Jump to content

英文维基 | 中文维基 | 日文维基 | 草榴社区

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 June 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

June 2

[edit]

Category:John Seward Johnson II

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete as over-categorization per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Only the main article and a single subcat. Tassedethe (talk) 23:14, 2 June 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:Jerash Private University

[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 for now. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No need for a category to hold a single article (Jerash Private University). Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 22:26, 2 June 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:Gaelic Athletic Association stubs

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is a broader term. For example, the Gaelic Players Association is not really the GAA. The Ladies' Gaelic Football Association isn't really the GAA either. Yet all are associated with Gaelic games. It's also noticeably the odd one out in its category tree (see below). 86.40.97.145 (talk) 21:03, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Gaelic games has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:27, 2 June 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:Janice Levin Dancer Honorees

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Delete as a non-defining award per WP:OC#AWARD. This award "is bestowed annually on a promising young member of NYCB's corps de ballet"[1]. Awardees are listed at New York City Ballet#Janice Levin dancers. Tassedethe (talk) 18:22, 2 June 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:Arthurian locations

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:15, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being mentioned in Arthurian legend is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an article about a real place (e.g. London or Llys Halt railway station). There are a few articles in this category (e.g. Camelot and the list article) that could be upmerged to Category:Arthurian legend. Alternatively, this category could be renamed to Category:Fictional Arthurian locations or Category:Mythological Arthurian locations and purged. For information: "Category:Robin Hood locations" has been deleted. DexDor (talk) 17:45, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
A note has been left at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_King_Arthur#Category:Arthurian_locations_at_CFD. DexDor (talk) 17:49, 2 June 2013 (UTC) [reply]
What's Rio got to do with it ? There are currently several railway stations in this Arthurian category (see Category:Llanuwchllyn and WP:SUBCAT). DexDor (talk) 20:05, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I see. I hadn't realised that Llys Halt railway station is in Category:Llanuwchllyn which is a subcategory of Category:Arthurian locations and therefore you are worried that the railway station is eventually categorised as an Arthurian location. I thought you were (rightly but flippantly) saying it shouldn't be in the Arthurian category. I was flippantly giving Rio as another inappropriate location. Surely the solution is to put Llanuwchllyn and not Category:Llanuwchllyn into Category:Arthurian locations. I have just now done this but please check because I am not familiar with these niceties. Thincat (talk) 08:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The category was added to London with this diff but I don't understand the edit summary "(+Category:Arthurian locations; +Category:Robin Hood locations using HotCat - Category:London was in those cats, which put a bunch of irrelevant cats into the Arthurian/Robin Hood cat tree)". However, the cats have seem to come down out of the tree by now and Arthur seems to have missed out on Llys Halt. I don't understand the rest of your comments so I'll go off to bed because it's quite late. Thincat (talk) 23:47, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think I now understand the edit which added the categories to London (see my reply to DexDor above). The editor at the same time removed Category:London from the legend categories (diff). However, it was probably a mistake to have London, let alone Category:London, in either category since they are not (to my mind) defining for London. Thincat (talk) 08:58, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes we do, for real places in Category:Locations in fiction and for places that are not real in Category:Fictional locations and Category:Mythological places (the latter also contains real places such as Mount Olympus which figures prominently in Greek mythology). Thincat (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
BTW the Greek mythology category you were looking for is Category:Locations in Greek mythology. Thincat (talk) 08:32, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We ought not categorize things by reference within fictional schema or mythologies. Those are infinite, and non-defining to real-world places. I'd also like to note that the "Arthurian" cycle has become so broadly adapted that it includes locations in space as well as in the US and Asia. --Lquilter (talk) 15:47, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Er, citation needed, I think. It is certainly defining for Tintagel, where Arthur-related stuff keeps the local economy going, and a few other places. Johnbod (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Patricia Kenneally Morrison's Arthur-in-Space books. I was also told Stargate did Arthurian stuff? I'll get back to you on the Japanese stuff. As for US -- JFK, of course! ... Anyway, I'm not saying that Tintagel or Camelot or Avalon shouldn't all be listed as places associated with Arthuriana. I'm just saying that X by association with Y is not a good model for categories, and it's not any better when "Y" is a particularly popular and well-known story cycle. --Lquilter (talk) 01:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Mount Badon is a redirect to Battle of Badon and neither are in the category being discussed here. My nom suggested that the Camelot article be kept in the Arthurian category tree. For info: I'm trying to remove category clutter from articles like London and Bodmin Moor (before this type of category spreads - e.g. "James Bond locations"); I'd see no problem with a category like "Fictional locations in Arthurian legend" (e.g. a rename+purge). DexDor (talk) 21:14, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but what about the locations that are not fictional or mythological but are real places, and for which Arthurian association is defining. Please find time to consider at least one article, Tintagel which has been mentioned four times above. Thincat (talk) 14:26, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Battle of Badon is in Category:Battles involving King Arthur which is a subcategory of the one you are nominating for deletion. What has been your proposal for this situation? Thincat (talk) 14:46, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting Category:Arthurian locations would leave Battle of Badon in Category:Battles involving King Arthur and hence in Category:Arthurian legend so I really don't see the relevance to this discussion. DexDor (talk) 21:33, 9 June 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:JFK Olimps Rīga

[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 but rename to Category:JFK Olimps. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:38, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No need for a category to hold a single article JFK Olimps. Upmerge to parent. Tassedethe (talk) 16:12, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 06:09, 4 June 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:Books divided into chapters and verses

[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Questionable if this is a defining characteristic. Would include the vast majority of books ever published. Editor2020 (talk) 03:02, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining. One could try a list, but even a list may not be notable. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 05:55, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not defining. List would also not meet threshold for inclusion. Neutralitytalk 22:05, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and re-title. I created the category to classify written anthologies which contain both chapters and verses. Contrary to rationale, would include only a minority of books ever published because most book-long publications do not contain verses identifying roughly-sentence-long passages (i.e. Hebrew and Christian Bibles, Book of Mormon, Quran, etc.) for easy citation. --RayneVanDunem (talk) 08:00, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
All sorts of legal documents could be thus classified. --Lquilter (talk) 12:28, 9 June 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:Free first-person shooters

[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: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nearly everything in here is also in the target category, having had at least part of it released as part of a free and open source release. This follows up my close of this nomination, where the confusing "free" part was removed.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 00:31, 2 June 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.