Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 28

< October 27	October 29 >

October 28

Category:Illinois State Park Lodges and Cabins Multiple Property Submission

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Two entry category with limited growth potential. Navigation is better provided by the main article, Illinois State Park Lodges and Cabins Thematic Resources. If kept a rename would be needed. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 28 October 2011 (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:Historic and Architectural Resources of Route 66 Through Illinois

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Navigation is better served by the main article, Historic and Architectural Resources of Route 66 Through Illinois. It is unclear if being a part of this MPS is defining for these properties. If kept it needs renaming to Category:Historic and Architectural Resources of Route 66 Through Illinois Multiple Property Submission. And the article probably needs a rename also. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 28 October 2011 (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:Civil War Era National Cemeteries Multiple Property Submission

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Civil War Era National Cemeteries Multiple Property Submission to Category:Civil War Era National Cemeteries in Illinois

Nominator's rationale: Rename or upmerge to Category:Cemeteries in Illinois. This was only parented to the NRHP tree. Upmerge may be better if era is considered as ambiguous. ~~Also there does not appear to be a main article for this MPS which some wold consider a reason for deletion. If a main article is created there would be reason to retain the current name.~~Vegaswikian (talk) 19:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

They're not only in Illinois. Please see Civil War Era National Cemeteries MPS. Thanks. --‖ Ebyabe ^talk - Welfare State ‖ 20:29, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Then the only parent category, Category:National Register of Historic Places Multiple Property Submissions in Illinois was wrong. That being said, Delete. The complete list in the article better serves navigation, including by state. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:01, 28 October 2011 (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:Garrison Keillor

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only five entries (other than the main) and one subcat. and these are all pretty well inter-linked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:46, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So what's the proposal? BPK (talk) 04:08, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion. For some reason Twinkle doesn't put a bold 'delete' when you CfD using the xfd tab - that's tripped me up once or twice. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 04:24, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Well then, while I don't have a huge amount of emotion invested in the category, put me down as a Keep. BPK (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per other authors in Category:Categories named after American writers. Cjc13 (talk) 15:12, 1 November 2011 (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:Nemetschek products

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:46, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 19:02, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - Category:Products by company appears to meet the "part of an established scheme" exemption to WP:SMALLCAT. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:11, 28 October 2011 (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:Round Barns in Illinois Multiple Property Submission

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:Round barns in Illinois. Jafeluv (talk) 02:38, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The proper name for this according to the article is Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources which is an MPS. The list of barns is included in the article. So is being part of this TR defining? By deleting the category and keeping the list, navigation is not harmed and we avoid a category like Category:Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources or maybe more correctly, Category:Round Barns in Illinois Thematic Resources Multiple Property Submission. Several other TR and MPSs have also added templates for navigation. Any of these barns that are notable on their own have their own article. While a few may be notable only because they are in the TR, they probably should not have an article, just a section in the TR article. So in the end, being part of MPS is not defining for these articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Round barns in Illinois - contains a sufficent number of entries to be useably distinct from parent Category:Round barns in the United States. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:13, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I can support that option. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Round barns in Illinois to match its sibling Category:Round barns in Iowa Hmains (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2011 (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:Grade I listed gates

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:Grade I listed gates in England. Further subcategorization and changes can follow.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming and splitting Category:Grade I listed gates to Category:Grade I listed gates in England and Category:Grade I listed gates in Wales

Nominator's rationale: Category tree is currently being renamed to "...in the United Kingdom", but it was pointed out that this one includes England and Wales only. I'd suggest just "...in England and Wales", then, but that leaves out the question of those "...in Scotland"; ergo, proposing to split this into two and remove the ambiguity in the title. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 17:55, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I did not nominate the categories at this level since I believed that Grade I for listings was unique to the UK. I noticed that a few of the categories did have a child category for Scotland. So this type of request would match other parts of the tree. However after splitting, would we need to create Category:Grade I listed gates in the United Kingdom as the parent or simply keep Category:Grade I listed gates as the parent? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:16, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed that Category:Listed gates by grade in the United Kingdom would work as a parent? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that would work. Whatever changes happen here may need to be made in the rest of the tree. Those probably can be speedies. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:57, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments – they are all in England and nearly all in Cheshire. However, why not just have Category:Grade I listed gates in the United Kingdom (or upmerge to Category:Listed gates in the United Kingdom as there are no other listed UK gates as yet other than Grade I in England) supplemented by Category:Gates in England, Category:Gates in Wales, Category:Gates in Scotland, Category:Gates in Northern Ireland? (Grade I is really quite rare, except perhaps in Chester.) Eg how should Eastgate and Eastgate Clock best be categorised? Occuli (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: - Re Scotland and Northern Ireland listed buildings, they are Grades A, B, C etc; Grades I, II, II* only apply to England and Wales. And the buildings by function (eg castles) in Scotland are not seperated into categories by grade. And the Listed buildings in Northern Ireland are by grade only, there are no categories for say listed castles in Northern Ireland. So for castles Category:Listed castles in the United Kingdom contains England and Wales (by grade) and Scotland (by country). But seperating all of the Grades I, II, II* buildings by function (there are 31 different categories by function) into separate categories for England and Wales would be a massive job. Why not leave as is? Hugo999 (talk) 02:02, 1 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- Would allowing only 1 level of category below something like Category:Listed castles in the United Kingdom be the best option? Then it would be simply to delete the intermediate ones and upmerge the bottom level. So in this example we would

Delete: Category:Listed castles by country and Category:Listed castles by grade

Place in parent Category:Listed castles in the United Kingdom: Category:Listed castles in Scotland, Category:Grade I listed castles and Category:Grade II* listed castles

Vegaswikian (talk) 21:20, 1 November 2011 (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:Pocketknives

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 C2A. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:00, 31 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pocketknives to Category:pocket knives

Nominator's rationale: This appears to be the more broadly accepted nomenclature globally; additionally, this gives parity with the main article pocket knife. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) - talk 11:44, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename C2A - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:14, 28 October 2011 (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:Navbox (navigational) templates

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:01, 14 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Navbox (navigational) templates to Category:Navigational boxes

Nominator's rationale: This is a test nomination for globally and automatically replacing every category in this tree with Category:(X) navigational boxes. Naming for these types of categories is currently all over the map. There are categories in the format of Category:Military navigational boxes, Category:Computing navbox templates, Category:Psychology navigation templates, Category:Bible navboxes, and Category:Medicine templates (which only contains navboxes). We have been trending toward the pattern Category:(X) navigational boxes, with various speedy nominations to this effect in recent months. There's no reason for that to go slowly, though. If this passes, I would recommend bypassing the standard CfD process and just having a bot rename all of them on WP:CFD/W/L.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 09:49, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some figures to help the discussion along:

Seems like a good idea to standardise on one form of name for these. -- WOSlinker (talk) 12:38, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't know the disparity was so high. Somebody please close this so we can take care of those outliers.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:31, 11 November 2011 (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.

Populated places in Alaska

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. There's a strong argument for removing the "City and" in the Juneau category to match the other Borough categories, though. Maybe that should be nominated again.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Anchorage, Alaska to Category:Neighborhoods in Anchorage, Alaska

Propose renaming Category:Populated places in Juneau City and Borough, Alaska to Category:Neighborhoods in Juneau, Alaska
Nominator's rationale: Anchorage and Juneau are unified municipalities (the local term for consolidated city-county). Since Anchorage and Juneau are both cities covering a vast geographic area, the articles in these categories have slowly been renamed from following article conventions for communities, to follow conventions for neighborhoods, even though some of these places have distinct community identities of their own. Requesting renaming of categories to facilitate the renaming of remaining articles to follow this convention. RadioKAOS (talk) 08:42, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Question Exactly where do Anchorage, Alaska and Juneau, Alaska get categorized as populated places? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:22, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is Both this and the above are subcats of Category:Populated places in Alaska by borough and this change would break the naming pattern found there. The articles represent a mix of neighborhoods and populated places large enough to be cities on their own if they were not part of their current city-borough. Instead, just create subcats for the actual neighborhoods within the collection of populated places in the borough, leaving the non-neighborhoods directly in these present categories. Hmains (talk) 18:41, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wasn't the one who started the article renaming, but it appears to follow a rationale of these places being part of a community and not a community by themselves. Looking at the total sum of articles to which that applies, it's a half-finished job at present. Articles of places in both Anchorage and Juneau are currently found in Category:Neighborhoods in Alaska, which would become a nearly empty category were you to move those articles to existing categories. This is becoming somewhat tricky upon further digging. Alaska Statutes are vague on exactly how unified municipalities are classified, though they generally favor the idea that they are boroughs. The municipalities themselves are generally structured more like cities than boroughs, however. The suggestion that notions of municipal structure in Alaska on Wikipedia appear to come strictly from U.S. Census Bureau data, while ignoring data on the Alaska Department of Commerce, Community and Economic Development website, leads me to believe that further confusion would ensue trying to figure out this difference. My suggestion is that a "community" could be defined as a place which has its own post office and zip code(s).
Additional comment on related side issue The main category for Juneau is Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska. Within that category tree, about half of the subcategories are of the form "Category:XXX in Juneau City and Borough, Alaska", whereas the other half are of the form "Category:XXX in Juneau, Alaska". Is this something which should be addressed?RadioKAOS (talk) 21:21, 28 October 2011 (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:Romanian political prisoners and detainees

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. Jafeluv (talk) 02:37, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The parent Category:Political prisoners was deleted here and then again two years later here, as were all of the by-nationality subcategories. This particular nationality was not one of the original subcategories deleted, and it has just recently been created. It should be deleted for the same reasons of POV and OR concerns that were extensively discussed in the discussions linked to above as well as the deletion discussions and DRV discussions here, here, and here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:07, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nom spells out the case nicely. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 28 October 2011 (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:Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari

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. Several articles in here apply to only one of the pair. There are only three articles in the works category, and double-categorizing them doesn't seem like a problem to me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Split into the respective subcats.--there is no need for a merged parent cat. Also, the works subcat should be split as well. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:33, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If there is are multiple works co-written by both, why wouldn't Category:Works by Gilles Deleuze and Félix Guattari be preferrable to double categorizing them in individual categories? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:50, 28 October 2011 (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:Wicked

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. Jafeluv (talk) 02:35, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Wicked to Category:The Wicked Years

Nominator's rationale: Per main article--The Wicked Years--and wicked. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy rename per main article Curb Chain (talk) 02:51, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - speedy C2D doesn't apply here due to the two-day restriction (which is IMHO silly, but that's the way it is...) - 19:16, 28 October 2011 (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:American children's television networks

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 per the subcategories of Category:Children's television networks. There's a variance between "networks" and "channels" in the Children's categories which should probably be sorted out.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:07, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American children's television networks to Category:Children's television networks in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Nominating myself for CfD. More suitable name. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 02:21, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. A parent category is Category:American television networks. Why would it a good idea to depart from this general naming format for the subcategory? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:54, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because of eg the higher Category:Television in the United States. And are they TV networks for American children? Occuli (talk) 12:30, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Because I've created it myself for US children networks like Nickelodeon, Disney Channel, PBS Kids and Cartoon Network. JJ98 (Talk / Contributions) 21:37, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I understand Occuli's "because" statement above far better than I understand Jj98's. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:01, 8 November 2011 (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.