Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 6

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 - Feel free to place Geneva State Forest in whatever cleanup category is appropriate, at editorial discretion. - jc37 00:09, 23 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: There are only three of these categories by decade. Assign them to the approp Category:Protected areas by year of establishment and then delete. No need for a by decade and by year. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 02:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Problem seems to be that articles only specify the decade of establishment and not the year. Tim! (talk) 08:07, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Ah! Yeah. I now remember looking at them a while back and figuring that that was why I could not have them deleted. Three possible scenarios I guess: don't delete them, delete them and don't assign a time of protected area establishment, or find the actual year of establishment for the protected areas. I prefer the last option. They should all have a defining year of establishment.-- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at the first one, and the official History of Geneva State Forest only says 1930s, so I think there is no option but Keep. – Fayenatic London (talk) 11:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Did you find any sources that say when it was established? Donating land to the state does not establish a park. It just gives the state the land. It would take an action of the legislature to actually establish the land as a park. Without this information, using the 1930s as the time of establishment could be wrong and the article should be reworded to reflect this. If that was done, the article would no longer support inclusion in Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Decade is more useful than no year a all and there are always things of vague dates.RafikiSykes (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep where year is unknown but decade is, cat by the later is useful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I just finished looking through a bunch of Google hits for Geneva State Forest. Based on that, I have more questions then answers. None of the sources seen to say when it was established. The fact for this date as the establishment of the park seems to be based on the statement In the early 1930’s Jackson Lumber Company transferred the lands now known as Geneva State Forest to the State of Alabama. This is from the state website. The donation of the land is not the same as the establishment of the park. So what we have with this category is maybe more of a maintenance category where the articles seem to be listed since they need a specific detail provided since they are here pending more specific details. If kept, this could be the impetus for a template that tags the category as a maintenance holding category for articles that lack a specific piece of information and they should be moved to the appropriate category when this information is found. Or maybe it should be hidden. Otherwise someone may think that any protected areas founded in those 10 years belongs here. Based on what I saw, this article does not belong in this category since there is no source to when it was founded that I can find, just when barren land was donated to the state. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some followup. Working through the 1930s category, Little River State Forest's infobox says it was established in 1934 so I moved this article to the more specific category. I also updated Stoney Slough National Wildlife Refuge which was also listed in the 1930s category. My source was the National archives which listed a specific date, February 3, 1941. So I'm less convinced that we need these categories. The 1930s category now has only one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete Category:Protected areas established in the 1950s and Category:Protected areas established in the 1960s. Of the three articles there, reliable sources exist with the exact years, so the three articles that were here have been updated with references and moved to the more specific categories. So these two categories are now empty and the 1930s category has only one article. So keeping that is now very problematic. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Good work, Vegaswikian! Delete two, keep the 1930s and add a statement that it is a maintenance category as described above. IMHO there is sufficient ground to assume from the source that the actual establishment of Geneva State Forest was also within the 1930s. – Fayenatic London (talk) 07:26, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks. After sleeping on this I'd rather create something like Category:Protected areas missing date established or Category:Protected areas needing established date as permanent maintenance category. Creating temporary decade categories seems like overkill and would require someone to notice the need and to create it. Likewise, leaving a large number of these that would normally be empty does not seem the best choice either. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. Decade categories should be retained both as groupings of year categories for navigational purposes, and for articles where the precise year is unclear. If the decade categories end up being container categories holding only subcats, then that's fine too; we have plenty of {{container category}}s, and the help navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:28, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Protected areas established in the 1930s adding to my comment above to delete the other two. Navigation is excellently handled by the century categories and the associated by year category navigation templates. So either we need a cleanup category or we need the categories for navigation. I think that the former makes the stronger case. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:58, 16 May 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.

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) 08:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Jepara football templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: non notable *Annas* (talk) 01:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 13:28, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Given the fact the league & teams involved in the league have now been deleted via AfD the category is redundant. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 19:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The templates have been deleted, so this can just be C1'd I think. Jafeluv (talk) 16:03, 10 May 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.