. This category should not include schools that were in French India or Portuguese India per its definition. Nor does the current definition suggest that the nature of the schools founder or governance is at issue. This is really just a plain x in y category, so we should name it so it clearly indicates that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose for now, pending clarification of the category's intended scope. Colonial India is not the same thing as "British India", either in time or geography. We have a Category:Colonial India, and its sub-Category:British India ... and the current description in the category fits better with "colonial India". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- The category header explicitly states that it is for British India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The header says that the scope is "British India during the colonial period under the British (18th century - 1947)". However, until the mid-19th century, British India was a smaller area. Why not use the more inclusive term? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- The category header explicitly states that it is for British India.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:31, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- At least, rename to Category:Schools in Colonial India. The nom could be implemented if in fact all the schools were in British territory, not those of other colonial powers (Danish, French or Portuguese) nor those in Princely territories. I doubt many of the schools were strictly "colonial". Peterkingiron (talk) 16:48, 7 September 2013 (UTC)----
- 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:Nazi scientists
- 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: nothing to discuss. The category had been redirected by its creator before the nomination was made. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment it's a category redirect... there's no categorization, since it redirects to German scientists. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment if this is necessary, then it should be broken out for the period, Category: Scientists of Nazi Germany, instead of mixing up whether they were Nazi members or just subjects/nationals of Nazi Germany. -- 70.24.244.158 (talk) 14:01, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment The category has already been merged, so why is it being discussed here? Jarble (talk) 14:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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 Laureldale, Pennsylvania
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:People from Laureldale, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Berks County, Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just one entry. ...William 11:09, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nominator, but re-create as a ((category redirect)). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:59, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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 Baldwin, Pennsylvania
- 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 2013 SEP 17 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 19:29, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:People from Baldwin, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Allegheny County, Pennsylvania
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only 3 entries. ...William 11:04, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Keep. Baldwin has a population of 19,000, so it is not a small place. This category is probably capable of expansion. (I started looking for more entries using pages that link to "Baldwin, Pennsylvania", but unfortunately a set of ridiculously huge
backboxesnavboxes has spammed hundreds of links, which makes it too hard to find anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:10, 6 September 2013 (UTC)- Comment I looked for others through all those links and couldn't find anyone but the three. What are backboxes and what if anything can be done about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:40, 6 September 2013 (talk • contribs) WilliamJE
- Sorry, I meant navboxes (navigation templates) not backboxes. There are 3 of them, of which at least 2 (((Allegheny County, Pennsylvania)) and ((Pennsylvania))) need to be massively trimmed. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:23, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment I looked for others through all those links and couldn't find anyone but the three. What are backboxes and what if anything can be done about them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 19:40, 6 September 2013 (talk • contribs) WilliamJE
- Merge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 6 September 2013 (UTC)----
- 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.
Olympic games bids by city or country
- 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. Dana boomer (talk) 03:40, 18 September 2013 (UTC)
- Propose deleting:
Category:Olympic Games bids by country and subcats
|
|---|
|
Category:Olympic Games bids by city and subcats
|
|---|
|
- Nominator's rationale: Delete all per WP:SMALLCAT. We have a total of only 26 articles on Olympic games bids, and this attempt to group them by city and by country just creates a lot of small categories. Even if we upmerged the city categories to all parents, the biggest country categories would be Great Britain and USA, with only 3 pages each.
The articles are already categorised under Winter Olympics bids and Summer Olympics bids. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:46, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- delete 26 pages do not need to be subdivided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 16:08, 6 September 2013
- delete' some cat have only one article.... 16:16, 6 September 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stigni (talk • contribs)
- 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:Creators of works in the Danish Culture Canon
- 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. The discussion might have taken a different turn if the category creator had been able to provide citations for his argument dated 14:04, 7 September 2013. The policy reasons given by others carry substantial weight. – Fayenatic London 19:57, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: This category categorizes people who have created/designed something which has (in effect) won an award. Being an award recipient is not generally considered a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD) and being an indirect award recipient is even less so. These articles should be (and those I've checked are) in categories such as Category:Danish novelists and Category:Danish composers. For info: The list at Danish Culture Canon includes the names of the authors/creators etc. DexDor (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Purge and see what is left -- I think the creator has sought to bring together into a single category a series of fragmented aspects of the best of Danish culture. What we need is a further parent category bringing together the authors, composers and whatever may be left: possible Category:Danish Culture Canon creators. At present we have a tree where the writers go up to literature and the composers to music, without any Danish culture linkages between them. My suggested new category should largely be a container category. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:56, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- KEEP. As creator of the category, I thought it was useful to be able to identify articles which reflected the high status accorded in Denmark to the authors of the works in question. Just as authors, musicians, artists, etc., can be listed on the basis of their honours and prizes (see for example the various categories attached to the Jørn Utzon article, I thought it was just as appropriate to add this category. The alternative would of course to add See also: Danish Culture Canon to all the individuals in question but the category is much neater. I also created the Category:Danish Culture Canon but this was for the works rather than for the creators. There is also Category:Danish Culture Canon committee members. I would welcome further comments on the issue.--Ipigott (talk) 13:37, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- As noted below, the head article includes a reference describing the canon as a "damp squib". Do you have any evidence that the high status of these authors derives from the inclusion in the canon? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:47, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Strong keep A most silly invalid nomination. Common sense dictates that this is a useful category. ♦ Dr. Blofeld 14:40, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. It may be appropriate to categorise the works as members of this list, but the culture canon is a list of works, not of authors. Categorising the authors in this way falls under WP:OC#TOPTEN, and is usually deprecated. An exception could be made if there was evidence that the canon had become a significant cultural reference point, but the head article says it hasn't. At Danish Culture Canon#Impact the article reads: "According to press reports, the canon has had limited impact and has been ineffective in its stated goal of fostering integration between the Danes and the immigrant communities". The source is Denmark’s canon – a damp squib (Presseurop, 27 January 2011). The same article suggests that the canon is itself part of a left-right dispute over the status of high culture. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:45, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I've looked at the examples in WP:OC#TOPTEN and hardly think the creators in the cultural canon can be compared to those in the "top 10", etc. I usually try to be as objective as possible in writing articles for Wikipedia. I therefore thought it was important to point out that the Danish Cultural Canon was not universally accepted, and that there were some critical press reports and some unfavourable comments from politicians not in the government at the time (which is not at all surprising). The canon is, however, widely known throughout the country, especially in the schools, where the authors, artists, musicians, etc., are given the special attention they deserve, partly as a result of the canon. Many, if not most, of those in the canon have been included posthumously, unlike those who happen to win prizes during their lifetime. I tend to write articles mainly about Denmark and Luxembourg but the Latvians have also developed a cultural canon, very much on the lines of the Danish one, and the Dutch have a canon of literature. I hope sooner or later these will also be covered extensively in the EN Wikipedia. If they are, we will probably see a similar need to categorize the creators involved. As for the "list" you suggest, the article Danish Culture Canon (and its equivalent in several other languages), contains a full list. I cannot accept your statement that the canon is a list of works, not of authors. If you turn up the background material (quoted in many of the articles references), you will see that the selection committees felt it extremely important to include the creators, with extensive biographies, as the individual works selected were intended to be a catalyst for arousing interest in their other works.--Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I would, by the way, have no objection to the category being changed to Category:Danish Culture Canon creators but I think it would be a mistake to remove it altogether. After all, many of the biographies have been written or expanded as a result of the creators' inclusion in the canon.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Ipigott, your argument might persuade me if it was based on something other than your own assertion. I'm sure that you write in good faith, but you are arguing against the only reference so far on the canon's impact, your counter-argument needs references in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Then, BrownHairdedGirl, you have not read the Impact section very carefully. It also states: "Berlingske pointed out, nevertheless, that the canon will remain a milestone as a non-socialist government had dared to "simply state that some works are better than others" and assert in that "this country may well be a modern society in a globalised world but that does not mean we have no merit as a nation or no right to national pride." This must be taken as a very positive statement. In any case, I do not believe the impact of the canon by third sources should be a criterion for categorization.--Ipigott (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I did read it carefully, and it's a pity that you appear not to have read the section you just quoted. Berlingske's remarks about the canon relate to its positioning in a politico-cultural dispute. They do not provide any evidence of the significance of the canon in relation to the literature or its creators.
And I'm afraid that if you reject the use of secondary sources, then there is no point in discussing this further. --BrownHairedGirl (talk)• (contribs) 19:36, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- I did read it carefully, and it's a pity that you appear not to have read the section you just quoted. Berlingske's remarks about the canon relate to its positioning in a politico-cultural dispute. They do not provide any evidence of the significance of the canon in relation to the literature or its creators.
- Then, BrownHairdedGirl, you have not read the Impact section very carefully. It also states: "Berlingske pointed out, nevertheless, that the canon will remain a milestone as a non-socialist government had dared to "simply state that some works are better than others" and assert in that "this country may well be a modern society in a globalised world but that does not mean we have no merit as a nation or no right to national pride." This must be taken as a very positive statement. In any case, I do not believe the impact of the canon by third sources should be a criterion for categorization.--Ipigott (talk) 17:41, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Reply. Ipigott, your argument might persuade me if it was based on something other than your own assertion. I'm sure that you write in good faith, but you are arguing against the only reference so far on the canon's impact, your counter-argument needs references in reliable sources. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Comment: I've looked at the examples in WP:OC#TOPTEN and hardly think the creators in the cultural canon can be compared to those in the "top 10", etc. I usually try to be as objective as possible in writing articles for Wikipedia. I therefore thought it was important to point out that the Danish Cultural Canon was not universally accepted, and that there were some critical press reports and some unfavourable comments from politicians not in the government at the time (which is not at all surprising). The canon is, however, widely known throughout the country, especially in the schools, where the authors, artists, musicians, etc., are given the special attention they deserve, partly as a result of the canon. Many, if not most, of those in the canon have been included posthumously, unlike those who happen to win prizes during their lifetime. I tend to write articles mainly about Denmark and Luxembourg but the Latvians have also developed a cultural canon, very much on the lines of the Danish one, and the Dutch have a canon of literature. I hope sooner or later these will also be covered extensively in the EN Wikipedia. If they are, we will probably see a similar need to categorize the creators involved. As for the "list" you suggest, the article Danish Culture Canon (and its equivalent in several other languages), contains a full list. I cannot accept your statement that the canon is a list of works, not of authors. If you turn up the background material (quoted in many of the articles references), you will see that the selection committees felt it extremely important to include the creators, with extensive biographies, as the individual works selected were intended to be a catalyst for arousing interest in their other works.--Ipigott (talk) 14:04, 7 September 2013 (UTC) I would, by the way, have no objection to the category being changed to Category:Danish Culture Canon creators but I think it would be a mistake to remove it altogether. After all, many of the biographies have been written or expanded as a result of the creators' inclusion in the canon.--Ipigott (talk) 14:23, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- OK, I see what you are driving at and I accept your argument. Then it all comes down to whether categories should be based on positive or negative press coverage! Maybe we should just use the apparently less controversial Category:Danish Culture Canon for the creators too, just to indicate that they (including their oeuvre) were included in the canon. Or do you think that would be unacceptable too?--Ipigott (talk) 14:01, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
- Further comment (voted above) -- The idea that the creator has adopted is a legitimate one, but the approach is wrong. I see nothing wroing in having a category for the Danish Culture Canon, but it should be a parent to categories on particular aspects of it. If the object is only to identify the most important writers, composers, etc., I fear that would not be a legitimate category, becasue inclusion would depend on editors' POV as to who was (and thus who was not) important. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 7 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete This is a really bad award cat. This would be like Category:Architects of the Seven Wonders of the Ancient World. Or maybe Category:Directors of films that won the best picture Oscar. It is categorizing people by the award their work won, which we should not do.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
- Delete. I agree that it would probably be appropriate to categorize the works in the Canon, but not the creators of those works. Good Ol’factory (talk) 16:21, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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:Habitat (ecology) terminology
- 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:Habitat. After the rename, editors are free to rearrange the contents of both categories as appropriate to clean up any issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:22, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Habitat (ecology) terminology to Category:Habitats
- Nominator's rationale: This category categorizes some articles (e.g. the article about Wetland, but not the article about Woodland) because their titles are terms used in "systems ecology and ecological restoration contexts". Categorization should be by characteristics of the topic, not by characteristics of the article title. This category also has the effect of incorrectly (see WP:SUBCAT) placing articles which are not about language (e.g. Overgrazing) below Category:Language. For info: An example of a recent discussion about a "terms" category is this. DexDor (talk) 04:24, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Not a fan of that merge. This should actually have been Category:Habitat, since it's for concepts and terminology related to habitat, rather than examples of habitats (i.e, habitat types). So I'd oppose the merge. Of course, I see a much bigger problem with the contents of the category - most of what's in there doesn't belong in this category at all. Guettarda (talk) 04:33, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Wow - Category:Habitats is an even worse mess. I'd say rename this one, and clean up both. Guettarda (talk) 04:34, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Habitat/habitats categories (like opera/operas categories) should work here. I intended this merge as the first step in that direction. So, a rename to Category:Habitat (and then recategorization of Category:Habitats etc) would be fine by me - it may be a bit more complicated doing it that way though. DexDor (talk) 04:49, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- Oppose merge or deletion— support change to Category:Habitat terminology. Four of the parent cats. it is under have 'terminology' in their names, such as Category:Ecology terminology. I created the category. The terms are diverse, used in various contexts of discussing and understanding habitats, and not a 'terminology mess.'—Look2See1 t a l k → 08:28, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- We should categorize articles by characteristics of their subjects, not by characteristics of their titles. That the title of an article is terminology (and the article begins with a definition) does not make it an article about terminology (part of the subject of language). The articles in this category are about ecology, not about language. DexDor (talk) 20:11, 6 September 2013 (UTC)
- 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.