Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 November 17

< November 16	November 18 >

November 17

Category:Pervs

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: Speedy deleted per WP:G3 by admin @Donald Albury. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:29, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Pervs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Looks like this was created by an SPA who is now blocked. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:36, 17 November 2018 (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:Lost submarines of Argentina

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. Timrollpickering 12:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Lost submarines of Argentina (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: The only two articles inside are about ARA San Juan (S-42) whose wreck since then has been found, so no longer lost. Brandmeister^talk 14:59, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Lost then found submarines of Argentina. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- If only... But at least there's only one. Brandmeister^talk 18:42, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 'Lost' in this sense means 'lost at sea'; NOT in the sense of 'unfound'. Twiceuponatime (talk) 10:36, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- - Comment It is already part of Category:Ships lost with all hands. Dimadick (talk) 15:35, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - This is still WP:SMALLCAT, so should be avoided as such. Brandmeister^talk 09:42, 20 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Twiceuponatime - it's still a "lost" submarine, compared to a "missing" submarine, and while it's not a very large category we have other similar categories split by country. SportingFlyer talk 10:40, 19 November 2018 (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.

Historic buildings

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. Timrollpickering 21:31, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: delete/merge/rename, the characterization of a hotel as 'historic' is subjective when the hotel is not listed as such. We already have categories for listed buildings. This is a follow-up on this earlier discussion in which User:Hugo999, User:SuperChris and User:Hmains participated. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:56, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose too broad of a brush - While I understand the rationale - something that is historic is a listed building - does Nigeria have a historic building listing? This also includes buildings which may not have been demolished, but no longer exist, like Roman fort, Mušov in the Czech category, which clearly is not a current "building or structure". SportingFlyer talk 14:47, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

But is Roman fort, Mušov a historic building? No it is a former building and we have a separate category for that. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose If there is a problem with "historic" being too subjective a term (and I don't think there's much of a problem at all actually), we should explain in each category description what is intended. Also the proposed target categories are also (to a similar extent) subjective. National names and borders change; at what point in history do we select the name? What is included in a building or structure? Nonbuilding structure suggests most bus stops are. Is that intended in our categorization scheme? Thincat (talk) 10:58, 18 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What is subjective about the target categories? E.g. bank buildings or gas stations seems completely unambiguous. They are certainly not subjective to the same extent since the "historic" part has been removed. Furthermore, if we should explain in each category description what is intended then what is intended by "historic"? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 19 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but this must be done manually and not via bot (more on that later). As Marcocapelle notes, "historic" is entirely subjective for non-listed buildings and we have a separate category tree for former buildings, and neither vote above has addressed these issues. The reason the categories must be merged manually is that many of the articles are already in appropriate subcategories, and it would be unhelpful to place them in higher-level categories—e.g., Barclays Bank building, Sutton is already in Category:Bank buildings in the United Kingdom and should not be re-added to Category:Bank buildings. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:20, 26 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and Black Falcon. We should have categories for listed buildings, but not otherwise, because it becomes entirely subjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:07, 28 November 2018 (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:ABL templates

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. Timrollpickering 23:38, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:ABL templates to Category:Australian Baseball League templates

Nominator's rationale: Should use the name in full, for clarity. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 12:23, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nominator. SportingFlyer talk 14:38, 17 November 2018 (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.

United Arab Emirates

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. Timrollpickering 23:37, 25 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

The articles for two of the Emirates of the United Arab Emirates (UAE) have been moved to reflect the modern spellings of their names in English, as used by the government & municipality - Ras Al Khaimah and Umm Al Quwain. However, the categories associated with them are still Ras al-Khaimah and Umm al-Quwain. Can someone with rights/access please do a global search/replace? I started to try this on Ras Al Khaimah preparatory to moving the category page but the task is a tad too much manually... Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 09:34, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, I have added a section title and the requested renames on top of this notice. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:53, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Alexandermcnabb: Could you please add the subcategories to this nomination? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

- @Marcocapelle: I could do but that's a whole LOAD of categories? And templates. I might as well go in and rename 'em all manually. Is there no automated process to pick up on them? Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 11:06, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

For instance:

Category:Ras al-Khaimah user templates

Template:User citizen Ras al-Khaimah

Template:User from Ras al-Khaimah

Template:User in Ras al-Khaimah

Template:User interest Ras al-Khaimah

Template:User Ras al-Khaimah WG

- - @Alexandermcnabb: Possibly this is something for Wikipedia:Bot requests. This platform is just for renaming categories, not templates. The renaming here is done by an automated process and will be implemented by the administrator who closes the discussion, provided there is consensus for the rename and provided you listed and tagged the categories properly (like I have done for the two top categories). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:16, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - Actually, when I took a harder look at it, the task isn't quite as large - I dun most of it already. The above cleans things up IMHO. Best Alexandermcnabb (talk) 14:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support based on searches for WP:COMMONNAME. SportingFlyer talk 14:37, 17 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Subcats I ave added and tagged the remaining subcats. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Support - Ras Al Khaimah page was moved via due process in Aug 2018. Umm_al-Quwain was moved boldly in Sept 2018 and seems to have had no objections. Oculi (talk) 21:54, 17 November 2018 (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.