Category:History of the San Joaquin Valley Area[edit]
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.
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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:33, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Move to talk page. This really belongs on the talk page and not in article space. Not sure if we need to discuss, but approval at a full discussion should allow a bot to move these. Note that we probably need to verify the need for this since the article I found it in had an infobox. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note. If kept on the article page, it should be a hidden category. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Unless I've missed something, this already is a talk page category populated by {{WikiProject United States|WA=yes|needs-infobox=yes}}. There were three instances of an article (rather than its talk page) being categorized, but I have corrected them now. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:36, 6 April 2014 (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.
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 an impossibility. The word "Pakistan" was not even invented until 1930.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:02, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. In previous cases, the community strongly supported to delete anachronistic categories - see Syrian (Syrian Arab Republic's) category examples [1],[2].GreyShark (dibra) 15:19, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as an anachronism. There is a complete tree at Category:Years of the 19th century in India. I would support Black Falcon proposed additions for the rest of a tree that leads to only to 1873 in India. At present the tree includes Category:1873 in India. Precisely what the pre-1947 categories should be called is a different matter. I think we have depated that before, and presumably ended off with "India". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I know we have never had a discussion that considered the issue very well. The problem is that there are so many pre-1947 by year categories for India, and they would all need to be nominated for the discussion. To date we have just debated whether the Pakistan ones work. Even that took two debates, and marshaling how some of these categories pre-dated the birth of the inventors of Pakistan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 23 April 2014 (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.
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: "Ancient" is a vague term and no prehistoric or historic periods within the history of Norway are called such in academic texts. All listings in the article are from the Middle Ages, for which Category:Norwegian late-medieval history is a more suitable approach. "Monuments" is also a vague term and normally subjective; the categorization scheme uses "buildings and structures" for what this category seems to cover. Finally, the contents of the category are all monasteries and stave churches, most of which were constructed in the Middle Ages (or later). Surely there must be a more suitable way to categorize this information, which is already covered through the existing categorization tree. Arsenikk(talk) 20:11, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The scope of the current category is poorly defined, and other existing category structures are adequate for categorizing the affected articles. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:59, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, then we should not retain the category. Since the Society for the Preservation of Ancient Norwegian Monuments surely does not own all Christian monasteries and stave churches in Norway, it would be better to delete this category and create a new one with the scope you describe. Simply renaming the category would result in all Christian monasteries and stave churches in Norway being classified as properties of the Society. -- Black Falcon(talk) 02:28, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Provisional keep - Thank you, Eustachiusz, but several years later I cannot say that I had that organization in mind in creating the category. I do understand Arsenikk's dissatisfaction with the name of the category. I would point out, however, that the category he proposes gives people and events as its focus. My focus in the category is historical sites. I would ask if all stave churches are from the period proposed? If not, then they would not fit into the proposed category. I am open to suggestions, but, while it's fine to say that there should be something better, unless one finds what actually is better it seems best to leave the category as is, at least for now.Daniel the Monk (talk) 02:31, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My mistake! I thought the Society owned far more than it does.Eustachiusz (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the category Category:Medieval buildings and structures in Norway would be more suitable overview topic? Medieval could here be defined as pre-Reformation (1537). As far as I am aware there are no non-reconstructed buildings from the Iron Age (although there are archaeological sites). Some stave churches are fairly new (for instance Vår Frue Church (Porsgrunn) is from 1899). I stumbled upon this category which considering created a category for all pre-Reformation churches in Norway. There were three reasons for this: 1) all pre-Reformation human remains are automatically protected/listed; 2) these churches would previously have been Catholic; and 3) these churches would be tied to the Middle Ages, rather than the Renaissance/Modern Era. Arsenikk(talk) 11:16, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Arsenikk. This seems to encompass the scope of the category, without raising a POV issue over how ancient is ancient. A headnote explaining the cut off at the Reformation in 1537 will be needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:17, 6 April 2014 (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:Animals having identical common and scientific names[edit]
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: We normally categorize things by their characteristics (e.g. Tyrannosaurus is a Cretaceous dinosaur) and not by characteristics of their names. DexDor (talk) 13:18, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is categorization by a characteristic of the name, not of the thing. Articles are on things, not names, and so categorized by what the thing is. Another way t look at this, all categories should still work if we translated the encyclopedia to French, and this one would not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivia, per numerous precedents. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (or convert to a list before deleting). The map-territory distinction is particularly interesting here. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 20:01, 7 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome to create such a list (assuming, of course, that it meets WP:LIST), but wouldn't the list potentially include every species for which there isn't a (separate) common name - from E. Coli to Diplodocus. Also, some species may have a common name in one language, but not in another ... DexDor (talk) 20:36, 8 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I was thinking of such species as boa constrictor, where the rules were bent to allow that to be the "scientific name". Could someone help me convert it to a list? — Arthur Rubin(talk) 07:14, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Never mind. There's no way to check, but if boa constrictor and tyrannosaurus (which shouldn't be there; the common name is taken from the scientific name) are the only articles which have been in the category, it doesn't deserve a list. "Species (whose) scientific name was assigned in violation of the rules" might be a more interesting list. (That needs to be rephrased, but you know what I mean....) — Arthur Rubin(talk) 07:23, 11 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
changed to Neutral; I didn't look carefully at what is in the category before !voting. Unless there are likely to be more entries were the scientific name was taken from the common name, leaning Delete as too small a category. — Arthur Rubin(talk) 07:23, 11 April 2014 (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.
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 as empty. It appears that all of the contents were deleted at AFD.Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:16, 15 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-notable youth football. Both articles are at AfD now JMHamo (talk) 09:55, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. JMHamo (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – As long as the main and one other articles exist, this category effectively groups content related to the Championship. If both articles are deleted, then this category could be speedily deleted under criterion C1. -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:47, 6 April 2014 (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.
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: The category text says "Note: This category will exist only temporarily to help User:Abyssal split some stratigraphy related lists. Sorry for the inconvenience.", but has now existed for over 4 years. DexDor (talk) 05:06, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Please give me a few days to verify that I didn't leave any tasks relevant to this category unfinished. Abyssal (talk) 13:33, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Discussions normally run for at least a week before action (although if the creator says the cats are no longer needed an admin might close the CFD earlier). DexDor (talk) 21:30, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I suppose that if another genus of dynosaur is found in a formation, it would need to change categories. That lacks sufficient permanence. We might conceivably categorise Formations with dinosaur fossils, but it is probably better to classify them as Cretaceous, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:26, 6 April 2014 (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.
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: The subject is insufficiently notable or prolific to have his own eponymous category, which is populated with one entry. Quis separabit? 00:50, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not all works by artist cats need a parent cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 6 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We do not need a category for a sculptor, distinct for the one from his works. The bio will naturally be the main article in the scultures category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 6 April 2014 (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.
