Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 June 8

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Peterkingiron (talk | contribs) at 16:34, 13 June 2018 (→Category:James Ellroy). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
< June 7 June 9 >

June 8

Category:Buildings and structures in Rundu

Nominator's rationale: Category not developed enough to justify category. spatms (talk) 19:18, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, this should be merged to Category:Rundu. User:spatms, I hope you will look over your own history of creating tiny categories and merge/delete some of them as well.--TM 14:11, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs about bridges

Nominator's rationale: Category was deleted per consensus following a CfD in December 2011. Recreated but since consensus can change, I thought I'd put this nominate it for deletion again. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:22, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or metaphorically, as in Bridge Over Troubled Water which isn't in the category. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 08:35, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Generation ship fiction

Nominator's rationale: No evidence that reliable sources group this as a genre by this name. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 18:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as having been created by blocked or banned users

Nominator's rationale: Similar rationale to the A10 category at the bottom of this page. Also, G5 (this one) and A10 are the only CSDs whose categories do not end with a noun phrase. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 17:49, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports in Fridley, Minnesota

Nominator's rationale: Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:43, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There are no other sports related articles in the town category.--TM 12:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports in Highland, California

Nominator's rationale: Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports in Cypress, California

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports venues in Cypress, California

Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge to Category:Cypress, California. Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Sports in Harwich, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:37, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball in Harwich, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baseball teams in Harwich, Massachusetts

Nominator's rationale: Very small category unlikely to grow. TM 17:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Monasteries in Scotland by order

Added on relisting:
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:OVERLAPCAT, Category:Monasteries in Scotland by order is a duplicate of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in Scotland. Similarly for the other categories. Note that they are subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic monasteries by order (my italic). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:42, 19 April 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: With additions as noted above.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 15:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Admin comment: these ought to have been listed for merging rather than deletion, as a few of the sub-cats were missing from the Roman Catholic ones; however, those omissions have now been corrected, so merging from the "by order" categories would now have the same outcome as deletion. It's usually safer to list for "merge" than "delete", though, in case anyone changes the contents during the discussion. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge The RC category Category:Roman Catholic monasteries in England by order (or whatever we have for this) should be merged to Category:Monasteries in England by order, etc. The vast majority of these will be pre-Reformation (i.e. pre-Dissolution, pre-1539), when there was only one Christian denomination in England, so that RC is redundant. There will be a small number of 19th century and later RC monasteries and I think Anglican ones, which probably need separate trees for modern monasteries. There were no monasteries between 1539 and mid/late 19th century, so that combining medieval and modern in a single tree is undesirable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 10 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bronze Age sites in Greece

Nominator's rationale: Having Greece in the title is incorrect because the subject covers the wider Aegean world and the parent category is Category:Aegean civilizations. At the time, Greece as such was the mainland (the Helladic region) only. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:52, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bronze Age Greek art

Nominator's rationale: Having Greek in the title is incorrect because the subject covers the wider Aegean world and the parent category is Category:Aegean civilizations. At the time, Greece as such was the mainland (the Helladic region) only. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aegean art of the Bronze Age or Category:Aegean Bronze Age art would be better I think, as with the next one. Johnbod (talk) 18:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That's worse than the present cat, since quite a bit is now in museums elsewhere, like the Minoan Bull-leaper (London) and the sarcophagus in Hanover. "National art in Country" categories are a nightmare, & best avoided at a high level. Johnbod (talk) 17:44, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. Will accept either of Johnbod's alternatives instead. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:16, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bronze Age palaces in Greece

Nominator's rationale: Having Greece in the title is incorrect because the subject covers the wider Aegean world and the parent category is Category:Aegean civilizations. At the time, Greece as such was the mainland (the Helladic region) only. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Aegean palaces of the Bronze Age or Category:Aegean Bronze Age palaces would be better I think, as with the last one. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gail Godwin

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:41, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John Barth

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:42, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dan Simmons

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:40, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with William Blake

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:09, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep -- the scholarship on Blake's acquaintances, and circle of community members is very well established. The roles these folks play are widely variable, because Blake, and his biography, defy a lot of different conventional classification system. Shifting folks to subcategories when appropriate (i.e in the case of Blake scholars) seems the best tactic for this space. Sadads (talk) 13:57, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
An association is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Notability isn't inherited. --woodensuperman 14:10, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Woodensuperman: Actually for many of the folks in the category, it is: we wouldn't know about the people or artists groups like Ancients (art group), if they weren't caught up in the general craze to document everything associated with Blake, Sadads (talk) 16:14, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with James Joyce

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Shakespeare

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:08, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Shakespeare is somewhat unique in that there is an almost absurd amount of reliable sources on anything associated with him (i.e. the "associated" part is the only sane categorization based on the reliable sources). Take Ben Jonson, who would disappear out of the category tree below Category:William Shakespeare without the ability to say he is associated with Shakespeare. Unlike William Kempe, Jonson wasn't a Category:Shakespearean actors, or a member or sharer in Category:King's Men (playing company), and so forth. But every biography of Shakespeare (of which there are an absurd number) will at least mention Jonson in various contexts (influences between the two men's works, in either direction; biographical intersections, social, financial, political; Johnson's contribution to Shakespeare's postumous reputation; and probably a bunch more if you go looking). The same sort of thing will hold for all the other entries in this category that do not obviously fall within the other subcategories (Emilia Lanier, Robert Chester (poet), and Leonard Digges (writer) being the three first that jumped out at me). --Xover (talk) 13:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Ben Jonson is not defined by his association with Shakespeare, therefore shouldn't be in his category tree. --woodensuperman 13:54, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jonson is, in fact, in addition to his independent notability, a sub-topic within Shakespearean studies, as explained above, and biographers of one will normally refer to the other in various ways (e.g. Jonson defined as "a contemporary of / influence on / influenced by / etc. … Shakespeare). But that's neither here nor there, as that wasn't my argument. --Xover (talk) 20:16, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: While I wouldn't bother arguing against such a move, I'll make the general note that I find adding the given name here is an example of excessive specificity (ala. the reasoning of WP:COMMONNAME). Nobody is going to see a bare "Shakespeare" and assume we're referring to fishing equipment or ghost towns in New Mexico. The urge to impose symmetry, with other categories that do need the full name, is strong, but in some cases it would best be resisted. --Xover (talk) 20:27, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Xover. Adding the Bard's first name would be otiose, bordering on silly. Tim riley talk 21:50, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I'm late in replying to @Xover: and @Tim riley:, but the main category is Category:William Shakespeare and subcats are in the same structure, such as Category:Plays by William Shakespeare. Plus the main article is at William Shakespeare and not simply Shakespeare. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:27, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough! I hope it won't arise, even so. Tim riley talk 12:41, 12 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for some people, these subjects are useful. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Comment. I created this in order to thin out Category:William Shakespeare a little. I don't think it's overly full or marked by overly tenuous connections. I could theoretically support deletion if everything that needed to be categorized in a more specific way was thus categorized (actors in Shakespeare's companies, writers of documents that provide evidence of Shakespeare's life and work, collaborators of Shakespeare, printers and editors of Shakespeare, and more!) but ultimately that doesn't seem likely to happen. Ben Jonson seems to be one of the few people in the category who isn't best known for his connection to Shakespeare. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:23, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Agree with Johnbod: this type of category is helpful to some readers. Silly to deprive them of it. Tim riley talk 20:19, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I would retain the category; many readers have found it useful. -- Ssilvers (talk) 21:04, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move the subcats immediately under Category:William Shakespeare and delete the remainder per guideline, unless a good reason is provided why we would deviate from the guideline for this particular category (and I haven't seen a good reason yet). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support There's no end to the borders of "associated". Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:47, 9 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as Category:People associated with William Shakespeare, but purge. I accept that we do not like ASSOCIATED WITH categories as there is no boundary. Having sampled the content, a good many of the articles would be better in a category relating to the theatrical companies to which Shakespeare was the playwright. This is different from Shakespearean actors, which seems to be an WP:PERFormance category for actors who perform Shakespearean plays (and perhaps ought not to be allowed). This may leave "people suggested as authors of Shakespeare's plays" and a few more. In other words, my objective would be to make this (as much as possible) into a container category. Ultimately the object should be to get something with sufficiently few articles directly categorised that we can merge it back to Category:William Shakespeare without cluttering that up. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 13 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC --woodensuperman 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People associated with Charles Bukowski

Nominator's rationale: Textbook WP:OCASSOC. --woodensuperman 13:07, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Philip José Farmer

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:03, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:James Ellroy

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:36, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ken Wilber

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 12:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Geoff Johns

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. --woodensuperman 12:35, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:John D. MacDonald

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON. Containing categories have their own trees. --woodensuperman 11:00, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't know about WP:OCEPON at the time. I'd looked at Category:American male writers as a whole to see if there is a practice of creating the authors' categories (and then, yep, erroneously added to the newly created category not the "Writers" but its subcategory American male novelists). According to WP:OCEPON: "Eponymous categories named after people should not be created unless enough directly related articles or subcategories exist". I suppose that the categories mentioning the person in their names are related to them pretty directly. However, if two subcategories is not enough, I don't object to the deletion. --INS Pirat (talk) 12:15, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Over-categorised. Izzat Kutebar (talk) 14:38, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Candidates for speedy deletion as duplicating an existing topic

Nominator's rationale: A much more concise name than current. Agrees with the parent category Category:Duplicate articles and the listing at Category:Candidates for speedy deletion. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 09:39, 8 June 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_June_8&oldid=845711559"