Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 September 16

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

September 16

Category:Districts of Kristiansand

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 Category:Districts of Kristiansand to Category:Boroughs of Kristiansand, without prejudice to further nominations for changes. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:28, 12 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Standard naming, at least as far Norway goes, cf. Category:Neighbourhoods of Oslo. Geschichte (talk) 21:31, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question, the actual contents of the both categories seems not to overlap too much, is there a reason for that? Marcocapelle (talk) 05:20, 17 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename / don't merge. I've been checking out both categories. Apparently a neighbourhood is a part of a district. Or actually the articles refer to "boroughs" instead of "districts" so I would rather propose to rename the nominated category to Category:Boroughs of Kristiansand. In fact some other Norwegian cities have a category "Boroughs and neighbourhoods" which should be all right when the number of boroughs and neigbourhoods is too small to make separate categories. But that's not the situation here. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:09, 18 September 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:Places of interest in Kristiansand

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; the sole article in it was already categorized in a subcategory of Category:Tourist attractions in Norway. It is also in Category:Tourism in Kristiansand. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:59, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not possible or feasible to define "interest". Strictly speaking, all our articles related to the city Kristiansand should be included here, since a topic has to catch interest (notability) to be included in Wikipedia. Geschichte (talk) 21:25, 16 September 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:Things named after Nnamdi Azikiwe

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) 02:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories group together an airport, a stadium and a university on the basis of how they are named. See
WP:SHAREDNAME. DexDor (talk) 20:47, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Categories are indended to group articles about similar subjects, not to "showcase" anything. DexDor (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
What happens after they are grouped? Stanleytux (talk) 22:13, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's already there: Nnamdi Azikiwe#Honours. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:51, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There are also thousands of other people who have had things named after them and we do not usually have such a category (e.g. Einstein - CFD). DexDor (talk) 21:59, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe we don't usually have such a category but we do have Category:Things named after people which is like the main category containing a bunch of things named after notable people. Stanleytux (talk) 22:08, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would also favor deleting/listifying Category:Things named after Taras Shevchenko. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:47, 16 September 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.

Cardiovascular disease deaths

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) 02:56, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per outcome of this discussion. This nomination will be extended to all countries if it gets consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:47, 15 September 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:Dry places in New Jersey

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 to Category:Places in New Jersey that prohibit the sale of alcohol. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 24 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. A CFD for this category was a resounding "keep" last month, and another was just closed as "keep" a few hours ago, but today's closer specifically noted that there was no consensus regarding the name itself; the first "keep" was consensus against deletion, and the second was against splitting the category into several pieces. I'm just suggesting that we change the name without changing the category's scope. Basically, the name is confusing, because it makes it sound as if this category embraces locations with little rainfall, not locations that prohibit the sale of alcohol. The previous CFD attracted several people who advocated for "dry jurisdictions" or "dry municipalities"; I'm suggesting "municipalities" because "jurisdictions" can embrace non-municipalities, such as school districts and entire counties, which aren't what we're looking for here. While "dry places" could refer to spots without rain, anyone will understand that precipitation doesn't follow municipal boundaries, so even the reader who's never heard this sense of "dry" will understand that it's something unrelated to rainfall. Final note: at the previous CFD, someone noted that one article in the category wasn't a separate municipality. I've removed this category from the article because it's a different situation: it's a privately owned community, and the landowner prohibits the sale of alcohol. "Dry" in this sense refers to legal jurisdictions of whatever sort that enact laws forbidding alcohol sales, not private owners that choose not to sell it or use contracts and similar civil law tools to prevent sales on their own property; otherwise we could put most fast-food restaurants in the category too, since they generally don't sell alcohol and don't allow others to sell alcohol on their own grounds. Nyttend (talk) 15:19, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Rename I'm not sure that "dry municipalities" is any better than "dry towns" or "dry places" in describing places that prohibit the sale of alcohol, not that face persistent drought. The choice of "municipality" seems designed to accomplish nothing in terms of clarity while losing an entry for Ocean Grove, New Jersey. The community, which is a census-designated place with more than 3,300 residents, was established in 1869 by the Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association, which still operates the community, setting rules and regulations that have the force of law, including restrictions on the sale of liquor. This article from The New York Times is one of hundreds available that highlight the fact that the community is dry and it is clear that the non-sale of alcohol is a defining characteristic of the community, which could not possibly be said about a single restaurant that chooses not to have a liquor license or sell alcohol. The community had been incorporated as a municipality in 1920, a status that lasted for a year until it was dissolved by the state courts, and to this day the community maintains an independent status. This article emphasizes the status of Ocean Grove "as a quasi-independent enclave" that was established under a "special legislative charter [that] allowed the incorporated Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association to retain private ownership of all of the land but operate it as a municipality." Losing the Ocean Grove article in this structure loses the ability to navigate across similar articles by their common defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
That's a really interesting piece of history near me that I was not aware of but, according to the article, the official theocratic rule ended in 1981. Sources are scared but I'm guessing the church is restricting alcohol now because they own all the land in the town (or in the neighborhood, it's only a 3rd of a square mile) and won't lease it to alcohol merchants. If so, such a private lease restriction is the same as a legal ban, it's more like if the LDS Church decided not to rent to anyone selling alcohol in City Creek Center (which was considered). RevelationDirect (talk) 00:01, 17 September 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:Albums certified by Musiikkituottajat

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) 03:26, 28 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trying this way again. Nothing personal with the Finnish music industry but the discussions for
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristics for the albums. Picking an article at random, Greatest Hits (Eurythmics album) for example without be better off without categories for all the various album certifications. Ricky81682 (talk) 05:13, 16 September 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:Stradivari violas

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) 02:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of
WP:C1
, an empty category.
Wikipedia doesn't have even a single article about a Stradivarius viola. Instead, this category has 1 redirect to a string quartet that played with four Stradivarius instruments, including a viola. That's a tenuous basis for a category. The list of known Stradivarius instruments does include several violas so no objection to recreating once we have some actual articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Jason Quinn as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Musical Instruments. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:07, 16 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- without prejudice to re-creation if it can be it can be adequately populated. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:30, 19 September 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_September_16&oldid=1074815714"