Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 September 19

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< September 18 September 20 >

September 19

Category:LGBT Celebrities from South Africa

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) 05:54, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Wikipedia does not have an "LGBT celebrities" category tree; we subcategorize LGBT people by specific occupation, not by the general (and subjective) question of whether they're "celebrities" or not. The one person here is already in another "LGBT specific-occupation" category as it is, so there's no upmerging necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:56, 19 September 2017 (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:LGBT actors from South Africa

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, and also to Category:LGBT actors. – Fayenatic London 23:00, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per past consensus, actors are not an occupation where we want LGBT people to be subcategorized by nationality; we use the ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:LGBT entertainers by nationality tree, not "LGBT actors by nationality" categories, for actors and comedians and YouTubers and the like. Bearcat (talk) 18:53, 19 September 2017 (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:Indoor arenas in the United States

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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are specific categories for all types of venues and a category for every state's indoor arenas. The whole arenas category tree is a total mess. Deleting this category will remove the biggest mess of them all. TM 14:30, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
So if all of these categories belong elsewhere, let's either delete the category or label it as a container category. The whole category tree around arenas needs revamping and I don't think this one is serving any good at this point.--TM 03:07, 21 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Well it could be named a "container category" except perhaps for any articles or lists on American indoor arenas in general, so have labelled "catdiffuse" in meantime. The main (only?) change needed is to move articles to the appropriate "state" subcategory. Hugo999 (talk) 23:20, 22 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Containerize I think the problem here is that this is a catchall for hundreds of articles that belong in the subcategories (and are already in those subcategories in many cases). I do share the nominators concern that this is currently a mess though. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:14, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Have solved the problem which is the content of the category not the category itself by moving articles to appropriate subcategories by state Hugo999 (talk) 00:51, 24 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Looks good! RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Not fully convinced this category is necessary but I am satisfied by turning it into a container category. Withdrawn.--TM 00:10, 25 September 2017 (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:Sports in Arcadia, California

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two categories and no articles. Unlikely to grow. TM 13:54, 19 September 2017 (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:Horse racing venues in Arcadia, California

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:03, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One article. Unlikely to grow TM 13:52, 19 September 2017 (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:Horse racing in Arcadia, California

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One category (no articles). Small category unlikely to grow TM 13:52, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Santa Anita Park has 110 articles in it. Not proposing to delete that category but it is literally has one sub-category and that sub-category (also up for deletion) has one sub-category.--TM 14:48, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this places the 110 articles about horse racing in Arcadia into the appropriate parent category. Category:Horse racing in Arcadia, California has 110 articles in it, and is not small. Category:People has 2 articles at the top level - should we delete it? Oculi (talk) 15:44, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added ‹The template Category link is being considered for merging.› Category:Horse racing venues in California to the one viable category. Now it is in the appropriate parent category. This one is not viable.--TM 19:01, 19 September 2017 (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:Black British DJs

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/2017 October 9#Category:Black British DJs. ℯxplicit 01:07, 9 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Ethnicity isn't important on WP. — Zawl 11:51, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Ethnicity isn't important on WP is just incorrect, with the number of articles and subcategories under Category:Black British people. feminist 13:11, 19 September 2017 (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:Assamese Brahmins

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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 01:59, 1 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This a duplicate category of Category:Brahmin communities of Assam. It should be deleted to ensure Brahmin categorisation is constant, keeping in–line with the Brahmin community categorisations for other Indian states, such as Brahmin communities of Uttarakhand etc... AnjanBorah (talk) 11:07, 19 September 2017 (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:Worshipers of the Mandarax

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) 06:15, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Violates WP:USERCAT in that it is a category that cannot help improve the encyclopedia in any way and as joke/nonsense category. In addition, there is a longstanding precedent to delete categories associated with individual users such as this one. If kept, sets a dangerous precedent to allow a userspace category for "worshipers" of any given Wikipedia user. VegaDark (talk) 03:17, 19 September 2017 (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:PhD dropout Wikipedians

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) 06:21, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not a useful category for the encyclopedia to retain. Violates WP:USERCAT as a category that cannot possibly foster encyclopedic collaboration. Sets precedent for any number of "dropout" categories if kept (Law school? Med school? Masters degrees? Bachelors degrees? etc.) Bottom line, you would never have an encyclopedic purpose to specifically seek out PhD dropouts for any reason that might improve the encyclopedia. VegaDark (talk) 02:57, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Counter-argument: this category/info actually bears potentially useful information – that he or she qualified to PhD study and was a postgrad at least for a while. However, I agree, that tis category is not very systemic. —Mykhal (talk) 22:46, 24 September 2017 (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:Anglican Church of Australia Ecclesiastical Province of Western Australia

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:Province of Western Australia. Please note there are several other, similarly named subcategories of Category:Anglican Church of Australia that may need to be nominated. -- Black Falcon (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale Current name is too bulky. Equivalent Catholic province is called Perth. Disambiguation needed for the state of the same name. Would also accept ALT of Category:Province of Western Australia that matches lead article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:16, 29 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯxplicit 01:41, 19 September 2017 (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:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States

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 and salt. (For the record, a seventh page has been added since the list given below: Mountain High School (Mountain, Wisconsin).) – Fayenatic London 23:06, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category that was deleted twice in CfD over 5 years ago that was recreated and whose previous consensus should be revisited.
Created by the same author but I'm not sure if the concerns from previous consensus have been addressed to justify recreation. Due to the time since the last CfD, I suppose consensus could have changed. If category is deleted again, I suggest it be SALTed. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:04, 19 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • About wp:ARBITRARYCAT, that is a subsection of Wikipedia:Overcategorization about over-categorization, and seems to me not to be relevant here. The problem others are having is that the category is not as precise as they would like. They would like for the facts of architectural style for a district or house having multiple styles to be different, i.e. they would prefer for just one narrow style to apply, and to use that instead. If there is a problem, it is not that this is an overly precise category. --doncram 17:34, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per discussion provided in previous AFDs in 2011, and to be reasonable and allow for development of Wikipedia coverage in this area, on the topic of mixed revivals. They exist! There are hundreds of historic districts which have mixes of the revivals and even individual houses which are properly categorized by this. It has previously been asserted that developing the article is needed; well, allowing the category facilitates improvement of the corresponding article. Adapting from previous CFD:

The discussants in the CFD which deleted Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture and .... did not have full information, such as exactly how this category is used, and how many National Register of Historic Places (NRHP)-listed places have this description. The term is one of 40 most commonly coded architectural styles for NRHP-listed places, as entered into the NRHP's NRIS database and is indeed somewhat a catchall, for buildings built with an amalgam of Revivals styles. The category is useful. There are many architectural Revival styles, and many of them were popular in the U.S. during the late 19th and early 20th century period. Many buildings defy categorization with just one, like "Classical Revival" or "Egyptian Revival" (tho I am not sure these specific ones were among the popular revivals then) or other narrower terms, because they in fact show a mix of the Revival styles that were all in fashion. For individual buildings, if a primary, narrower category can eventually be determined from more sources, it would be fine to revise the categorization to something more specific. It was stated in the CFD that there probably would not be an article corresponding, ever. That is not so, the existing corresponding article/section at Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture exists and could/should be expanded to give more info. .... I had a report once of the number of NRHP listings having this and other of the 40 most common style categories, but can't find it right now. My guess is that there are 500-2,000 possible members of the category.

There were other questions asked and answered in previous CFDs. Currently there are just six articles in the category, for the record:
--doncram 01:04, 20 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
5 of those 6 articles have other, more specific subcategories rather than this NRHP catchall. (The exception is Missoula Downtown Historic District which doesn't really need a single architectural style since it covers multiple structures.) RevelationDirect (talk) 02:01, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
To User:RevelationDirect, please see my note of reply to you above, and here, sure, take Missoula Downtown Historic District as an example. The historic district is listed for it having a mix of architectural styles of the period when its buildings were built, i.e. Revivals styles of the late 19th and early 20th century. For example the NRHP nomination states that there is just one example of the Tudor Revival architecture style, the Missoula Hotel (1890-1891; 147 West Main Street). It mentions "two other landmark high style buildings that remain from the 1888-1900 period include the Missoula Mercantile (110 North Higgins) and the commercial Queen Anne-style Higgins Block (232-240 North Higgins). The latter featured ornamentation such as terra-cotta banding, elaborate....", etc. It would be appropriate for some U.S.-specific version of Tudor Revival architecture itself (e.g. Tudor Revival architecture in the United States (currently a redlink) if that existed as a separate article or as a redirect to an appropriate section in a bigger article) and some U.S.-specific version of Queen Anne architecture itself (Queen Anne architecture in the United States does exist as an article and includes reference McAlester, Virginia & Lee, A Field Guide to American Houses, Alfred H. Knopf, New York 1984 which is one source of my understanding about these revival architectures in the U.S.) and their corresponding categories if they exist (e.g. Category:Tudor Revival architecture in the United States, Category:Queen Anne architecture in the United States) and other revival styles of the same era to be categorizeds with Category:Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture in the United States. But for some individual buildings which are mixes and for some districts including this one, the wider category seems appropriate. --doncram 17:44, 25 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Doncram: I can sense your frustration and we both spend a lot of time with NRHP articles so I don't want to be discouraging so let me be a little more thoughtful
  • There may be a need for an administrative category on the talk pages called Category:National Register of Historic Places Late 19th and 20th Century Revivals architecture Historic Districts or there might not. That would be a discussion at the NRHP WikiProject but such a category would actually group the very narrow set of articles you're after here.
  • This visible category would be for any article that was covering any building that was any type of architectural revival from that period whether you intend it to be or not. And the period is ambiguous: does it start at 1870, 1880 or 1890? And, even though it purportedly goes to 1999, I doubt there are many structures after 1940.
  • Maybe I'm being narrow minded though so I'll tag the NRHP WikiProject to get more eyes on this nomination.
We disagree here but I do wish you well in your editing. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:09, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As has been well established, this isn't a real type of architecture whatsoever. It's time to sanction the nominator for continued tendentious editing, with this as a good example. Nyttend (talk) 02:08, 23 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is a catchall category used by the National Park Service to group properties on the National Register of Historic Places that don't fit into a more common architectural style. It's not a style in its own right, and nobody outside of the NPS uses this as a grouping of distinct architectural styles. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 02:04, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for exactly the reasons articulated by TheCatalyst31. This terminology is just lazy writing on the part of NRHP documentation, and not a recognized architectural style. As stated in the 2001 conversation, "Wikipedia categories do not need to mirror the categorization schemes developed by other organizations." -McGhiever (talk) 02:56, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons already given. Articles containing architecture in multiple styles should be categorized into relevant specific style categories, not a catchall. Magic♪piano 19:23, 27 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This category is too vague and doesn't represent an actual style. kennethaw88 • talk 04:30, 28 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with TheCatalyst31 and Magicpiano. I don't agree with McGhiever, however. It is my experience in reading multiple NRHP nominations that the authors are not being lazy. The buildings coded as such have no discernable architectural style or they are a combination of styles and no one stands out as primary.Farragutful (talk) 14:52, 28 September 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_September_19&oldid=1138411579"