Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 December 2

From PsiForum
Jump to navigation Jump to search
< December 1 December 3 >

December 2

Category:Thedwastre Hundred

Nominator's rationale: Its not likely appropriate to have a category for a long abolished unit. As with Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 July 21#Category:Armidale Dumaresq Shire its likely that there won't be many other articles for the hundred its self. I emptied this category a few days ago but the author re added pages to I bring this to CFD. Crouch, Swale (talk) 22:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Oppose: This is presentism, see Wikipedia:Presentism#Shifting_country_names_and_boundaries. These administrative boundaries were in operation for over 700 years. This a completely different kettle of fish to Armidale Dumaresq Shire, the example quoted here, which existed for less than 17 years. As such, they became a useful term by historians, antiquarians and topographers. For example, see John Kirby (topographer), whose pioneering 1735 book The Suffolk Traveller; or, a Journey through Suffolk] uses hundreds as an analytical category. As more and more such historical studies become available on line, there will be a steady increase in the need for such categories as an aid for understanding the historical development of those geographic spaces which were governed by such administrative areas.Leutha (talk) 00:03, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Delete, not a defining characteristic of modern villages. No objection to converting this to a list though. Marcocapelle (talk) 02:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
    There is already a list of the 24 parishes it contained at Thedwastre#Parishes. Crouch, Swale (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
If names of villages are considered to refer to modern appearances shorn of historical antecedents, then we would need to create separate pages referring to the [[Civil parish of xxx]] of each location, or perhaps a [[History of xxx]] if this information could be merged with other historical aspects of the location. Or even with the parish church? All of these approaches have their merits, however they also involve a lot of work. Reliable secondary sources on these early periods of history are becoming increasingly available, as well as lively local websites collating their local history, so this area has a promising future. Separate pages, each generating its own wikidata entry, would be great, I think. But how would we attract sufficient editors to make this happen? So, I feel it would be premature to delete this category at this stage.Leutha (talk) 12:35, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Information on what former units a place was in can be discussed in the article its self, Drinkstone for example already mentions that it was in the hundred of Thedwastre. Crouch, Swale (talk) 17:38, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Exactly. Every village may have been part of all sorts of historical events, that is what we have articles for, not categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:12, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
Well I certainly agree with you. But the role of categories is not to provide a location for information but to facilitate navigation from the article to article. I note that Beyton does not enjoy the same sort of linkage in the article as Drinkstone. That's why it is important to retain this category.Leutha (talk) 02:02, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • We have categories for defining characteristics only, otherwise the article would get loads of category links so that you no longer see the wood for the trees. Defining in this case means that they are English villages. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:46, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
Well:
Parish No. of categories Stub
Ampton 5 yes
Beyton 4 no
Bradfield Combust 4 no
Bradfield St Clare 5 yes
Bradfield St George 5 yes
Drinkstone 5 yes
Felsham 5 yes
Fornham St Genevieve 4 no
Fornham St Martin 5 yes
Gedding 5 yes
Great Barton 4 no
Great Welnetham 5 yes
Hessett 4 no
Little Welnetham 5 yes
Livermere Magna 4 no
Pakenham 4 no
Rattlesden 4 no
Rougham 4 no
Rushbrooke 4 no
Stanningfield 4 no
Thurston 4 no
Timworth 4 no
Tostock 4 no
Woolpit 8 no

So Aside from Woolpit, all the parishes have only 4 or 5 categories, and in each of these cases presence of a stub category is what makes the difference between 4 or 5. If we do more work on those stubs, we can soon get the number of categories down to 2. As for Woolpit, well, perhaps @Marcocapelle would like to make their opinions known as they have clearly already given this some thought. My view is that perhaps they may have a case with pages like Abraham Lincoln, with over 40 categories, but none of our villages, not even a lively place like Woolpit, have anything like that many categories. Perhaps if we start having pages with a couple of dozen categories we can revisit the issue then.Leutha (talk) 12:00, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

  • They are currently only 4 or 5 exactly because we categorize by defining characteristic only. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:04, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Well, clearly being located in a hundred is a defining characteristic, albeit historical. It locates the village within a larger jurisdiction. As pointed out Woolpit has a larger number of categories. It would be great to know whether @Marcocapelle regards each of these as a "defining characteristic".Leutha (talk) 17:06, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Certainly not, that can be reduced to 4 or 5 too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:41, 4 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Weak delete, though the argument "Its not likely appropriate to have a category for a long abolished unit." is invalid... unless you'd also like to consider the likes of Category:Roman Empire and Category:Soviet Union for deletion. Grutness...wha? 02:20, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
See the rule of thumb a defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having. For example: "Subject is an adjective noun ..." or "Subject, an adjective noun, ...". If such examples are common, each of adjective and noun may be deemed to be "defining" for subject. As stated previously such reliable sources as John Kirby (topographer), to which we might add Frederic Shoberl, Augustine Page (See his A Supplement to the Suffolk Traveller, Or, Topographical and Genealogical Collections Concerning that County (1844) each use the hundreds as an organising principal, defining each village as being within its respective Hundred. I do not find the introduction of an erroneous [Reductio ad absurdum] as helpful. A sensible comparison would be having first level administrative divisions included, i.e. the Okrugs of the Byelorussian Soviet Socialist Republic, which are 10 in number. This would be just like having the category:Villages in Suffolk which includes our villages, which in turn is part of category:Villages in England by county, and then category:Villages in England.Leutha (talk) 14:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep, largely on the basis that there's no convincing argument put forward for deletion. Thedwastre Hundred existed for centuries and any directory or history book prior to the 20th century would have described the contents of the Hundred (e.g. the parishes within it). Sionk (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Western New York Flash players

Nominator's rationale: The team has played in the top tier division which had changed names but they have been the same team in their history per article content. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:22, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support merge per nom and per similar Chicago Red Stars discussion on this page. --SuperJew (talk) 23:12, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge as per #Chicago Red Stars. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:53, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom. Seany91 (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 18:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge - we do not have multiple categories for one club, just the one, even if they change names or leagues. GiantSnowman 18:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Classic women blues singers

Nominator's rationale: This category was speedy renamed based on a larger scope discussion to change "female" to "women" for similar categories, but this is a genre of blues called "classic female blues". So those placed in this category are singers of classic female blues. An alternative could be Category:Women classic blues singers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:17, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Meredith Corporation television stations

Nominator's rationale: The stations were sold to Gray Television this week. The local media division no longer exists as the company merged with Dotdash to become entirely a publishing company. CrazyC83 (talk) 21:04, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Comment This category has been emptied. Liz Read! Talk! 22:28, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Rust shooting incident

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization by association. The six articles filed here comprise the article about the incident, the head article about the film, the town where the incident took place, and three biographies of people: the two obvious Just You Guess Whos, and the film's director.
The problem is that this isn't a defining characteristic of Alec Baldwin, Joel Souza or Bonanza City (and it's at best debatable whether it's even defining of Halyna Hutchins), and if those were removed it would just be a two or three item WP:SMALLCAT. (Possibly even smaller than that, because the film may never actually be completed for the purposes of passing WP:NFILM, and thus may not actually need its own standalone article as a separate topic from the incident article anymore either.)
The category system is not just a tool to start a category for just every individual thing that ever happens and then "bundle" every article that's remotely related to it -- we categorize on the defining characteristics of a topic, not on every individual thing that happens to or at it. Bearcat (talk) 18:36, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Delete - similar incidents listed on the Rust shooting incident page don't have similar categories to this one. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Keep - Pretty significant incident with a number of articles related to it. I expect there'll be at least a couple more articles created in association with this. Love of Corey (talk) 02:45, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
"Related to" is not the basis for a category. "Defined by" is. Bearcat (talk) 03:11, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Chicago Red Stars

Nominator's rationale: Both categories refer to Chicago Red Stars. It is not common practice to separate footballers/soccer players by the leagues they were playing in at the time. Therefore, Category:Chicago Red Stars (NWSL) players and Category:Chicago Red Stars (WPS) players should both be merged into Category:Chicago Red Stars players- this is consistent with Chicago Red Stars, which is one article for the team that has featured in both the Women's Professional Soccer and National Women's Soccer League Joseph2302 (talk) 11:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

  • Support merge as per nom and per my comments on WT:FOOTY#Category disambiguators. --SuperJew (talk) 13:27, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge - it's clearly the same team, there's no reason to have separate categories for players that played in each of the two different leagues the team have competed in -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 13:34, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom. Nehme1499 13:50, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom. dashiellx (talk) 13:59, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 15:10, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page discussions. GiantSnowman 20:24, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge - we do not have multiple categories for one club, just the one, even if they change names or leagues. GiantSnowman 20:25, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge - one team that plays in the same league with two names of the same tier level does not need disambiguator categories. Iggy (Swan) (Contribs) 22:05, 2 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Support merge per nom. Seany91 (talk) 11:13, 3 December 2021 (UTC)
  • Merge 1 team = 1 category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:28, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Reggae trombonists by nationality

Nominator's rationale: There is only 1 article, as far as I can see, about a reggae trombonist. Rathfelder (talk) 19:12, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

  Question: Are you proposing Category:Jamaican reggae trombonists for deletion as well? ~~~~
User:1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:43, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
The second category was not tagged yet. I have done that now. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:21, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

Category:Coast to coast highways

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 delete: G1 (patent nonsense), G5 (created by blocked user) Grutness...wha? 23:57, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Nominator's rationale: It seems like this category's title is vague and should specify if it is for the United States or all countries. But I'm asking for deletion as I can't see this as a potential new branch in our coverage of roads and highways. Liz Read! Talk! 02:54, 2 December 2021 (UTC)

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://wiki.tachyony.co.uk/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_2&oldid=3995"