Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 September 11

< September 10	September 12 >

September 11

Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2009/10

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 parent categories. — ξ ^xplicit 06:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2009/10 to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories, as it contains only one article and its unlikely there will be more. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 22:34, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, you are right. The Category:Show Jumping World Cup is enough. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 16:11, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 18 September 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:FEI World Cup Jumping 2010/11

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 parent categories. — ξ ^xplicit 06:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:FEI World Cup Jumping 2010/11 to [[:Category:]]

Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent categories, as it contains only one article and its unlikely there will be more. Sir Armbrust ^{Talk to me} _Contribs 22:33, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, you are right. The Category:Show Jumping World Cup is enough. --Nordlicht8 (talk) 16:11, 12 September 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:Places of Lord Buddha visited

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 to delete; rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 22:53, 20 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Places of Lord Buddha visited to Category:Places that Gautama Buddha visited

Propose renaming Category:Places of Lord Buddha visited in India to Category:Places in India that Gautama Buddha visited

Propose renaming Category:Places of Lord Buddha visited in Sri Lanka to Category:Places in Sri Lanka that Gautama Buddha visited

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These definitely have the potential to be overapplied, but if kept and used in a limited way as they seem to be right now, they should at least use proper English phrasing. I also suggest using "Gautama Buddha" per

Gautama Buddha and Category:Gautama Buddha and its other subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:31, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

Delete Having someone having visited somewhere is not notable. Where he was born or died, Deer Park--those can all be categorized under Category:Gautama Buddha, but having simply gone somewhere (especially since he was a traveling monk!) is trivial. If kept, speedy rename per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:06, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The Sri Lanka category already exists as a list, given as one of the category's lead articles:
a list; and a list, like the Sri Lanka one for Buddha, has the potential to be more informative. – Fayenatic (talk) 20:54, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Support The argument that these are not notable is ridiculous, even for Justin. They all became huge pilgrimage sites, and mostly remain so. I would prefer [[:Category:Sites [in India] visited by Gautama Buddha]], or "associated with", but the nomed names are clear. Perhaps one should work in a "believed to have been" or something, since the identity of the modern sites with names in historical sources is not accepted by all authorities I think. Johnbod (talk) 21:30, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
- I think the "sites visited by Gautama Buddha" phrasing is probably preferable to my initial suggestions. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:49, 14 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response "Even for Justin...?" He visited lots of places--that's what he did in his life was visit places. If they became pilgrimage sites, then rename it Category:Buddhist pilgrimage sites or somesuch. At the very least, it could be Category:Places associated with Gautama Buddha, but just places he visited? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

All the recorded ones became pilgrimage sites, but not all Buddhist pilgrimage sites are places he visited. The category and the name are more specific, which is a good thing. Most of the places concerned are best known, or entirely known, for this. Your objection seems without merit. Johnbod (talk) 07:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's as I said in the nomination: given the name, it has the potential to be overapplied to any place G.B. visited, but they are currently being used in a limited, appropriate way, on articles that are notable for the connection. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:25, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the ones that are in the category are pretty much the only ones recorded. Indian cities, never mind villages, are notoriously mobile over long historic periods. Johnbod (talk) 14:38, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and listify. Having had someone visit a place is not a notable characterization of the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 18 September 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:Tennis players of Eastern-European descent

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. Courcelles 04:47, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization; not part of an overall scheme. It makes sense to categorize tennis players by nationality. I see categorizing them by ethnicity or general geographic origin, as here, to be overcategorization. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:19, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Generally no relationship between eastern europeans except that they have a relationship with eastern europe. unrelated intersectionCurb Chain (talk) 04:32, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with above. This is being overly loose with a categorization. Fyunck(click) (talk) 07:28, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not needed; tons of articles are missing anyway.--
_Hey^{it's me}_{I am dynamite} 12:02, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Eastern-European descent is not accepted as a trans-national designation that we use to group people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 18 September 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:Second Wranglers

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. — ξ ^xplicit 06:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. See the section on Senior Wranglers below for reasons r.e.b. (talk) 21:03, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – this was extensively debated at cfd and drv a year or so ago. A contentious nomination such as this should include links to previous discussions and should apprise related wikiprojects - eg Cambridge University and mathematics.
talk) 21:10, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete This is a trivial ranking based on standing on one test. It has not even been made public since 1909.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

And, accordingly, no one since 1909 is in the category, so your rationale is flawed.
talk) 08:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per John Pack Lambert. This is akin to membership in a secret society where we don't categorize membership. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It was not in any way secret (pre-1909): quite the reverse, there was extensive prior speculation and the result was greeted with international coverage and acclaim, like a mathematical X-Factor. (An idea for Simon Cowell, perhaps.) I am not advocating the inclusion of anyone post-1909.
talk) 08:01, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Occuli, & previous discussions. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This is notable academic distinction. This is the second best mathematics graduate of one of the two top UK universities. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:14, 2 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:Senior Wranglers

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. Courcelles 04:57, 19 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete.

Wranglers of the University of Cambridge so there is no need to use the category system for additional incomplete lists. r.e.b. (talk) 21:00, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply

]

History: Link to 2008 discussion ("keep") • Link to 2009 Senior Wrangers discussion ("delete") • Link to 2009 Second Wranglers discussion ("delete") • Link to 2009 DRV ("overturn deletions")

Keep – this was extensively debated at cfd and drv a year or so ago. A contentious nomination such as this should include links to previous discussions and should apprise related wikiprojects - eg Cambridge University and mathematics.
talk) 21:09, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]
- Previous nomination history added. How time flies - it's been almost 2.5 years, not just a year or so, since the DRV.
  Bencherlite ^Talk 17:35, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete This is not a public position. The heading of wrangler admits that only a few of the wranglers since 1909 have been publicly known. This is only marginally more relevant than making a category Category:Harvard validictorians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. This is akin to membership in a secret society where we don't categorize membership. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Both the comments above refer to the post-1909 period, but the notability of the Senior Wrangler position goes back to the 19th century. Then it was extremely public and notable and the proportion of people in the list at
Wranglers of the University of Cambridge from that period who have articles attests to this. Yes, it is an odd position, but a general reading of the history of 19th century UK will show how significant the Wrangler position was. It might look as if compares to other validictorians, but it is very different. --Bduke (Discussion) 23:01, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Bduke & Occuli, & previous discussions. Johnbod (talk) 01:22, 19 September 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:Islamic conquests

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 October 5#Category:Islamic conquests. — ξ ^xplicit 06:50, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Islamic conquests to Category:Muslim conquests

Nominator's rationale: Per main article. "Islamic" and "Muslim" appear to be used on Wikipedia at random. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:05, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the category includes
Muslim conquest in the Indian subcontinent (as well as Muslim conquests, which is the main article you refer to I guess). And those are only three articles in the category that use either "Islamic" or "Muslim" in the title. So I guess you're right about random use. I'm not voting and it's OK with me whatever is decided, but if it's really random and close to 50/50 usage, why not just leave it alone. Herostratus (talk) 22:07, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply
]

There's also a category - called Category:Islamic rule in the Indian subcontinent. Will we have to move this too? Mar4d (talk) 13:34, 28 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Military spread of Islam. Conquest is a hard to define term, especially since some such as Timur's invasion of Georgia was a short-lived thing. There is no good reason to seperate various military actions, and in the case of India some things were more short-term invasions that full-fledged conquests.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 18 September 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:Pope Pius XII theology

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 C2D. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:41, 13 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Pope Pius XII theology to Category:Theology of Pope Pius XII

Nominator's rationale: grammar. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 04:21, 11 September 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:20th century in Boston, Massachusetts

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:20, 18 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category appears to have been created to match one on commons. Basically this category is so broad as to be useless. It can include anything that happened in the city over that 100 years. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not the only category like this, there are several others, so this will test the waters and see where consensus is on this category structure. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:03, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Don't see such a category tree as necessary Mayumashu (talk) 16:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep contains 36 articles so the nominator's concerns seem rather weak. Tim! (talk) 20:26, 2 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted
to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 00:46, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was all set to agree to deletion, but then I went to the category page, and it seemed all right. I even added an item. :) --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:59, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep sufficient use; reasonable browsing topic. DGG ( talk ) 20:50, 11 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This diffuses categories about the 20th century in the United States (which would be unwieldy) and Massachusetts (much more reasonable) as well as the history of Boston. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:08, 12 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If the 20th-century in Boston is too unwiedly, than merging this into a general Boston category is even worse. The 19th century cat has 285 or so articles. This is a workable setup, at least for cities with long and involved histories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:52, 18 September 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.