Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 4

< January 3January 5 >

January 4

Category:Magic roundabouts in the United Kingdom

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 Category:Magic roundabouts in England to Category:Magic roundabouts; delete Category:Magic roundabouts in the United Kingdom. The Bushranger One ping only 22:49, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Magic roundabouts in the United Kingdom (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Rename Category:Magic roundabouts in England - Category:Magic roundabouts added Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary. There appear to be no "magic roundabouts" outside England, and the only subcat or page,Category:Magic roundabouts in England, is adequately categorised without this category. Mhockey (talk) 22:49, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
and the United Kingdom is part of Europe. That's no reason to have Category:Magic roundabouts in Europe.--Mhockey (talk) 16:02, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename Category:Magic roundabouts in England to Category:Magic roundabouts and Delete Category:Magic roundabouts in the United Kingdom. This is an unusual variety of traffic island, existing in very small numbers, and rather confusing to non-locals. Unless some one can point to their existence of elsewhere in sufficient quantities to need UK and England categories, I do not see any need for multiple categories. For an explanation see: Magic Roundabout (Swindon). Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 5 January 2012 (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:History of the Pennsylvania National Guard

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: upmerge to Category:Pennsylvania National Guard. The Bushranger One ping only 22:43, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:History of the Pennsylvania National Guard (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT. Created by User:Target for Today for his sole article Camp Gettysburg. I see little room for growth at this time, based on contents of the parent cats, nor does Category:United States National Guard reveal any other state-based military history category -- or even, tellingly, a national US Guard military history cat. More unnecessary categorization by the editor, I believe, seemingly to create as many Gettysburg-related categories as possible. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:34, 4 January 2012 (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:Members of the Legislative Council of Sri Lanka

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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Members of the Legislative Council of Sri Lanka to Category:Members of the Legislative Council of Ceylon
Nominator's rationale: Sri Lanka was known as Ceylon during the life of the Legislative Council. Also, the main article in the category is Legislative Council of Ceylon not Legislative Council of Sri Lanka.obi2canibetalk contr 20:58, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname per main article. The legislative council existed 1833-1931, during which time the island was a British colony called Ceylon. This is no doubt the result of some previous overenthusiastic renaming of all Ceylon categories to Sri Lanka. However, I see no reason why this should not remain as a sub-cat of some Sri Lanka category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:41, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked back and it was speedily renamed from Category:Members of Legislative Council of Ceylon to Category:Members of the Legislative Council of Sri Lanka in October 11 along with a number of other cats which were missing "the" after "Members of". I think the change from Ceylon to Sri Lanka must have been unintentional.--obi2canibetalk contr 15:53, 7 January 2012 (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:Giants of the North Canadian Cartoonist Hall of Famers

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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:46, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Giants of the North Canadian Cartoonist Hall of Famers to Category:Canadian Cartoonist Hall of Fame inductees
Nominator's rationale: Rename. If this category is kept, just naming this "FOO inductees" seems sufficient. The reference article is Canadian Cartoonist Hall of Fame. (The current name seems to be adopting to separate naming formats "Giants of ..." and "... Hall of Famers". I think what was probably intended was a colon between "North" and "Canadian".) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:27, 4 January 2012 (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:Events at the O2 Arena (London)

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) 19:18, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Events at the O2 Arena (London) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WP:OC#VENUES states that we should "avoid categorizing events by their hosting locations. Many notable locations (e.g. Madison Square Garden) have hosted so many sports events and conventions over time that categories listing all such events would not be readable." Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think the point is really whether it is currently "readable". From my view, the points are that (1) this category will continue to expand for the life of the event venue, and (2) do we want to set a precedent for this form of categorization in general? In other words, the concerns go beyond what it immediately looks like and also goes beyond this one individual category. There's a guideline that says these types of categories are to be avoided. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The alternative would be much larger events by city or by country categories, so I see no advantage to deletion. Tim! (talk) 07:08, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why would we want that either? Wouldn't simply a list for events held at a particular venue be ideal? Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per Tim. The wording on the OC#VENUES is clumsy. The actual venues are not being categorized by what event is being held there, rather the events are being added to this category. For example, the Wheelchair Basketball event isn't been added to the O2 Arena article as a category, but the other way around. Lugnuts (talk) 08:04, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • The wording is not "clumsy", it's just that it applies to both situations. It says to avoid categorizing events by venue but also to avoid categorizing venues by event. This is a form of the former type. It is clearly "categorizing events by their hosting location". Wheelchair basketball at the 2012 Summer Paralympics is an event, the O2 Area is a venue, and the article is placed in the category because it was an events held at the O2 Arena. I don't think it is possible to be more on point. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:09, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and OC#VENUES. Have the above editors considered what this precedent would mean for the encyclopedia? How many arenas and stadiums are there in the world? And why stop at just sports venues? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in this instance this information - which is very comprehensive - is best held in a list. Ephebi (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- This category works well. It needs to be limited to articles on events that took place at (and only at) the O2 arena. Thus an article on musician's tour when they performed at a series of venues would be excluded (but could appear in the related article. However the benefit concert that is in the category and (prospectively) Wheelchair basketball at the 2012 Summer Paralympics will be about something that took place at the arena and could properly appear. In other words any event that could appear in two or more venue categories would generally be banned. I think that WP:OC#VENUES may need to be reconsidered. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Location is not all that defining for specific events. Since many events happen in multiple venues, we have a problem. We would have to rename to Category:one location events at the O2 Arena (London if we are to limit this to one location events.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The existing list works well. I would hate to see what this type of category would look like for a convention center or the MGM Grand Arena. It is not likely that these events are defing for the venue. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:06, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization of "events by their hosting locations". Venues tend to host multiple events – tens, hundreds, thousands – over time and, furthermore, notable events often are hosted at multiple venues. We could, as Peterkingiron suggests, limit the scope of this category (and similar ones) to single-venue events, but then that raises the question of whether the fact of being a single-venue event is at all defining. I concur with Ephebi's assessment that information of this type is more suited to list form, either within articles about venues or in lists such as Events at the O2 Arena (London). -- Black Falcon (talk) 04:18, 20 January 2012 (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:Gettysburg Battlefield landforms

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 to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:25, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Gettysburg Battlefield landforms (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Regardless of what happens with the CfD upmerge discussion for Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield, is this not an needless splinter of same? (I also think User:Target for Today should be urged to cool it with the Gettysburg spin off categories, too.) Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:06, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield or the merge target of that. This is a completely unnecessary category. If it were categorising landforms, (such as hills and valleys), it would be too like a performacne by performer category, but it is in fact categorising named geographic features, which ought to be in places of ... The fact that it needs a long headnote to distinguish it from "places of ..." shows how unnecessary it is. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is false to claim the category "needs" a cat exp, which is why writers often add the extraneous/wordy "The fact that" (also false in this case)-- to try to convince readers that what they've made-up is a fact. The term "landform" in the title is self-explanatory without the cat exp, so the cat exp isn't needed at all. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The target for the merge (Category:Places of...) is an invalid name for a specific location, and the landforms are so numerous that they would clutter any parent category. As anyone familiar with the battlefield knows, the battlefield landforms are distinctly notable for the form of their lands and even more for their historical significance (the former effecting the latter), which is why these landforms have so many notable articles. One landform even has so many articles/subcategories/subarticles that it warrants its own category! As with the events, images, and building & structure subcategories, this is a valid subdivision of the large political area (the main battlefield area is the size of a township plus it has a few satellite areas) that includes a borough spread over several of the landforms, another populated place on the slope of Little Round Top, landforms on which 5 railroad stations were built (Cemetery Ridge, Little Round Top, Slaughter Pen, Baltimore Hill, & Stevens Creek), etc. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. "Landforms of..." is a rather odd wording and the landforms here are, in fact, places. - The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 11 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Category:Places of the Gettysburg Battlefield. Having a seperate category for "landforms" seems to me to be a cas of overcategorization. Wild Wolf (talk) 14:14, 15 January 2012 (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:Lava fields

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. Note that the category now matches the main article. Timrollpickering (talk) 18:29, 15 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lava fields (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Created by User:Target for Today to populate his Category:Fields (geography) scheme, nominated below, in which places with the word "field" in the title are apparently to be grouped. The sole article, Hell's Half Acre Lava Field, is already adequately categorized, included in the pre-existing Category:Volcanic fields tree. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – User:Target for Today should be asked to refrain from category creation until further notice (and also from adding redlinked categories to articles). (Strawberry Field?) Occuli (talk) 15:05, 4 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per both, and agree with comment by Occuli. 13:03, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
  • Comment -- I think this is probably a proper category for a particular landscape type, characterised by the presence of lava, with effects on its agricultural potential. However the main article is at Lava plain, and this should probably be renamed to match. This is not quite the same as a Volcanic field, which is a region of volcanos. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 5 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • I would oppose the rename since this is likely the common name as evidenced by a quick Google search. A rename for the main article has been started. I'm not convinced that this one should be deleted, and may try populating the category. If I find a bunch of articles, then we probably should keep this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:47, 8 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: per preceding 2 Keep claims by Peterkingiron & Vegaswikian, the latter which should have found it easy to find via wikipedia search the hundreds of articles about lava fields (use the words "lava field the" which by having "the" prevents linking to the "Lava field" article.) Also, why is "Strawberry Field" mentioned by the first "Delete" poster--what does it have to do with his opposition? It seems the "Delete" advocates have trouble identifying information about the category in question, and the nominator's claim that a subcategory is "adequately categorized" is circular reasoning (e.g., 'if an article didn't have a category before the category was created, the created category shouldn't have been created'). And yes, there are lots of volcanic fields that aren't lava fields, so the distinction of those that are lava fields is valuable to readers who are looking for only lava fields (the whole purpose of categorization). Hence, the Hell's Half Acre Lava Field article isn't adequately categorized - without Category:Lava fields it would be among all the volcanic fields which aren't lava fields. 69.46.35.69 (talk) 17:11, 10 January 2012 (UTC) (I saw this when here looking at the Gettysburg landforms nomination.)[reply]
  • Keep - This is a valid categorisation, and well worth having a category on, as mentioned per the above. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:20, 11 January 2012 (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/2012_January_4&oldid=1074808994"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 January 4, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.