Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 January 21

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< January 20 January 22 >

January 21

Category:Swedish Army majors

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) 05:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Certainly overcategorization. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:41, 21 January 2021 (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:Swedish Army lieutenant colonels

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) 05:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Wikipedia practice (see Category:Australian colonels, Category:United States Army colonels), lieutenant colonels and colonels should belong in the same category. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:40, 21 January 2021 (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:Swedish Army captains

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) 05:21, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Certainly overcategorization. Lettlerhello • contribs 21:38, 21 January 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Rue Crown

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. – Fayenatic London 20:40, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not defining. Awarded to European royalty, mostly. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 21 January 2021 (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:Destroyed landmarks in Germany

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. – Fayenatic London 20:39, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, these are all buildings and structures, the category does not distinguish itself from its parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:46, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My only concern is whether "Destroyed" and "Demolished" are synonymous. Nigej (talk) 16:25, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coventry Cathedral was destroyed by bombs/fire but not demolished, so a destroyed landmark doesn't necessarily equate to a demolished landmark. Nigej (talk) 20:17, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as with all the others.
    William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:34, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. The categories for notable buildings and structures are called buildings and structures, not landmarks, because non-notable buildings do not have articles on Wikipedia. This category has been filled indiscriminately. Place Clichy (talk) 16:55, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Follow-up see this discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Too subjective without a formal heritage register. - RevelationDirect (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2021 (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.

Mayors of places in Italy

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 for now. – Fayenatic London 20:37, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
more categories nominated
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, just two or three articles in each of these categories and they are not part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 21 January 2021 (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.

Universities and colleges

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. – Fayenatic London 20:35, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
WP:C2C per Category:Universities and colleges by country. The categories above include medical schools and other institutions which are not universities in the strict sense. Place Clichy (talk) 12:33, 21 January 2021 (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.

Accademia Nazionale di Santa Cecilia

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 (implementing this in two stages). – Fayenatic London 20:33, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To reverse the renaming in light of claims stating that they offer different courses. In order to restore the original categories to their original titles, evacuate the revived categories first. Seanetienne (talk) 08:03, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support round-robin swap in light of the recent opposition. Jalen Folf (talk) 08:22, 22 January 2021 (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:Ma Tau Chung

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 merge. Whether certain articles belong in the category are dealt with on article talk pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:47, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Small cat, should merge to the parent cat Category:Kowloon City District.

The real reason is. No one know the definition of Ma Tau Chung in modern day. It only causing edit war to include or exclude wiki article in or out of this cat due to argument on "is it locate in Ma Tau Chung or not", without providing citation / reliable secondary source.

Category:Kowloon City District has legally defined boundary and it is the lowest administrative level to have such legally defined boundary. Below District there is electoral consistency, but that is for election only. Matthew hk (talk) 05:38, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

See also Talk:Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong#Location. Matthew hk (talk) 05:39, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please open an account and cite every single place name wiki article that you want to add the cat....No citation or between citations they contradict each other, would make the cat useless in wikipedia. Matthew hk (talk) 19:45, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
How many articles would you expect? Last time I checked there were like seven or eight. 124.217.189.34 (talk) 20:49, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Also some new evidence. Complete City Guide of Hong Kong 2018 (2018香港大地圖) published by Wan Li Book (an imprint/subsidiary of Sino United Publishing) does not even has Ma Tau Chung as place name. Only Kowloon City, Ma Tau Wai and Ma Tau Kok. The government's e-HongKongGuide 2020 also the same. Probably the publisher considered the place name is obsolete. The "leftover" article currently in this cat, is related to Holy Trinity Cathedral, Hong Kong and Sung Wong Toi but i did not saw any citation. Probably due to previous editors did not add one since the article was created many years ago, as well as the ip (above) was blocked. Matthew hk (talk) 12:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
RS? [1] 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:32, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So government map is not reliable , newspaper is not reliable, map by Chinese-government owned company is not reliable.
WP:UGC content likes gwulo.com is "reliable"? Man, please dig out a map published by other than government and Sino_United_Publishing first.....You have no reliable source in hand as evidence. Matthew hk (talk) 18:12, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
This particular IP address 124.217.189.34 is not mentioned there is it? 1.64.46.31 (talk) 16:32, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This shan't be admissible as evidence unless it's confirmed there. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:28, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning support per
    WP:NONDEF. Surely, "often clear to locals" is not a good argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:30, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I did "depopulated" it when checking the main body text of the articles which has this cat. Either they did not even mentioned Ma Tau Chung in the main body text or did not even has citation as well as all cat are almost all added by blocked ip 124.217.189.34 (the range 124.217.188.0/23 is blocked for a month, as well as 219.76.16.0/20 despite they are two ISPs). Matthew hk (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The editors are ISPs? Could you please clarify and organise what you said? Thanks. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The nominator's rationale is equally true for all Hong Kong neighbourhood categories. If this one should go all these categories may potentially be unable to survive. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 16:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let me ask, where is the boundaries of Tai Wai and Sha Tin the neighbourhoods of
WP:NONDEF. Matthew hk (talk) 16:24, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
On "exclave": No where of the new town of Sha Tin is disconnected. There's no breaking point between Ma On Shan and the rest of the new town. As for Ma Tau Chung, there are still organisations which give their addresses with this area, e.g. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 16:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And it would just went back to the argument of primary source v. secondary source (or argue which name is more supported by secondary sources). Primary source, Hong Kong Aviation Club, stated that the club is located in Kowloon City, which your citation, a secondary source (not really sure it is reliable or not in wikipedia standard), aviationfly.com, stated Ma Tau Chung. It just waste of time and better nuke the subcat and use Category:Kowloon City District only. Matthew hk (talk) 16:38, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That is not a secondary source, since it doesn't rely on or refer to any primary source. It's an external source or third-party source. If in case you couldn't even get this right it's indeed a waste of time to discuss and we'd better nuke the topics you attempt to own. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 16:44, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
So, the source magically made up an address for the Club? The aviationfly.com did not state the source of the address but it can by assumed to be copy from phone book or primary source instead of they made up one for the Club. If they just made up one, then it is not a reliable source. Matthew hk (talk) 09:10, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Aviationfly.com clearly isn't a secondary source. And afterall one doesn't have to refer to any primary source so as to be able to write the address of any particular location. Well you may call maps or street number signs the primary sources but no people don't normally think of addresses as secondary sources. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Treat mine as a keep vote, btw, for the avoidance of doubt if that weren't already clear. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:56, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and repopulate, to be clear. Its limits or extents are clear, although like most neighbourhoods in many different parts of this planet they aren't very definite on the margins. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 17:10, 2 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
There are many areas in Hong Kong which may not be specified in some of those conventional mapbooks available in the market, e.g. Kwun Chung, Shek Tong Tsui, Ngau Tau Kok, Fo Tan, Ma Liu Shui, Pat Heung, Tai Shui Hang, whereas some areas marked, such as Wan Chai North, Whampoa, are just extensions of existing areas. Meanwhile may Wan Li be considered a reliable source? 1.64.46.31 (talk) 16:45, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Pretty sure Fo Tan, Ma Liu Shui, Tai Shui Hang, as place names, appear on newspaper sometimes. Fo Tan, Ma Liu Shui are big enough neighbourhood so that is would not be a small cat. But for Tai Shui Hang, why not just place all Tai Shui Hang-related article in Ma On Shan?
The point is, no newspaper articles (of recent 20 years probably) refers The Church is located at Ma Tau Chung. Probably it seldom appears on newspaper as a place name of modern days. Other neighbourhoods of Hong Kong can be case by case basis. Matthew hk (talk) 09:14, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
See Talk:Sung Wong Toi Garden (my remarks at 19:08 on 25 January). 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:30, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
And i just rebutted you by a lot of newspaper articles from 1950s to 1980s, use Kowloon City for
Sung Wong Toi Garden. Matthew hk (talk) 18:13, 27 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
Since the word district is often dropped what you provided may not be adequate to prove that Sung Wong Toi Garden is in the Kowloon City neighbourhood, and that those weren't reference to the Kowloon City District. Although district boards were only created in the early 1980s district officers were already appointed before that. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 20:44, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per 1.64.46.31. There are dozens of examples that the name is still used by businesses in the area, such as the Family Planning Association, an apartment complex, a flying school and an elementary school. 219.76.15.130 (talk) 15:43, 28 January 2021 (UTC)— 219.76.15.130 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
And where is the reliable source? Also i already rebutted the claim of Sky Tower in somewhere in article
WP:NONDEF. Matthew hk (talk) 11:54, 30 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
There are plenty of reliable sources including recent news stories if you bother to accept them. And this is not a small cat had it not been depopulated by you. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 18:04, 31 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article has since been expanded, with reliable sources showing the area is still relevant to people in the modern times. As for small cat, that would require undoing Matthew hk's depopulation edits while he nominated the category for discussion. Presumably that would better be done after this CfD is concluded as keep. 1.64.46.31 (talk) 19:33, 31 January 2021 (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:Arlo Parks

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. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous category for just two articles.
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:37, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per nom. The songs and albums subcategories already link to each other directly. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:33, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can someone please explain to me under what guidelines this should be deleted? I will also note it contains three categories, not two as the two editors above have both stated. I created it believing it should exist alongside other categories of a similar nature (for e.g. Category:Bryan Adams, which contains four categories, a mere one category more than this one). Sean Stephens (talk) 23:29, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    I referenced
    WP:OCEPON, which states: "eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist." There is a total of 2 directly-related articles in this category, which is what I said in my rationale (I never mentioned how many categories there were). The category of image files does not have any articles, so should not be considered anyway. The Bryan Adams category not only contains 3 well-populated subcategories of articles, it has 10 additional directly-related articles that don't fit in any of the subcats. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:13, 26 January 2021 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • @Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: Ah okay, that makes sense. I didn't see the linked guideline the first time around—I have a slight vision impairment (which makes it hard to sometimes read things like this)—but I understand now why the category doesn't match the guidelines at this point in time. As a result, my vote is Delete. – Sean Stephens (talk) 09:39, 27 January 2021 (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:Air France Flight 447

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 sub-category Category:Air France Flight 447 victims has not been tagged or nominated, and is not included in this close. – Fayenatic London 12:31, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry, the Flight itself, and one subcategory. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:42, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It does not look like any kind of merging is required in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:35, 21 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The subcategory has seven members, for whom it's nontrivial biographical information. Regardless of the category's fate, it should be preserved. Vaticidalprophet (talk) 13:46, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and the sub category too. The 7 "Notable passengers" are listed in the main article. There is no connection between the 7 people so I can't see the need for the sub-category either. Nigej (talk) 16:38, 22 January 2021 (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:Holman Prize

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. – Fayenatic London 10:50, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
There is really not much here: we don't have a main article on this award,
the redirect points to a section in LightHouse for the Blind and Visually Impaired which issued the award, and the category only contains 1 biography article (Penny Melville-Brown). The recipients are already listified right here in the organization article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2021 (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:John Fisher Award winners

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. – Fayenatic London 10:47, 28 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per
WP:OCAWARD
)
There is really not much here: we don't have a main article on this award,
the redirect points to the American Society for Aesthetics which list 3 different awards they issue without much detail, and the category only contains 1 biography article (Rachel Zuckert), and that article only mentions this award in passing so it doesn't seem defining. Normally I suggest listification with awards but there's not much listify and nowhere to put it. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2021 (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/2021_January_21&oldid=1004742050"