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.
Nominator's rationale: Low-level league played in stadiums not specific to American football.
WP:NONDEF and fails to satisfy exception by
WP:OCVENUE. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 23:26, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, they are all multi-purpose arenas.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:54, 26 January 2023 (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:Ottoman Baroque architecture
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.
Nominator's rationale: New
WP:SMALLCAT with only main article and one subcategory. All content is also in the one subcategory, so easiest to delete this. Since they aren't making any more of these (the Ottoman Empire is over), no likelihood of expansion. These are
Category:Buildings and structures of the Ottoman Empire. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 08:29, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose: per my edit summary
here, it would be more appropriate to delete and redirect
Category:Baroque mosques to this category, as it's an unnecessary subcategory but not a sufficient one on its own. Most important examples of Ottoman Baroque are mosques but the category is too narrow to accommodate non-mosque examples of Ottoman Baroque (of which there are still many) and too vaguely named to be recognized as referring to the Ottoman context ("Baroque mosques in the Ottoman Empire" is better, but still unnecessary). I've added
Mihrişah Sultan Complex to
Category:Ottoman Baroque architecture just now, another example of this style which isn't a mosque, and there are many other buildings which could fit here in the future if the articles either exist and haven't been sorted or don't exist but could be created in the future. Either way, it's appropriate to have a broader category for Ottoman Baroque buildings. Not opposed to a rename instead, as long it's clear.
R Prazeres (
talk) 08:44, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Article
Ottoman Baroque architecture was also made by
R Prazeres a few months ago. The term is also called "Turkish Baroque". As centuries older style "Ottoman architecture" is rather different than 19th century "Turkish Baroque", the more descriptive name is "Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire".
Category:Baroque mosques was made only a year ago, so it's fairly recent. These are all in the Ottoman Empire.
It would be silly to delete and redirect
Category:Baroque mosques, as these are by far the most numerous examples, cross-categorized under long standing
Category:Mosques.
This response is astonishing, and seems to miss the point that
Wikipedia is a work in progress. Why would we stick to unclear, imprecise, and potentially misleading category names, when we have the actual common terminology laid out in the main articles according to
reliable sources? Why would we insist on an independent
WP:OR classification in the categories just because it previously existed, with no basis in sources or even the articles?
To the main point: I've already explained the issue at that category's talk page
here:
"Baroque" architecture and
"Ottoman Baroque" architecture are not the same thing, even if related. There may be actual examples of traditional European Baroque (Revival) architecture within the empire after the mid-19th century, the only relevant article currently being
Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, but everything else belongs to a specific and recognizable subset of Ottoman architecture, not of Baroque architecture in the same tradition as European churches. If you need more context then read
Ottoman architecture or the sources cited there; that's what they're for.
So if we want to use the older
Category:Baroque architecture in the Ottoman Empire as the main category for Ottoman Baroque buildings, then it needs to be renamed accordingly and the single church article should move elsewhere, as it's neither the same period or same style as the mosques. If not, then by all means delete it per
WP:SMALLCAT if you like.
Re: #3: I don't even know what point you're trying to make here.
Ottoman Baroque architecture was actually created two years ago, not months ago, (and is thoroughly sourced, I might add) and is an expansion of the subtopic covered at
Ottoman architecture. The "Ottoman Baroque" or "Turkish Baroque" actually corresponds largely to the 18th century, bleeding into the early 19th century, and it's part of Ottoman architecture as I already said, not a separate thing. If we do not want to have subcategories for substyles or subperiods within the 600-year history of Ottoman architecture (a reasonable option if it reduces further confusion), then we could delete the "Baroque mosques" and "Ottoman Baroque" categories altogether and move the mosques simply to
Category:Ottoman mosques (for example), if we agree on that. Otherwise, it's a reasonably clear category per the articles.
Re: #5: I literally just explained that they not all Ottoman Baroque buildings are mosques, so why keep only the category that excludes relevant examples?
You've obfuscated this question beyond recognition. This is about an architectural style, it has nothing to do with
WP:PEOPLECAT, nor is this a country category. It doesn't matter where the term "Ottoman" is coming from, it's simply a label in line with common and published terminology on the topic. "Baroque architecture" on its own is absolutely not. "Some literature", as you insultingly dismiss it, is the majority of relevant scholarly literature on the topic, it's literally what Wikipedia is supposed to follow per
WP:RELIABLE and
WP:COMMONNAME. Your personal interpretations of these art history terms, whatever they are, are irrelevant by comparison. I see nothing in
WP:CATNAME that argues in favour of this unclear point you're making, and you're requesting that we instead ignore fundamental content policies for some tenuous status quo argument.
R Prazeres (
talk) 00:05, 10 January 2023 (UTC)reply
A question - are all Baroque mosques within the former Ottoman Empire, or are there also mosques in this style beyond its boundaries (e.g., in Morocco, Oman, or Iran)? If the latter, then the proposed new category might be better as a subcategory of the current category.
Grutness...wha? 12:21, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
They are all mosques built within the Ottoman Empire, yes, as reflected in the current contents. There is no such thing as "Baroque mosques" in general, in reliable sources, unless as a shorthand for Ottoman Baroque.
R Prazeres (
talk) 14:52, 9 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Or more relevantly the difference is the
Cathedral of the Holy Spirit, which is just a traditional European Baroque building constructed in the Ottoman empire. All the others are specifically the Ottoman Baroque style or more generally the Ottoman style; per the sources and the articles.
R Prazeres (
talk) 07:11, 13 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:28, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:50, 25 January 2023 (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:Theatres that have burned down
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.
Rename if Kept WAS's point about the competing categories may be right but I'm not sure; the proposed rename is surely superior if kept. -
RevelationDirect (
talk) 20:30, 14 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:29, 17 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Qwerfjkltalk 20:49, 25 January 2023 (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:Storm articles needing translation
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.
Nominator's rationale: Very rarely populated. Articles about weather events are generally placed under "History articles needing translation from ___ Wikipedia" instead.
Numberguy6 (
talk) 18:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete, a very narrow topic for this purpose.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 06:59, 26 January 2023 (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:Indigenouism Artists
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just three people, whose head article was deleted last year per
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Indigenouism as an original research attempt to advance a novel thesis invented by the article's creator rather than a recognized or established genre of art. So clearly this can't be a
defining characteristic of these people, if it isn't one that
reliable sources would ascribe them with. And even if there were a basis for keeping it, it would have to be renamed "Indigenouism artists" for accordance with Wikipedia's naming conventions anyway.
Bearcat (
talk) 17:52, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment, if nom is correct the articles in this category should be edited too, in order to remove Indigenouism artist from the body text.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:03, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Done as this term was not verified from the extant English-language citation. –
FayenaticLondon 22:59, 1 February 2023 (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.
Museums in the United States by city
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.
Nominator's rationale: It only makes sense to replace city with populated place as "city" is not representative of the categories within. And it's counterintuitive to make an additional tree for towns/townships as well since it would worsen navigation. This also allows for existing split trees to be merged into a common branch to improve navigation. A museum or any building or any organization is not defined based on whether the place has city or town status. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 15:54, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is not a vote, and not really rooted in any kinda of WP policy, but I hate the term "populated place" as it's used here.
fuzzy510 (
talk) 04:02, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
WP:IDLI. Fortunately, you weren't participating when this decision was discussed long ago, nor the
USGS where this term was published. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:26, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment -- With the widespread use of city for quite small places in US, I do not think it is necessary to make a change, but I am not voting as I do not really know.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 17:55, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
There are places in these categories that are legally not recognized as a city and do not belong. –
Aidan721 (
talk) 19:05, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Comment - This is not a vote, and not really rooted in any kinda of WP policy, but I hate the term "populated place" as it's used here.
fuzzy510 (
talk) 04:02, 26 January 2023 (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.
Old English names
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/mergeTimrollpickering (
talk) 21:29, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with parents categories. The second and third categories here were tagged by
PotterPayper (
talk·contribs) without starting a discussion, but in related edit summaries he stated "
Old English" is the name of the Wikipedia article for the language, "
Anglo-Saxon" more commonly refers to the culture in England during the Dark Ages, though as a term it's become contentious among scholars. –
FayenaticLondon 09:35, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Support separating evolving language from immigrant origin. Hoping that will assist in pruning. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:32, 27 January 2023 (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:New Zealand Historic Places Trust Category I listings
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.
Nominator's rationale: In doing a GA review of
Evans Bay Patent Slip, it came to my attention that Heritage New Zealand (also renamed!) now uses Arabic numerals instead of Roman numerals for its categories. This is not my topic area, so I am unfamiliar with the recency of change, but I do believe a rename discussion is warranted.
Before worrying about the Roman vs Arabic numeral issue, the first thing that needs to happen is that this entire category tree is speedily renamed to reflect the fact that the name of the organisation, New Zealand Historic Places Trust, was changed to Heritage New Zealand in 2014 and is now the entity's common name. This would bring the category tree in line with the parent article,
Heritage New Zealand. The various listings categories should become
Category:Heritage New Zealand Category I historic places,
Category:Heritage New Zealand Category II historic places by region, etc., or the Arabic numeral equivalents.
Paora (
talk) 11:16, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Indeed; I'm with Paora on this one. I set up the category tree initially and at that time, it reflected what was in place then. But things have moved on and if we are making any changes, we might as well do it properly. Schwede66 22:59, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Support this as part of the rename. Again, not my field. Editing the CfD to reflect.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 04:00, 26 January 2023 (UTC)reply
I have added to this list (but not immediately tagged) the other Category categories. I have also designated another 20 categories in the NZHPT category tree for speedy renaming, including the parents of all of these.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 05:44, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Oppose as proposed. No problem with changing NZHPT to Heritage New Zealand and changing the Roman numerals to Arabic, but would prefer to see the word listings in the above proposed category names altered to historic places, to align with Heritage New Zealand's terminology, and to more clearly distinguish from historic areas and wāhi tapu.
Paora (
talk) 11:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Procedural issue: Only one tagged. The others will need to be re-nominated and tagged after conclusion here. Also, related speedy will need to be re-nominated and tagged. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:42, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Sammi Brie,
Paora, and
Schwede66: Please modify your !votes in the same form as mine to demonstrate consensus. Then a bulk nomination for the untagged categories can be done after closing. This will waste less time. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 06:56, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Heritage New Zealand category 1 historic places et al. I will defer to Paora's proposed naming as I was unaware of additional issues this nomination raised about the naming structure—I spotted one and didn't see there were three. My apologies for not getting to this the way I wanted to, but at this point I think the remaining items can be speedied per consensus here once this is done, which is preferable to slogging through a multi-CfD.
Sammi Brie (she/her •
t •
c) 19:55, 1 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Speedy is only for uncontested. So many related were contested, they have to be done here. Once losing there, cannot do it over again. Don't worry, I've done the multi-nomination, although it took more than 4 hours! William Allen Simpson (
talk) 15:41, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
Rename as above. Can we get category redirects from the old names as well?
Stuartyeates (
talk) 09:05, 2 February 2023 (UTC)reply
No, category redirects are an automated process for common names that passing editors might accidentally use. These names are so complicated and specific that it is better they are replaced entirely. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 10:19, 2 February 2023 (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:Del E. Webb 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.
Nominator's rationale: Appears to have been created by a COI/U. This essentially amounts to a client list.
Graywalls (
talk) 06:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Delete — already listified on the article page, these are not
Category:Buildings and structures by company, these are projects by former construction firm. Some are quite historic and substantial, such as a decommissioned Air Force base. William Allen Simpson (
talk) 07:12, 1 February 2023 (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:HC2 Holdings
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 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:Philosophy of Aristotle
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.
Nominator's rationale: This is not a
WP:DEFINING characteristic - all of aristotle's philosophy is referred to as both "the philosophy of aristotle" and "aristotelianism" interchangeably. All of aristotle's philosophy is also studied by philosophers regardless of this distinction - the subjects mentioned in the lead are either philosophical disciplines (logic) or studied by philosophical disciplines (biology and physics by
philosophy of science, justice by
ethics)
- car chasm (
talk) 00:22, 25 January 2023 (UTC) withdrawn per Marcocapellereply
Oppose, the target is about Aristotelianism after Aristotle, that is an important distinction. A discussion about the names of the two categories could be useful though, the names are currently not distinct enough.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 05:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)reply
Gotcha, I'll withdraw it and update the category descriptions to be more clear.
- car chasm (
talk) 07:03, 25 January 2023 (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.