June 29
Category:Types of garden
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: This nomination also includes Category:Types of garden by country of origin and Category:Types of garden by historical empire. Is there a good reason for "garden" being singular here? English normally pluralises the noun here, as seen with categories like Category:Types of amputations (not "amputation"), Category:Types of companies of Norway (not "company"), and Category:Types of gates (not "gate"). Singulars exist, e.g. Category:Types of existentialism, but they're generally non-count nouns; you wouldn't call that category's contents "existentialisms". Nyttend (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2015 (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:Current monarchies
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Propose deleting Category:Current monarchies
- Nominator's rationale: We do not classify things by "Current". The main category (Category:Monarchies) is assumed to be current. If there is a need for "Former Foo", as there is in this tree structure, then it contains all former entities leaving "Foo" to contain current entities. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:07, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Agree with the rationale but the category shouldn't be deleted as it contains a complete by-country subcatetgorization. Rename into Category:Monarchies by country (or possibly Category:Monarchy by country). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Monarchies. The category occupying that space should become Category:Monarchies by type. This may not be quite the ideal solution, but it is the best that I can think of. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep in the spirit of WP:IAR. The category is currently pretty stable (the reason for this rule normally), and we do have Category:Current events. It is hard to see how the nom would actually improve anything. Johnbod (talk) 18:30, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
-
- Reply I consider this precedent to be binding. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:32, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Reply The nominated category is not the complement to Category:Former monarchies - that would be Category:Monarchies. The nominated category may be well-established but that does not make it any less ill-founded. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:28, 21 July 2015 (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:Massacres
- 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:38, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: unclear definition of concept Massacre leads to poor distinction in categorization -- e.g., Category:Mass murder in the United States vs. Category:Massacres in the United States. Fgnievinski (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose. Most notable massacres took place in the contexts of battles, whether sieges and cities being taken by storm, or one-sided battles where the victorious party didn't give quarter. In such a context, "mass murder" is not at all helpful; it seems rather absurd to put the Siege of Aleppo (1260) into a mass-murder category, for example, even though it's clearly in scope for a massacre category, and equally absurd to put the Siege of Badajoz (1812), where the city was taken by storm, and the Battle of Roncevaux Pass, where Charlemagne's rearguard was massacred by the Basques, with the Puerto Hurraco massacre, where a couple of guys shot at a few other people in the street. The mass-murder category should be used for situations where there's a sort of judicial process and someone's convicted of murder (whether through one of our current processes, or a past process), or has something like a coroner's jury returning a verdict of "wilful murder", not just any situation where a bunch of people are killed. Nyttend (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose -- There is a clear distinction to be made between the aftermath of a battle or the sack of a city following a siege, and the current usage for "high school massacres" and the recent event in Tunisia, where a lone gunman has carried out a series of murders in a short period. Genocide is also mass murder, but not necessarily a massacre. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2015 (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:Ecuadorians with MA's and PhD degrees
- 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. MER-C 07:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: As far as I know we do not generally have categories for <people with academic degrees>. ... discospinster talk 20:30, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete; not particularly useful. Nyttend (talk) 23:01, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom. Neutralitytalk 23:12, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, WP:NARROWCAT, and WP:NONDEF. --Animalparty-- (talk) 00:27, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - per nom, WP:ABSURD. Oculi (talk) 13:05, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete - far too common to be worthwhile. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Much more useful to categorize by academic specialty than degree level. Also it is unclear why holders of Masters of Science degrees should be excluded from a category of this type. I am also not sure if this is for those who have both an MA and a PhD, or for all Ecuadorians who have one or the other. If it is the former it is an odd category, since many people with PhDs in subjects such as history, which is the type of subject one would most likely have a PhD associated with, got an MA as an early step in their PhD program.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:30, 1 July 2015 (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:Players scouted by Lou Maguolo
- 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. MER-C 12:43, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING. WP:DNWAUC. DexDor (talk) 05:39, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as WP:NONDEFINING. The people in question may be named and linked in Maguolo's bio article, but a category for them is not necessary — categories do not exist as a way to create lists on absolutely any criterion it would be possible to create a list of, but serve to group articles on characteristics that are central to their notability. Bearcat (talk) 20:00, 30 June 2015 (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:Legislation named for a person
- 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. MER-C 07:33, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: The purpose of categories is to group together articles about similar subjects; this category groups together articles based on the etymology of the/a term used to refer to the subject. For info: there is List of legislation named for a person. DexDor (talk) 05:31, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per WP:TRIVIALCAT and WP:SHAREDNAME. This is not a substantive or WP:DEFINING point of commonality between otherwise unrelated pieces of legislation, but just a shared characteristic of the bills' names. The list is more than adequate. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This is a classic example of shared name. More so because we are mixing two things. Some legislation (such as the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or the Hyde Amendment come to mind fastest) is named for the legislative sponsor. However there are other cases where a law is named after someone who has died or been a victim of a crime where the law is meant to reduce the likelihood in the future. There is no clear reason to consider these disparate things as creating a unified thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:34, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- For what it is worth, neither of the laws I mentioned are currently in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 1 July 2015 (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:Edward MacDowell Medal Winners
- 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:35, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Besides all the other problems with this (sort of) category it's a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic of the medal winners (see WP:OC#AWARD). DexDor (talk) 05:28, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete – or convert to a list. MacDowell Colony does not convince me that this is a major award. Oculi (talk) 11:44, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Articlise -- This seems to be an article sitting in cateogry space; a badly prepared one at that. As a category it offends WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:54, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The category was in the middle of an editing process, it has now been completed and should not be deleted. The MacDowell Colony was the first artst residence program created in the U.S. and the Edward MacDowell Medal is a major honor. The Colony is in the process of creating more of a Wikipedia presence and linking its recipients to its own pages; this is one of those pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdowellintern (talk • contribs) 20:22, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Articilise Categories are for notable awards, which this is not. With some sourcing, could be a decent article though. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:15, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- See Edward_MacDowell_Medal#Recipients. DexDor (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Categories are not for "notable awards" articles are for notable awards. We do not have articles on non-notable awards. Categories are for defining awards, which is a much higher bar.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:17, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment It was also created by an intern working at the Colony, so there is some conflict of interest (that can be resolved in a GLAM-Wiki type partnership or discussion I'm sure). Missvain (talk) 22:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it a conflict of interest if it isn't promoting the colony, but simply creating a list of winners of a medal??? Also, how can an award with recipients such as georgia o'keeffe, edward hopper, and robert frost not constitute a "notable award"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macdowellintern (talk • contribs) 00:13, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Re COI - if you are connected with the organization then it will be difficult for you to dispassionately assess how important it is to the award recipients. Re "how can" - your logic is faulty. DexDor (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete I have to point out that categories are not for notable awards. If we had categories for every award that is notable we would have a huge mess of categories, although we already have some articles in over 50 award categories. Categories are for defining awards. This is a much higher threshold than being notable. If an award is not notable, we should not have an article on it or a list of its winners. This award is not defining, and we do not need a winners category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:38, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This IS a most notable award given by the nation's first artist residency program. The MacDowell Colony was established in 1907. We are a non-profit organization and have been giving the award annually to major contributors to the nation's culture since 1960. Precedent has been set on Wikipedia as far as pages listing major arts awards. This really is no different. For more information about us, please visit macdowellcolony.org. Jonathan Gourlay, communications manager (Unsigned comment by 23.30.175.65 at 14:15, 1 July 2015)
- Please see WP:OSE and WP:COI. DexDor (talk) 16:56, 1 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, possibly listify, per WP:OCAWARD. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:35, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep The Edward MacDowell Medal is indisputably a notable award, and every single one of its winners over 55 years is a highly notable artist. The New York Times has covered the award many times over the years and sent a well-known arts reporter to the ceremony when Mary McCarthy won the award. A book length biography of McCarthy discusses the award at great length, and a recent biography of Georgia O'Keeffe discusses it as well. Other newspapers such as the Boston Globe and the Los Angeles Times have covered the award. I believe that it is entirely appropriate to have a category for its award winners. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 02:47, 5 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We already have a comprehensive list. This does not raise to the level of defining, which is what award categories need to be kept.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:15, 9 July 2015 (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:Radio stations in rural Tamaulipas
- 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. MER-C 07:32, 7 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: Follows from the deletion of the Tamaulipas Rural Radio template. All the stations in the template were transmitters of Radio Tamaulipas, and when the network article was consolidated into one, there was nothing left to go here. Raymie (t • c) 02:37, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete -- incapable of expansion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:55, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. While radio stations are permitted to be further subcatted by city, if the city has a large enough number of radio stations to warrant a subcat, we do not have a practice of grouping the stragglers into a "rural (State)" grouping that covers a large geographic area — if the individual market doesn't warrant a category of its own, then the station just stays catted at the state level itself. So this was never actually appropriate in the first place — and with the individual transmitters having been consolidated into one article about the programming sourced, it's now just a WP:SMALLCAT with no prospect of expansion. Bearcat (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Categorizing things are being in the rural part of a larger political entity is non-standard procedure. One reason is because there are multiple conflicting definitions of "rural", so it is not easy to categorize by such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:40, 1 July 2015 (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:Media analysis websites
- 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 the two nominated categories into a new Category:Media analysis organizations and websites. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:39, 27 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: substantial overlap with Category:Media analysis organizations. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:52, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- I was thinking in terms of the template
((Merge|Category:Media analysis websites|Category:Media analysis organizations|target=Category:Media analysis organizations and websites)). Fgnievinski (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2015 (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:Reporting
- 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. MER-C 12:45, 17 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: article Reporting is a DAB which directs to Journalism for further info. Fgnievinski (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2015 (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.