Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 9

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< February 8 February 10 >

February 9

edit

Category:Gannett Company

edit
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 Gannett (company) (WP:NAC) with no prejudice against a further CFD (or RM of the article) if any editors want the category name and the article name to match exactly and think there might be consensus to do so. DexDor (talk) 18:35, 22 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The company is not called "Gannett Company"; it is, instead, "Gannett" or "Gannett Co., Inc." (see website). At WP:CFD/S, it was argued that Category:Gannett would be ambiguous (see the archived discussion at the category's talk page), which is a fair point (see Gannett (disambiguation)). (Pinging the category's creator, User:Maurreen) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:25, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I should have been more constructive with what I see as the solution:
  • Next to supporting the first proposal of nominator (see below), I'm also supporting this variant. It is not very likely that Gannett without disambiguator is taken for something else than the company. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 10 February 2019 (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:Buildings designed by Albert Kahn

edit
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:11, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the Foo buildings convention of Category:Buildings and structures by American architects and the main article, Albert Kahn (architect). This was a contested speedy (see the category's talk page); however, Albert Kahn is ambiguous. (Pinging the category's creator, User:Carptrash) -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:08, 9 February 2019 (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:Grade II listed ruins

edit
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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:55, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ruins are not listed for being a ruin - the entries are ruined castles, churches. Being ruined is not a function.Arguably the majority of UK castles are ruined. FDent (talk) 19:01, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep When listing is generally given on the basis of some architectural merit, doing so despite being ruined would seem notable.
Why are you depopulating this during a deletion discussion? "Category:Ruins in Bristol, not listed because its in ruins category" And using misleading and irrelevant edit summaries to hide this? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:11, 9 February 2019 (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:Artsakh

edit
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: relisted at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 17#Category:Artsakh. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The page Artsakh itself is a dab, with two primary meanings - the republic and the Armenian name of the disputed region of Nagorno-Karabakh. For the republic we have Category:Republic of Artsakh, while this particular category is actually about the region under its Armenian name which violates WP:NPOV. For the name of the region there's already neutral Category:Nagorno-Karabakh. Brandmeistertalk 18:49, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The maps on the articles show they are about different geographical areas (albeit in the same region of the world). Artsakh currently is a dab - and if it was changed to a SIA (especially a dab-like SIA) (assuming that's what you mean by "an index page") then that would still indicate that it's an ambiguous name (no primary topic) and an hence unsuitable name for a category. DexDor (talk) 22:08, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The republic consists of a much smaller area, true, but the same applies to Hungary and Austria which are much smaller than before 1918 while we still have categories for Hungary and Austria including their history before 1918. It would have been more convincing if we would have had an overview article about the geographic history of Artsakh in the course of ages, but having a main article is not a mandatory requirement for having a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:41, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • This isn't really a matter of geography/history; it's a matter of wp categorization - it doesn't make sense for Category:Foobar to be a category (not a redirect) whilst Foobar is a dab page (or dab-like SIA). Either "Artsakh" is ambiguous (in which case it shouldn't be the title of a category) or it has a primary meaning (in which case there shouldn't be a dab page at that location). Are there any other such cases? DexDor (talk) 19:54, 4 March 2019 (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:Millennia in the Kingdom of Georgia

edit
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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:22, 15 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, the Kingdom of Georgia only existed in the 2nd millennium so a diffusion by millennium does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:11, 9 February 2019 (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.

Roman Catholic dioceses in Great Britain

edit
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) 06:56, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale It does not pertain to the short-lived entity known as the Kingdom of Great Britain. There are already categories for Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in Scotland and for Category:Roman Catholic dioceses in England and Wales so this is a layer of unnecessary categorisation. The Church is organised by country in the island of Great Britain (i.e. an episcopal conference for Scotland and an episcopal conference for England and Wales). The Church is organised by island in the island of Ireland. I have already boldly distributed its contents to the appropriate categories.Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:43, 9 February 2019 (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:Iranian history

edit
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 --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:14, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename in order to differentiate more clearly from Category:History of Iran. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:11, 9 February 2019 (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:People from North Delhi district

edit
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) 07:16, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I am not sure if such a category is useful. The division of Delhi into "districts" is a fairly recent phenomenon. I believe the boundaries of these political/administrative divisions have also shifted a bit. Associating these with birth place/origin is not that easy. I have hardly seen people claiming to be from "North Delhi district". In most cases, people claim to be simply from "Dehi". There are currently 3 articles in this category Sikander Bakht, Subhadra Joshi, Saksham Yadav and I am not sure how they were classified as being from "North Delhi district". Could we delete this category please? DreamLinker (talk) 12:02, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is that districts as a formal division is a very recent phenomenon. More importantly, it is almost never applied to people. For example, I have never heard of someone being from "North Delhi district", most people will just say I am from "Delhi".--DreamLinker (talk) 08:57, 17 February 2019 (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:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory

edit
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: relisted at WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_March_19#Category:1838_establishments_in_Oregon_Territory. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:30, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Oregon Territory was not created until 1848. The Oregon Country categories for these should be used instead. Aboutmovies (talk) 01:17, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Aboutmovies: Deleting is something else than renaming. If you want to rename these categories you should clearly indicate what you propose as the new names, in the format:
Propose renaming Category:xxx to Category:yyy".
- Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 9 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I thought we already had the Oregon Country cats set up, and we do, but apparently not back into the 1830s. So, we just replace Territory with "Country": Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1838 establishments in Oregon Country; Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Territory to Category:1830s establishments in Oregon Country; Category:1838 in Oregon Territory to Category:1838 in Oregon Country; Category:1830s in Oregon Territory to Category:1830s in Oregon Country.
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/2019_February_9&oldid=888470634"