Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 November 10

< November 9	November 11 >

November 10

Category:Historical mansions of Bushire

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 (

non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose deleting Category:Historical mansions of Bushire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Extremely over-specific intersection; unlikely to ever become populated. —swpb^T 20:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support, presuming no-one has recently emptied the category. The 'historical' bit is subjective and the category is currently empty anyway. The Houses of Iran category tree is small enough to not require further dissipation at the moment.Sionk (talk) 20:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as empty (speedy?) If it had content I would have said merge to Category:Bushehr County or something related to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2016 (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:Works of Qajar dynasty in Bushire

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 (

non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose deleting Category:Works of Qajar dynasty in Bushire (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Extremely over-specific intersection; unlikely to ever become populated. —swpb^T 20:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty (speedy?) If it had content I would have said merge to Category:Bushehr County or something related to that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 13 November 2016 (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:The X Factor (Australian TV series) judges

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 (

non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Propose deleting Category:The X Factor (Australian TV series) judges (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The X Factor (Australian TV series) hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:The X Factor (Australian TV series) spin-off hosts (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale:

WP:PERFCAT. A parent category was deleted in July, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 18#Category:The X Factor (TV series) judges. anemone projectors 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Note I've just added two other categories created by the same user at the same time, relating to the same programme. These should be deleted for the same reason. anemone projectors 18:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is a classic case of
WP:PERFCAT. Possibly listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:12, 13 November 2016 (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:Environmental issues with population

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. This is without prejudice to a future proposal to merge to Category:Human impact on the environment. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:06, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Environmental issues with population to Category:Human activities with impact on the environment

Nominator's rationale: Current category name does not very clearly reflect the contents. The proposed name is a variation on the name of the parent Category:Human impact on the environment. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Far clearer. --
old fashioned! 10:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Merge to Category:Human impact on the environment. To match main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That is also an option. I hadn't proposed a merge at the start because the content of the two categories is quite distinct, in the target the focus is on environmental impact while in the nominated category the focus is on human activities. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 13 November 2016 (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:Ancient lost cities and towns

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) 01:01, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Ancient lost cities and towns (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: We already have Category:Lost cities and towns, this is moving articles out of that into this new one and I don't think there is sufficient reason to split. Doug Weller talk 06:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC) Doug Weller talk 06:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree and vote to oppose the deletion of this new category (or replace it with a "Major lost cities" category.) The Category:Lost cities and towns is too large and it includes a huge number of obscure, mainly tiny locations in the U.S., "burying" the lost ancient cities of major interest in Archaeology. That's why I have created the new sub-category Category:Ancient lost cities and towns, to be able to distinguish them easily. Seriously, the ancient city of Akkad, former capital of the Akkadian Empire and a "major target" of History, has nothing to do with Ahapchingas, California except for being both lost populated places, with all due respect to the Tongva people. --MaeseLeon (talk) 06:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per MaeseLeon. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment' Ok, I can see a rationale and would support a better defined category. I don't think major would work as I can't see a way of defining major. "Ancient" is better than "major" but I think still too ambiguous. I suggest posting this cfd at wikiproject archaeology to get input from there.Doug Weller talk 08:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What is ambiguous about it? Marcocapelle (talk) 22:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- How is the average lay editor going to know which category is appropriate? I think the main article has a different audience than most articles on history or archaeology. And the problem with "Ancient" is there is no clear date.
  Ancient Vietnam for instance ends in 111 BCE. Doug Weller talk 09:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
  ]

In all instances an article should be placed in the most specific category of a tree, so if it's ancient it goes into Category:Ancient lost cities and towns, otherwise it goes into Category:Lost cities and towns. It would make a lot of sense to create a subCategory:Lost cities and towns in the United States though. Further comment below. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:40, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest Category:Lost native American cities and towns for specificity, or better still, Category:Lost native American settlements. Following from below, see again the grammatical flaw with the current category names if we were to call it Category:Native American lost cities and towns. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue in any case that there were no Native American cities. Doug Weller talk 14:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if we can come up with a better one. I agree that it's awkwardly named, but useful to distinguish from those currently in Category:Lost cities and towns. Perhaps they could be categorised by era, with these ones being defined under "Antiquity"? ‑‑Yodin^T 23:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to what exactly and what is wrong with the name to begin with? It clearly refers to Ancient history and there is a established category tree Category:Ancient history already. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That may be clear to you, but not to myself, or presumably many other editors. Also see
WP:CATNAME – categories should avoid descriptive adjectives; how many other major categories can you think of that have adjectives in their name? My suggestion would be something like Category:Lost cities and towns in Antiquity, Category:Lost cities and towns from Antiquity, or Category:Lost cities and towns of Antiquity, with corresponding categories for other eras. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Antiquity is an ambiguous term, it may refer to ancient history in general or it may refer to ancient Greek-Roman history only. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The word order is also bad – if we followed the current setup we would end up with, "Medieval lost cities and towns" etc., which just isn't great English; "Lost medieval cities and towns" & "Lost ancient cities and towns" would be better. ‑‑Yodin^T 11:39, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't have a problem with Category:Lost ancient cities and towns for the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 12 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion and renaming. Well named, and well defined category, being a recognisable and distinct subcategory of the parent, which is equally well named. --
old fashioned! 08:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply
]

Rename Category:Lost ancient cities and towns and purge, ~~or rather merge to Category:Ancient lost cities and towns, as that exists~~. Most of the articles that I sampled referred to a place mentioned in Greek or Roman literary sources, but we do not know where they are. That is different from depopulated places and archaeological sites. If there are medieval examples they probably need to go into that. One came from legend and an author's attempt to locate it. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
- @Peterkingiron: I'm confused. You seem to be suggesting merging it to itself. Doug Weller talk 16:55, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  - So I was. How silly! This discussion got off to a wrong start by someone bringing in a Californian depopulated town, which should not be in the category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Clearly defined category, notable topic, and scope for expansion. This category has merits. Dimadick (talk) 21:39, 1 December 2016 (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:Catholic Church in Madeira

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) 01:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Catholic Church in Madeira to Category:Catholic Church in Portugal

Nominator's rationale:

Catholic Church in Madeira. -- Tavix ^(talk) 00:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply

]

Keep -- as an island belonging to Portugal, rather than part of the main country, it is appropriate to have a separate tree for the island. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom, the fact that this is an island doesn't require a more elaborate categorization scheme. Note that by this merge the intermediate levels Category:Religion in Madeira and Category:Christianity in Madeira will become empty, they can be deleted as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:44, 14 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support If there was a clear difference with Catholicism on the island, I would support the separate category. (In that case, there would probably be more articles.) RevelationDirect (talk) 03:33, 27 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category - Part of Portugal, but quite distinct, similar to Catholic Church in the Azores, for example. I've added "Category:Catholic Church in Portugal" to the page so it shows up in the the main Portuguese Catholic category as well. The two should remain separate. Scanlan (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2016 (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.