Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 2

< February 1 February 3 >

February 2

County Championships

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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 03:30, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Gaelic games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 2 February 2013 (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.

County Football Championships by year

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13#County Football Championships by year. The Bushranger One ping only 03:41, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, since no one has commented yet, there exist four categories on their own with the format Year County Senior Football Championships, e.g. Category:2008 County Senior Football Championships. Now this seems overly specific altogether. Perhaps those categories should just be divided by year (the Sligo Intermediate Football Championship is in that category anyway). This would also rename these particular subcategories for consistency with the same parent category which is currently at Category:GAA County Championships and would allow the inclusion of hurling and intermediate football.
There aren't so many County Championships per year that they need be divided much further (as they currently are)
About 32 X 3 (senior, intermediate, junior) X2 (football and hurling) still equals less than 200.
Could the above be addressed by:

? Same as the naming format of Category:Gaelic Athletic Association All Star Awards (football) with football at the end. Hurling could be done likewise if there was a need for it.

As for the notability of junior and intermediate levels - it depends. Based on what it says in their Wikipedia entries, to give two examples, Paul Galvin has won Kerry Junior Football Championships and Michael Murphy has won a Donegal Intermediate Football Championship. If, to take a soccer parallel, every competition in the English football league system has a Wikipedia entry (when the likes of Sergio Agüero and Wayne Rooney would likely never play in the North West Counties Football League or the Manchester Football League) why shouldn't the intermediate and junior championships in Gaelic football (which often feature the sport's major stars) be covered by Wikipedia if reliable sources can be unearthed? --86.40.105.141 (talk) 15:43, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the reliable sources are found, then of course there can be articles on junior and intermediate levels. My point was imply that it less likely that reliable sources will be found for competitions at the lower levels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:29, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per BHG. Brocach (talk) 20:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

    • I support that renaming (changing my !vote). It doesn't change the scope, but does remove ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oppose this alternative proposal; as far as I am aware only the GAA organises county and provincial football championships throughout Ireland, all of which are named in the conventional format [name of county or province] [level of competition i.e. Minor, Under-21, Junior, Intermediate, Senior] Football Championship. I am not aware of a single case where an Australian Rules, American, soccer or other football championship is named in a way that could lead to confusion with the competitions that the GAA has run since the 1880s, but individual cases could be addressed by DAB pages. We have just had lengthy debates over the renaming of scores of articles about these GAA competitions away from the conventional format; we really don't need a similar set of changes to categories. Brocach (talk) 18:49, 10 February 2013 (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 Christian saints

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:Ante-Nicene Christian saints then purge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:59, 12 February 2013 (UTC)}[reply]
Nominator's rationale Notwithstanding the decision at CFD of November 14, there is a case to be made for this re-naming proposal. This category is about a period of time spanning a few centuries. It is not about the geographical limits of a particular Empire. Long after the demise of the Roman Empire in Britain, for example, people continued to be martyred for their faith. Such people may still be said to have existed in theRoma era, despite the ebbing of the Empire itself. The parent category is Category:Christian saints by period. Two of the other categories in this tree use "era" in their names (i.e. Category:Christian saints of the Early Modern era and Category:Christian saints of the Late Modern era. This "by period" scheme also mirrors the scheme of Category:Christian martyrs by period. In this latter case, the equivalent time period is named Category:Christian martyrs of the Roman era. So the two articles, which are obviously closely linked, should share the same name structure. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:06, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No actually One has to admire the persistancy and constancy with which you advance this argument. No matter how often it is rejected, you you come out batting. Nevertheless, I must am obliged to remind others that while many Chistians of the Roman era would have considered themselves to be catholic (with a small c) or orthodox or even arian, none would have used the term Roman Catholic - not even the Patriarch of the West. Not until the Great Schism could such a term have been employed. Many would argue for a date as late as Trent. In any case, this category is not concerned with denominations as such; it is concerned with broad periods of time. Such eras usually have more neutral names, precisely so as to avoid religious POV issues such as the one that you have raised. Peace. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:52, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Reply I don't understand the objections of the last two comments. Both seem to think that the purpose of the nomination is to tie the saints to the Roman Empire. If so, then the assumption is incorrect. The nomination specificaly mentions that it is the geographically neutral era that is involvedf, not the Empire. That is, the generally employed time period that encompasses the time period of the existance of the Western Roman Empire without saying anything about whether or not the saints themselves were part of that Empire. It's possible for Saint Thomas, who may have died in India, to have been in the Roman era, even if not in the Empire itself. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I understood that you were wanting to define a period of time based on one of the dominant cultures. However, doing so adds a European bias to the history of Christianity. From memory during the so-called "Roman era" you suggest there were more African and Asian Christians than European (I don't the source for this to hand). Hence my non-support for this proposal. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 23:17, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh all right then I can go along with Ante-Nicene Christian saints. But the martyrs cat will have to be similarly named. Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:40, 10 February 2013 (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:Finnish loanwords

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:35, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Finnish loanwords
  • Nominator's rationale first off this is in theory an overcategorization by shared name. We categorize articles by what they are about, not what they are named. In this case though the category itself has been severly misused. For example Molotov cocktail was in the category. Neither Molotov nor coktail is a finnish word. This is a translation of the term used in Finland in the Winter War of 1939 to 1940. The thing did not originate in Finland, and in Finland they would not have used the English word "cocktail", but the Finnish equivalent. We have to lists in place that do a much better job at covering what should be in this category than the category itself does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:16, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment most of the articles currently in the category are comapnies/brands founded in Finland. I am not sure to what extent the names of said companies can be considered loanwords. On the other hand, Sauna, probably is a true loanword, but that article is on the thing, not the word.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:18, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete exceedingly ambiguous name. Is this for loanwords from other languages found in Finnish, loanwords in other languages originating from Finnish, or some other definition? If this is for loanwords from Finnish in English, then this is also a WP:Systematic bias name, as it has absolutely no indication of such a restriction. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete OCAT, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:51, 6 February 2013 (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.

Army National Guard

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Army National Guard and despite claiming by the opposers the new name isn't amigous at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of speedy nomination
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.

Air National Guard

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 13:24, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Opposed speedy. The main article of the category is Air National Guard and despite claiming by the opposer the new name isn't amigous at all. Armbrust The Homunculus 09:29, 2 February 2013 (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:Assassinations by year

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. Note that I am closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 7#Category:1963_assassinations together with this one, and the closing statement is the same in both cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended rationale. There is a consensus that these categories should not exist as presently constituted, but there is no consensus on what do with them. This debate was hampered by being split over two separate discussions, and per WP:MULTI that undermines consensus-formation. However, there is no sign of a consensus being reached in either of the 2 discussions, so even if these categories had all been discussed together, the outcome may also have been inconclusive.
There was no support for splitting Category:YYYY deaths, and no evidence of any precedent for doing so. The YYYY deaths categories are generally treated as fundamental biographical data which should not be divided. The closest precedent I can find is Category:Executed people by century and its subcats such as Category:20th-century executions, which are not divided by year.
The point was made in both discussions that there is a difference between an article about an assassination, and a biography of a person who was assassinated. These categories are currently named as if they were for assassination articles, but their actual contents are overwhelmingly biographies. That could have been an argument for renaming, but the existence of biographical articles in the subcats of Category:Murder by year (e.g. in Category:Murder in 2005), suggests that the distinction is problematic.
There was also suggestions of merging these categories to the YYYY crimes categories. However, it was also pointed out that this raises POV problems: Carlossuarez46 noted that "one person's assassination is another's pre-emptive strike", and it is hard to see how classifying the assassination of a tyrant as a "crime" can fit with WP:NPOV. The same issues arise with merger to categories relating to murder; what if the the 20 July plot had succeeded?
Possible solutions include categorising assassinated people by century, or listifying them. Those and other ideas were not discussed here, but might be considered if there is a further nomination of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:32, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one year has been created and seems not to be sufficient articles to split by year Tim! (talk) 08:13, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand I'm quite surprised that this does not exists on a broader basis, given that the timing is a strong defining characteristic and a clear aid to navigation. I'm pretty sure that there are other years with notable assassinations and appropriate effort should be devoted to building this structure. Alansohn (talk) 15:30, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (originator): not being populated is not in itself a valid reason to delete a cat. If there is any justification for separating "murder" from "assassination" in the Wiki category tree, then it seems useful to cross-categorize those assassinations by year. MatthewVanitas (talk) 02:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well we don't have Category:1909 murders either. Plus this is ignoring the fact that these categories are being applied to bio articles, but at some level they maybe should be only applied to articles like John F. Kennedy assassination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:51, 6 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not think we want to put articles on people killed by assasination into the crimes category. The articles involved here are on people who were killed, there is no reason to suppose they were involved in a crime. This is actually in theory a subdivision of Category:1909 deaths, but we do not subdivide the deaths by year categories by cause, and I see no reason to start. Since both articles are in the relevant deaths by year category as well, we should jsut delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the articles were on the assationation, instead of on the people who were assasinated, it might be a different story. However I do not think we should put bio articles in the crimes category. Somehow it does not make sense to put John F. Kennedy in the crime category because his being killed was a crime done by someone else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 4 February 2013 (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:Farms and ranches on the National Register of Historic Places in Montana

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 CfD 2013 February 12. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:03, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Split. Ranches and farms are two different things. No reason to combine the two into one category. This would also avoid miscategorization at the parent level where ranches are in the farm tree and farms are in the ranch one. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:19, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree with the rationale, but I don't believe there's a precedent for it under Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places. I think a couple states' cats have a mix of ranches and farms and the cat name is based on which is the majority. As I've been categorizing NRHP articles by function, Montana was the first state I came across that had a near-equal mix of both. Anyway, I'm happy to go along with whatever the category experts here decide, I just want to be mindful about the ramifications so the other states can be consistent. -McGhiever (talk) 16:39, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everything did roll up into Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places but that was split and Category:Ranches on the National Register of Historic Places was created. A bigger problem in these categories is the inclusion of houses. This is for farms and ranches and not farm houses or ranch houses. Someone needs to cleanup up those. Also as noted by this discussion, each state can have a category in both branches. There is no requirement to limit these to one or the other. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:20, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question is there a robust means of distinguishing a large farm from a small ranch? I would guess that it is actually normally the farm house or range house (rather than the land that is designated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 10 February 2013 (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:Foods named after places

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 existence of specifically-protected names for foods appears to have been one of the stronger arguments against deletion in the August 2011 CFD. That point was not discussed here, but we already have Category:Products with protected designation of origin (and its national subcats) for such foods ... so this category meets WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Foods named after places
  • Nominator' rationale This is categorizing of things by a shared name, not by a shared characterization. Food are named after places for all sorts of reasons, because they come from there, because it makes the food sound excitring, because someone felt like it. It tells us nothing about the food. We categorize things by what they are, not what they are named. This is categorizing things by what they are named, which we do not do. This is especially bad since some food have multiple names, and the categorzation of the food will then depend on what name we chose to use for the title, sort of like how Looting is in Category:Hindi loanwords only because we chose that name for the article and not Pilaging (which redirects, but it it was the article would have to be in Category:German loanwords).John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:01, 2 February 2013 (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:Historic bars of Boston, Massachusetts

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Probably could be deleted as OC small. If someone really believes that the sole entry should be up merged to both categories, I would not object. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:37, 2 February 2013 (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:19th-century buildings and structures in Louisville, Kentucky

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 CFD 2013 February 12. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:07, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the better model on how to handle the naming of this type of classification is what is used in Boston with a series of categories like Category:19th century in Boston, Massachusetts. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:34, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and create the other category as a parent and add other things to it. Also renaming this to include only those things built in the 19th-century might be worth while, not that there are many buildings in Louisville that pre-date 1801, but if there are I think they should not be in this category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge back to parents This is really a triple intersection of the "when", "historic building", and "place" hierarchies. Better to have the intersection occur at the article level. Mangoe (talk) 13:57, 3 February 2013 (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:Museums of Ancient Rome

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Museums of Ancient Rome. The Bushranger One ping only 03:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Inclusion criteria is simply too subjective. What percentage of a museum's collection needs to fall into this area to merit categorization? If you look at the categories for the Metropolitan Museum of Art, it is not close to 50%! Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this is not a standard type of museum. We should categorize museums by broad type, not be specific type of collection.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—At first glance I thought that this would be a category of Museums that the Ancient Romans had developed (possibly alongside the Circus). However, I'm disappointed to find that it's modern museums about Ancient Rome. So, rename would be the conclusion. But then I looked more closely at the inclusion criteria only to find that our private collection (which happens to have a few Roman coins) would qualify me to add our house to the category. This being the case, this is not a good way to categorise museums. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 06:52, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-name or delete There were museums in ancient Rome? Who'd have guessed? Unless it's meant to say "Museums concerned with Ancient Rome", which is entirely different. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note. I have added Greece since it appears that the same reasons for deleting this one would also apply there. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:56, 2 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Poorly named category.Benkenobi18 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I created both categories to help people looking for museums featuring collections related to Ancient Greece and Rome. The criteria can certainly be tightened and the categories better named to reflect the collections. There are many other categories that are broad enough for flexibility. Wikipedia should not be too rigid but should be used as a helpful guide. If you delete the categories, it will be harder to find museums relating to Ancient Greece and Rome. Jllm06 (talk) 12:45, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Featuring is subjective and not a good criteria for determining membership in a category. These categories came up when I happened on the MET article and there are about 11 different collection related categories. If we take your use of 'collections' or even 'featured collections', this is really subject material for a list rather then a category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:04, 4 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but rename. The nominator's rationale could be applied to any of the 100+ sub-categories of Category:Museums by type. There is nothing in the rationale which gives any reason why we cannot have a category of museums which relate to these two topics when we Category:Food museums, Category:Fossil museums, Category:Poetry museums, Category:Sports museums etc.
    A rename is needed to clarify the categories' scope, and some purging may be needed ... but Ancient Rome is clearly a defining characteristic of museums such as the Aquincum Museum and the Capitoline Museums. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:26, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if we limited these categories to museums that had this as their main attraction if would make sense, but we don't, so I think we should just scap these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:38, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yea, that is a concern. Following the MET example, I don't believe that anyone would not classify this in Category:Art museums in New York City. But should it also be in Category:Asian art museums in New York? I would say yes if there was a dedicated building for that purpose. And being in Category:Fashion museums in the United States could probably be challenged. The big problem is how do you devise an objective set of inclusion criteria for these? I think the two in this nomination are not really affected by these issues. However the others discussed here raise some interesting questions that I don't have answers for. I suspect that we will not and should not try to answer those questions here. I do think we need a separate discussion to see if in fact we need to do something and if so what. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:47, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This category (and some of these cited as parallels) are mixing up museums with Anceitn Roman material as part of their collections (a performance by performer type category) with museums solely (or mainly) about anciemt Rome. The latter with typically be excavated sites with a museum attached. The British Museum is in a subcategory, but its collections include ethnographic material from lost part of the world. On the other hand, Pompeii and Herculaneum will be solely about Ancient Rome (or rather the Roman Empire, or Roman period). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2013 (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.