Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 June 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< June 15 June 17 >

June 16

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:1980s jazz albums

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) 04:51, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Do we really need to start categorizing genres of albums by which decade they were released. There are so many genre categories and many albums cross multiple genres that going down this road will simply lead to overcategorization – not to mention the genre warring that already goes on in a lot of articles as it is. Such albums are already succinctly categorized by year and its genre (typically via its "albums by artist" category) per
WP:ALBUMS. I don't see a need to take this to another level. Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 23:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep That sort of thing can be done using AWB. A decade category for jazz albums doesn't seem unreasonable. It's if we start doing years it'll get too much. We have films by genre by decade. I'm sure User:Ser Amantio di Nicolao could easily add decade categories feeding off albums in jazz album and a certain year categories. For me a jazz buff, being able to browse through 1950s jazz albums etc would be most useful.♦ Dr. Blofeld 17:03, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in regard to the above: recategorizing wouldn't be difficult, with the proper tools. Neutral on the category argument because I'm not hep to the jive, man...ahem, because I don't know enough about jazz to have an informed opinion. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 17:58, 18 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment replaced by Keep, the category doesn't seem to violate any guideline. If it does, nominator should make this more explicit. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's not about a guideline but a precendent being set that should allow for albums by decade for every music genre because when someone sees it for one, they think it should apply to all. This just brings another element of potential genre warring not to mention overcategorization for albums that cross genres. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:46, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't really worry about that. If someone starts creating similar categories for a genre that is actually too small for subdividing by decade, these categories can be nominated here to become deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:52, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. An album is categorized by year of release and artist. The "albums by" category is further categorized by genre. Most artists have a decade and those that exceed that have templates to show what was issued when. That makes this category surplus to requirements. Then there's all the future "genre discussions" which fans have, but not musicians...generally... --Richhoncho (talk) 10:41, 19 July 2015 (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.

Atlanta historic properties

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:City of Atlanta-designated historic sites (via a messy, rough consensus). I could not find any subcategories as were mentioned in the nomination. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:48, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Despite the broad title of the category, the category does not match every historic property in Atlanta (which would be hard to define in any case); rather it contains only sites designated by the City of Atlanta. (The parent article is list of historic buildings and districts designated by the City of Atlanta). Neutralitytalk 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Other locally-landmarked or designated buildings have clearer category names (Category:Davenport Register of Historic Properties, Category:Los Angeles Historic-Cultural Monuments‎, Category:Philadelphia Register of Historic Places‎, Category:San Francisco Designated Landmarks‎). Neutralitytalk 19:49, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It wouldn't be my most preferred option (it is that important who designates?) but I'd be okay for the sake of consensus. The current category name with "properties" is really confusing, let's get rid of that first. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:46, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's really important who designates, because otherwise we have unclear inclusion criteria. Neutralitytalk
  • Tentative oppose both, but I lean towards the former more than towards the latter. It's too long - my chief objection - but it's accurate in that it notes designation by the city of Atlanta as a criterion for inclusion. --Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 14:23, 19 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The target may well be strictly correct, but will be much better expressed as a headnote further defining the category, rather than as the category name. My preference is to keep category names as short as possible. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:29, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That would certainly do: nice and concise. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 25 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer: (at this moment) there is clear consensus about the necessity to rename. Therefore please don't close as 'no consensus' even if there is no consensus about the exact target. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:15, 27 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Yes, should be short but include some mention of the City of Atlanta to distinguish from Category:National Register of Historic Places in Atlanta, Georgia, perhaps Atlanta (or City of Atlanta) designated historic places (or buildings) Hugo999 (talk) 23:57, 15 July 2015 (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:Official historical monuments of France

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. There seems to be a consensus among participants that a rename is a good idea, but there is no consensus here on what the name should be. The category was also not tagged with Template:Cfr. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I believe that when referring to listed heritage sites we should use the official naming as it's a formal listing.♦ Dr. Blofeld 16:06, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Clumsy? Obviously you can't have them ALL in one category, they'll be split by department so you have to say in xx.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:26, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • What I said before applies similarly to category names of departments, although that's not part of the nomination now. Having that in mind, the most practical solution is then to use the latter solution, Category:Listed monuments in France and apply that to the departments too. Hopefully there will be other countries included as branches in the listed monuments tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:25, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only objection I have to such terminology is that "listed monument" does not necessarily equal "Monument historique". It implies only that a monument has been listed on a register...what that register may be is not clear. I don't know much about historic preservation in France, but my concern is that if there are other historic registers (as I suppose there may well be), "listed monument" could be taken to suggest an entry on one of those. Using "monument historique" in a category name isn't perfect, I know, but to me it's the best option because it's the clearest.--Ser Amantio di NicolaoChe dicono a Signa?Lo dicono a Signa. 13:37, 17 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is an English encyclopedia, category names are in English. Beyond this, there is thecommon name rule. Lastly, category names that are descriptive are generally the best way to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2015 (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:4th-millennium BC establishments in Egypt

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: Gosh this is difficult to interpret. But I think that this is what was the result: delete Category:4th-millennium BC establishments in Egypt and merge its contents to Category:4th-millennium BC establishments in Africa; make sure Category:4th-millennium BC establishments in Africa is properly within the Category:Establishments in Africa by millennium and Category:4th-millennium BC establishments trees; delete Category:4th-millennium BC establishments by country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:56, 26 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per
WP:SMALLCAT, it is the only entry of Category:4th-millennium BC establishments in Africa and the only entry of Category:4th-millennium BC establishments by country. Just generally this millennium has too little contents for splitting the establishments by country. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:47, 16 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Note to closer: I have tagged the Africa category as a procedural nomination per the alternative proposal. Let the discussion run for at least another week. – Fayenatic London 19:04, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
1000 years is such a long time, that I cannot see that millennium categories are useful to have. If the object is to parent centuries and we have a category for every century from 4000 BC to the present (and I doubt we will get much that precise so far back), we would only have 60 or so subcats. That is perfectly manageable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with User:Fayenatic london, we should keep consistency in the structure of the categories, so support additional proposal added 26 June to the original nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 30 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - per nom. There was no Egypt in 4th millennia BCE, neither modern nor Pharaonic.GreyShark (dibra) 10:05, 13 August 2015 (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/2015_June_16&oldid=1138408816"