Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 April 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 4 April 6 >

April 5[edit]

Category:Estuaries of Cardiff[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: merge to appropriate parents. – Fayenatic London 16:20, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous category - there are no estuaries of Cardiff. Cardiff is a city on the Severn Estuary and is unlikely to find itself on any other estuaries in the foreseeable future. Sionk (talk) 00:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree And the same applies to the other subcategories of Category:Estuaries of Wales etc. England and Scotland both have only one or two categories for estuaries.
Note -- None of the categories are tagged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've tagged the categories (didn't see that step, these are my first CfD noms). I've also nominated the other 7 Wales estuary categories for deletion. Sionk (talk) 22:51, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added back Category:Estuaries of Wales to Severn Estuary, as suggested by BrownHairedGirl. Sionk (talk) 17:14, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all back to Category:Estuaries of Wales -- I do not see how these differ from the rivers categories, which have also been endlessly split by the present counties etc. If we need a category below "Wales", it will be much better to stick with the ancient counties, or perhaps the post-1974 counties, such as Gwent and Glamorgan. Certainly we do not need endless small categories which are a hindrance to navigation, not an aid. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2013 (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:Bays of Cardiff[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:11, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A patently ridiculous and superfluous category when you consider there is only one Cardiff Bay with nil chance of there being any others. Sionk (talk) 23:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless Cardiff engages in some major annexation of huge amounts of other areas this will be a wholly unneeded category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- useless and seems to be empty. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:27, 6 April 2013 (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:Television towers in Japan[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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:13, 14 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I looked at the 4 articles in the Japan category and other then the name on two of them, there is nothing defining about them being a TV tower. One does not even discuss what the tower is used for and another mentions its use as a radio relay. Communications is one of the parent categories. Depending on how the early discussion goes, I may elect to add the others or it this gains consensus the others can be done as speedies. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:46, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All of the related categories have been added to the nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:57, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There are more than 4 articles in Category:Television towers in India. Shyamsunder (talk) 06:10, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the time of that comment, the only one listed was Japan which has only 4 articles. There never was a claim that all of the categories to be listed would only have 4 articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternate Category:Telecommunications towers in Japan (etc), not towers for other forms of communication (heliotelegraph, public address speaker towers, etc) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Communication" is better then "Telecommunications" as it matches the parent category; in the unlikely event that the category becomes large then it might be split into tele/helio/PA etc. DexDor (talk) 05:33, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose renaming Category:Television towers in India. All articles therein are Television (TV) towers indeed. In India they are known as such i.e. -Television towers not communication towers. Shyamsunder (talk) 06:06, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unless we are going to categorize all towers by every use, this would be an exception. For a tower like Fazilka TV Tower, it should be categorized as Category:Television towers in India and Category:FM towers in India with possibly more since the lead says it is used for both and it is not clear if it has other uses. Or renamed as proposed. Your reason to oppose seems like a desire to categorize by shared name which is not how we do it. If in fact we need to retain that one, it should have Category:Communication towers in India as the parent category. For other examples, how many categories would you need to create for Olympiaturm? Going the route to include classification by use, are microwave or cell towers notable and should these be categorized? If not is this an arbitrary inclusion criteria? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:56, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Communication towers are regularly used for multiple types of communication. There is nothing inherently different in the towers based on what actually uses it is put to, so a general communications category is sufficient.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 12 April 2013 (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:Cross and Circle games[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: speedy rename per WP:C2C. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: At present, the article that is the main of this category is entitled Cross and circle game. pbp 20:46, 5 April 2013 (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:Czech Board Games games[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: speedy delete per creator's request (WP:CSD#G7). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I got the name wrong. Should have proposed rename, but had created new category already. --Craw-daddy | T | 16:48, 5 April 2013 (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:Fictional Druids[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:39, 24 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The word "druid" seems to be lowercased in most contexts, including in the article druid. Some of these characters are from Shannara, where the word "Druid" is more of a rank. But I don't think that means the category should have that capitalization inherent to it.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:12, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not convinced the various contents of this category really are about the same thing, and it looks like everything is better categorized in other ways.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:51, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Put another way this seems to be categorizing that things in fiction are called Druids, but it is unclear that they really share anything besides the name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there any difference between sorcerers, wizards and witches (apart from sex)? All should be merged. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:20, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This comment makes no sense. We are not discussing any of these things here. Do you want to merge this to some other category? What category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is a suggestion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_30#Category:Fictional_sorcerers to merge sorcerers into wizards and sorceresses into witches. I'm not convinced that "druids" is quite close enough for that. – Fayenatic London 16:08, 4 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom We have a druids category, might as well have a collection of fictional ones.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It would be possible to upmerge all the sub-cats of Category:Fictional characters who use magic, but I don't think that would add any value, even if there is not much difference between them. The writers who created these various characters chose to identify them as "druids" so I think the category should stand. – Fayenatic London 17:40, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom No reason to capitalize here. Not an actual rank. Dimadick (talk) 16:28, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom - Even if Shannara & various other unrelated works sometimes use capital-D Druids to mean something, they're fictional and therefore unrelated fictional universes would therefore almost by definition be using it differently. However -- I would like to just say that it may be the case that Shannara Druids are not anything like real-world druids in which case they should be purged from the category. I could use the word "Trees" in some work of fiction as a title but that doesn't mean that I should then categorize those fictional characters as trees. Druidry was at least somewhat a specific set of beliefs. --Lquilter (talk) 13:44, 17 May 2013 (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:Argentine rugby union teams[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: no consensus. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:36, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The choice of "club" and "team" within Category:Rugby union teams is not consistent, and should follow local usage. That head category is not even consistent with Category:Rugby union players by club. Most of the contents of the nominated categories use the word "club", and so do the corresponding Category:Rugby union players in Argentina by club, Category:Rugby union players in Ireland by club. Moreover, Category:Rugby union-related lists has more articles called "List of rugby union clubs in Foo" than "List of Fooian rugby union teams". – Fayenatic London 09:43, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree that club is more British English than team, which is more US English. But "team" does give you flexibility to include representative teams as well as traditional clubs. I'm not sure how much of an issue this could be - not just national teams but eg league representative teams, invitational teams, teams representing armed services etc. For instance, are the British and Irish Lions, New Zealand Barbarians and Māori All Blacks structured as clubs? Le Deluge (talk) 14:01, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Since Rugby is a sport of British origin, it is appropriate to use British, rather than American preferences. The international teams, such as Lions, Barbarians, and All Blacks, may strictly not technically fit, as they are probably teams organised by the national authority; but does that really matter? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:32, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Not all teams are clubs, but all clubs are teams. Keep it as is; this means that non-club sides have an appropriate category. I don't think this is a "local usage" issue at all—there are many examples of notable rugby union teams that are not clubs: invitations sides, provincial and regional selections etc. Le Deluge's comment above reinforces this view. Players generally have one club at a time, but may actually play in multiple teams in one season. - Shudde talk 12:27, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That wasn't quite my intention. Rugby is one of the most club-centric team sports, in the UK at least - the original Baa-Baa's are structured as a club (so that's one example of people playing for two clubs in a season), and their French equivalents likewise (my point was I'm not sure about NZ rather than about Barbarians in general), ditto university sides (unlike most US sports). I'm quite a rugby fan and I'm struggling to think of any example of a UK team that would have an article on the "team" rather than the club/union. The Army/Navy were the only ones that came to mind as possibilities, but I see they are unions in their own right (equivalent to the county organisations), so are categorised under Category:Rugby union governing bodies in England. The Lions would not be categorised as a Fooian team being multinational (although as a combined UK/Eire entity they're little different to the Ireland "national" team) and looking at Category:Multinational rugby union teams suggests we'll never have many articles on rugby teams (as opposed to clubs or unions). It's not like cricket where it's common to have a Joe Bloggs XI (or more likely the Duke of Bloggs XI!). So from a purely British perspective, having cleared up my own query on Army/Navy, I'm happy with the idea of rugby sticking to Fooian clubs. I don't know about how things are organised in other countries, but I imagine they will follow the British system of clubs and sides representing unions at province/state level.Le Deluge (talk) 16:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well I'm not convinced that even in England the idea of classifying all teams as clubs/unions is correct. Why are the unions synonymous with teams—we have an article for England national rugby union team (note the use of the word team) and the Rugby Football Union? For example the Army Union is not the same as the army team - does the union not administer several sides (I imagine there is more than one side/team under their administration) What about County sides? Provincial unions and provincial representative sides also should not necessarily have merged articles. We are talking about the countries above of course. Anyway take for example [1] [2] [3] - examples in Argentina, England, and France where an international side played non-club, non-provincial sides. My opposition stands to the name change; I'm not sure what the motivation for it is, other than have every country classify their teams/clubs/sides etc the same. My advice is make Category:XXXX rugby union teams the parent category for Category:XXXX rugby union clubs. - Shudde talk 11:40, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: it's in Oceania rather than the US that "team" is generally used rather than "club". Note that the proposal is selective, and would leave a variety of "club" and "team" categories. If it is not approved, then the logical thing would be to rename all those country categories in Category:Rugby union teams that currently use "clubs" to "teams"; but what about Category:Rugby union players by club? – Fayenatic London 19:01, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • See my suggestion above regarding "team" being the parent of "club". The term "club" can often have a very specific definition, and this can vary from region to region. This seems like an effort to simply homogenise names, rather than correctly categorise articles. - Shudde talk 11:46, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • That's fine by me. As stated above, if this is rejected, then I will propose renaming all the "by club" categories to "by team". – Fayenatic London 17:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don't see a neat solution to any of this. Not all teams are based on clubs (some are formed by combinations of clubs, or by all-star selection) ... and plenty of clubs have more than one team (a first team and a second team, and maybe junior teams too). Consistency of categ names is an important goal, so I suggest an RFC at WP:CENT to try to find a terminological solution. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Consistency of names is much less important than accuracy of names. I think this discussion proposes sacrificing one for the other. Like I said above, I think having Category:XXXX rugby union teams the parent category is the best solution that I can see. This means that clubs can still be classified separately, and that other teams can be classified appropriately without being labelled as clubs when they are not. - Shudde talk 12:58, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please explain what you mean by "clubs can still be classified separately"; are you suggesting that every country should have a category called "Category:Fooian rugby union teams", and where appropriate there should be a sub-cat "Category:Fooian rugby union clubs? I think the additional layer would be unnecessary and unhelpful. – Fayenatic London 17:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • If need be. May not be appropriate in all cases; it would depend on whether the number of articles warrants it. However there is nothing wrong with having clubs as a subcategory of teams in principle. Why would it be "unhelpful"? I think it would be very helpful, as articles would be accurately categorised. It would be completely necessary if the alternative is to call non-clubs clubs, which seems to be the alternative! - Shudde talk 11:19, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - not all teams are clubs. There are national teams, province teams, franchises, etc. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:18, 11 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I know; that is why the proposal was selective, deliberately leaving out any national categories that included pages named or identified as "teams". – Fayenatic London 17:27, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Are you sure you have checked this carefully? I found București Wolves, Category:Leinster Rugby, Category:Connacht Rugby, and Pampas XV without looking through all the categories, and without checking particularly carefully. These are not clubs (unless I'm mistaken). You might want to double check some of those categories. - Shudde talk 11:24, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well spotted. I went by the predominance of "club" in some cases, but clearly did not check thoroughly enough. Happy to withdraw three, now struck-through above. – Fayenatic London 12:18, 16 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • Support. At least in Argentina, most of rugby union are clubs so they are not only sports but social and non-profit institutions. in fact, rugby union is still an amateur sport there. From my opinion, the word "team" are more appropriate for franchises with no social activities (american football could be a good example of that). Fma12 (talk) 20:22, 14 May 2013 (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.

The Holocaust in Yugoslavia[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: merge. I will do this merger manually, as some of the other head categories also look appropriate in some cases. – Fayenatic London 17:43, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The category should be based on the country name, not poorly defined subdivisions. They are all seriously overcategorised. For the information of editors not familar with the history of Yugoslavia in WWII, Yugoslavia was partitioned in 1941 and none of these countries existed in their current boundaries between 1941-45. They were split between Germany, Italy, Hungary, Bulgaria and Italian Albania, and an Axis puppet state the "Independent State of Croatia". There is also no mention of two other modern countries, Montenegro, and Bosnia and Herzegovina. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 08:22, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge A holocaust related event that occurred in say, Bačka or Syrmia, would be quite hard to categorize (Hungary, Independent State of Croatia or Serbia). On top of that there are separate categories for the Independent State of Croatia and Croatia complicating things further and forcing editors to resort to arbitrary, not necessarily consistent categorization decisions.--Tomobe03 (talk) 12:32, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge - but how about Category:The Holocaust in the Balkans? Given the potential for pedantry, it might be better to go geographical.Le Deluge (talk) 17:55, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The Balkans is a poorly defined geographic region. Slovenia is sometimes excluded, and Greece is sometimes included. Yugoslavia's pre-war borders were clearly defined. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 00:19, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you are confusing the Balkans with something else. Under most definitions of the Balkans, they do not include the Soviet Union. They generally include what was Yugosalvia, Greece, Albania, Bulgaria and normally Romania. The inclusion of Slovenia is a bit iffy though, and Romania allows us to maybe include Bessarabia, but that was not even pre-war Soviet Union.
  • You're correct. I getting confused with the Baltic states. GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Yugoslavia had clear, pre-war boundaries. We should exclude anything from areas that were in Italy before the war and only in Yugoslavia after the war.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
agreed. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:49, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge -- There is no need to split this according to Yugoslav province unless there is a good reason to. Except for the fragmentation of two countries and the adjustment of German boundaries after WWII, European boundaries have eben stable since the WWI peace treaties. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Looks to me like we're all in violent agreement... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 05:27, 8 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I do have to point out though that the claim "European boundaries have been stabel since WWI" is bunk. 3 countries have fragmented. Poland, Czechoslovakia and Romania all lots significant chunks of land after WWII, and Yugoslavia and France gained land from Italy (although very little in France's case). Most of the countries of central Europe had very different boundaries in 1930 than they do today. Greece also experienced boundary changes after WWII, since it gainsed some islands from Italy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:04, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but I don't think that has much of an impact on this discussion though. The pre-war boundaries were clear, and the exclusion of areas that were in Italy before the war and Yugoslavia afterwards would be excluded in the scope statement for the category. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:58, 10 April 2013 (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:1992 in the Czech Republic[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:38, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: The Czech Republic was created on 1 January 1993. Events of 1992 in that area took place in Czechoslovakia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Should not Category:1992 in Slovakia and the like also be merged? Resolute 17:14, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • (ec) Reply. I am not sure. I think the Slovakian categories need a separate discussion.
      My limited understanding of the history is that post-WWII Czechoslovakia consisted of 4 regions: Slovakia, and the 3 regions of the Czech lands: Bohemia, Moravia and Czech Silesia. Those latter 3 now form the Czech Republic.
      So Slovakia was a defined administrative area even while part of the united state. As such, categories relating to Slovakia in that period seem to me to be potentially as valid as those for other sub-national entities, such as Scotland, California or Catalonia. I may be wrong in that understanding, and even if I'm right it doesn't necessarily mean that we have enough article to justify subdividing Czechoslovak categories in that way ... but let's discuss them separately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:17, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • I can concure with you on some of those sub-national examples. You'd have a heck of a fight on your hands for sure, if you tried to merge certain categories. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as we're dealing with seperate countries. On January 1, 1993, Czechoslovakia split into 2 new countries. Furthermore, Category:1992 establishments in Slovakia should be merged into the Czechoslovakia category-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 20:48, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the same should be done for the Slovakia categories. First off we learn in the Czech Republic history article that "Although Czechoslovakia was a unitary state, it provided what were at the time rather extensive rights to its minorities and remained the only democracy in this part of Europe in the interwar period." From 1928-1938 Czechoslovakia was divided into four "lands", Bohemia, Moravia-Silesia, Slovakia and Ruthenia. In 1945 this system was reestablished, with the lack of Ruthenia, which had virtually all been annexed to the Soviet Union, and what was not was merged into Slovakia. In 1948 even that level of subdivision was abolished and the country was divided into 19 regions. In 1969 the Czech Socialist Republic and the Slovak Socialest Republic were formed. So There was no subdivision of Moravia from Bohemia after 1948, and from 1948 until 1969 Slovakia did not exist at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:04, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment if there was a Czech CsSR and a Slovak CsSR, wouldn't that be the basis of these categories for 1992? (prior to Czechia and Slovakia) -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • Well, we should call the category something distict. Since there are only 4 articles in the two different 1992 establishments category, it seems excessive to have them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:08, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Rename per nom. Tim! (talk) 07:37, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge etc. per nom. A Czech Republic category for 1992 is premature. A Slovakia category would pnly be needed if we also needed to split the Czechs between Bohemia and Moravia. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Since Bohemia and Moravia were not distinct entites after 1948, your argument makes no sense at all. There is a Czech entity as a distinct sub-national entity on par with Slovakia from 1969 forward.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:26, 12 April 2013 (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:Albums arranged by Donovan[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:39, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Just one example of a pop album in which the arranger is not a defining characteristic of the album any more than who engineered it or who mixed it, as opposed to say something like Category:Albums arranged by Nelson Riddle, which seems somewhat relevant. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 06:15, 5 April 2013 (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:Cultural Sites on the UNESCO World Heritage Tentative List[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being on the Tentative List (TL) is (according to the World Heritage Site article) a status conferred by a country - it's not an award conferred by UNESCO. Being on the TL is not a defining characteristic (e.g. few articles in the category mention it in the lead) and (IMO) it fails WP:OC#AWARD as (by definition) it's not the top international award in its field. Membership of this category may also be non-permanent as it's unclear whether an article about a site that is promoted to a WHS (or removed from the TL) should be removed from this category.

Note: The category was renamed by a 2009 CFD, but that CFD was not discussing the existence of the category. DexDor (talk) 05:49, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - Being on TL list of a country but not of UNESCO does not change defining characteristic of the sites listed within TL. This is different from award or honor so I don't think that WP:OC#AWARD can be applied here.--Antidiskriminator (talk) 10:54, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. plus, I don't actually understand what Antidiskriminator is saying. Please break it down a bit for us? WP:OC#AWARD certainly does seem to apply. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 10:59, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it doesn't, because it is not an award. It is a level of listing in cultural registers, and one that is much higher than a basic national listing, which we accept everywhere as defining. There is some strange thinking going on here. Note that for most of the Global South we don't have "national monument" type categories, and on a small sample of articles I did, these were the only cultural register type category the articles had. Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

:: I don't agree with the nominator's rationale which I interpret like this:

  • If TL status is conferred by UNESCO then it is permanent and defining characteristic
  • If TL status is conferred by a state then it may not be permanent and not defining characteristic
  • Conclusion: this category should be deleted per WP:OC#AWARD
I think that WP:OC#AWARD does not even mention state/international levels or permanent/temporary characteristic. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 11:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per nom. I did not fully understand the concept of Tentative World Heritage Sites before I opposed to this deletion. Now after I do I support the deletion proposal. --Antidiskriminator (talk) 12:53, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I presume tha the Tentative list is really a candidate list for sites that may or may not be accepted by UNESCO in due course. It implies that it is regarded by the nominating state as important. We categorise listed buildings in UK and National Heritage Register sites in USA. I do not see why we should not have other national categories. The problem is that if UNESCO declines a nomination, the category will need to be removed, which measn that the category will require regular maintenance. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:45, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument ? The NRHP and listed building categories keep getting mentioned in CFDs (e.g. the Chinese tourist ratings one), but the NRHP/LB categories might themselves not survive a CFD per WP:OC#AWARD. DexDor (talk) 06:10, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems clearly defining for these rather less well-known sites. It is several steps up from being listed/registered on a national register, which we regard as defining. I doubt UNESCO ever actually says no, so unless promoted to WHS status this is in effect a permanent status - rather like being beatified (Catholic "candidate" saint), which many have been for over 500 years. Johnbod (talk) 13:33, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete - not worth categorizing until these make it on the final list. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:56, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This makes no sense. We always accept being a "national monument" etc as defining, where we have categories (in fact for most countries we don't), so what is the logic in refusing it for this much higher listing rank? Johnbod (talk) 13:04, 15 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see where you're coming from, but I disagree. My reading is that this is a sort of intermediary state. We don't have a list of Category:Actors nominated for an academy award, even though that may be more of an honor than winning a lesser award. And in this case these places aren't even nominated yet, they are just on a tentative list - nomination (and then conferral of the status) comes later. OTOH, we do have Category:Beatified_people. Nonetheless, this is also not WP:DEFINING - I've never heard of "Go visit this site, it's on the tentative list" - but I have heard "This is a national monument" and "This is a UNESCO world heritage site".--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:43, 15 April 2013 (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:US college sports 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: upmerge, but to all parents.
There is a clear consensus that these categories are too narrow, and that they fail WP:SMALLCAT. However the discussion did not note that this would remove the articles from their other parent categories: e.g. Category:Auburn Tigers baseball venues is also a subcat of Category:Auburn Tigers baseball, Category:College baseball venues by team in the United States, Category:Baseball venues in Alabama, and Category:Auburn Tigers sports venues ... so a multiple upmerge is needed.
There are 4 other sub-categories of Category:College baseball venues by team in the United States. If editors want to nominate any of them for merger, please can they check whether multiple merge targets are needed? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:57, 12 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge/Rename as required. These are just a sample of >140 WP:SMALLCATs in the Category:College sports venues in the United States by institution hierarchy - most of them with just two articles and the biggest I can see has 7. At the very least they need upmerging to the "sports venue" level - and I wouldn't be too sorry to see some merged all the way up to the main institution page as in many (but not all?) cases these will be facilities that are part of the institution's estate so can be treated like any other part of the campus. I can understand the drive to carve up the >300 members of Category:College baseball venues in the United States but by institution doesn't seem the best way to do it, perhaps by state would be a better way? Is there an easy way of tagging all the categories involved? Le Deluge (talk) 01:37, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge there is really no reason to subdivide beyond the college level for sports venues, especially since many have been used for multiple sports.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge -- These categories have two articles each and expansion is improbable. If the category is too large, the usual next level is by state. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:47, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? What do you mean "by state"? These are for specific univeristies, how can we subdivide the univeristy contents "by state"? Do you mean a present and a former cat? I am confused.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:11, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge University sport specific venue cats to the main University sport venues, per nom. Overcat. Plus any others that may be found.--GrapedApe (talk) 03:59, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. Peterkingiron said it best - expansion is improbable. These categories will only ever have, at most, a few articles. Subdivision by sport is too much. Jrcla2 (talk) 13:29, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umperge all venues to the college level, per above. Billcasey905 (talk) 19:14, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nomination. --NaBUru38 (talk) 16:16, 11 April 2013 (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/2013_April_5&oldid=1127488197"