Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 July 12



Category:Gulfs of Mexico

 * 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: no consensus to rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Gulfs of Mexico to Category:Gulfs in Mexico
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. There is only one Gulf OF Mexico. This category is for gulfs IN Mexico. Georgia guy (talk) 16:03, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose - (1) The other categories below Category:Gulfs by country use "of" and (2) "in Mexico" doesn't look quite right for (offshore) gulfs. DexDor (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep for now, but it's time to rethink the whole hierarchy. Keep for consistency with the other categories and because the gulfs are not all strictly within Mexico. However, rethink the category hierarchy because "gulf" is not a defining characteristic of a water body; it is merely one of several words used in the naming of the world's coastal embayments. There is no strict definition of a gulf. The Bay article provides a review of the different terms that exist for embayments; a few (like fjord) have restricted definitions, but some of the others are almost interchangeable. Consider that the Bay of Fundy is an embayment of the larger Gulf of Maine and the Bay of Bangkok is an arm of the larger Gulf of Thailand, but the Bay of Bengal is larger than any of these "gulfs", not to mention their "bays". Rather than categorizing water bodies by the words that appear in their names, perhaps it's time to use terms that describe the water bodies more broadly. The terminology-based lists, such as List of gulfs, would still remain for the benefit of people who need to refer to them. --Orlady (talk) 18:33, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment if you merge Gulfs and Bays together into a single category, that would handle it. (and the Sea of Galilee and Salton Sea are very small bodies of water, not really seas, so the moniker of the body of water is not necessarily the classification of the body of water) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:51, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Category:Bays of Mexico to become Category: Bays, gulfs and bights of Mexico or Category: Gulfs, bays and bights of Mexico (or Category: Embayments of Mexico) and merge the two entire category heirarchies together into a new B+G Category: Bays, gulfs and bights or G+B Category: Gulfs, bays and bights (or Category: Embayments) category tree (or should we divide this by oceanic ones, and non-oceanic ones? (ie, many lakes have bays, and perhaps gulfs) ) -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 00:52, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Comments. Bay says A large bay may be called a gulf, a sea, a sound, or a bight.  That would imply if we change categories and keep something like Category:Gulfs it should be a child of Category:Bays.  Also, Category:Embayments is unsuitable as ambiguous (a bay or bay like shape) and we have no main article and it is not even mentioned in the article where it redirects to.  Category:Gulfs contains this Regardless of place name, an article is placed in this category if its content indicates that the place is a gulf.  So if bay is right is inclusion in Category:Gulfs subjective?  Note that Gulf (geography) is a redirect to List of gulfs.  Not really a good criteria for categorization.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:03, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * keep as is to match all other 'Gulfs of foo country'. We do not change names creating exceptions to patterns just for convenience. Clearly the description/purpose of the category and the contents of the category shows how this is distinguished from the Gulf of Mexico, which does not belong to Mexico.  Hmains (talk) 03:01, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge with Category:Bays of Mexico. There is no universal, clear distinction of what is a gulf and what is a bay.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Oppose nom as not following the established convention per DexDor and Hmains. Oppose any form of Category: Gulfs, bays and bights since that excludes seas and sounds as well as other names used for bays like fjords and maybe headlands‎.  Merging to Category:Bays of Mexico may have some merit, but as Orlady points out, this probably needs to be part of a larger discussion.  If someone wants to use this as a test nomination for that, it would need to be a new nomination.  Category:Gulfs is currently a child category of Category:Bays.  An upmerge of that category could make sense as a test case since we generally don't create categories for things that are named the same, but that is exactly the inclusion criteria for Category:Gulfs as noted above.  Vegaswikian (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2013 (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.

Category:New Rochelle Walk of Fame

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting new rochelle walk of fame


 * Nominator's rationale: By Wikipedia convention, being included in a hall of fame is not a basis for categorization (not a defining characteristic). This particular category is redundant to Category:People from New Rochelle, New York. Orlady (talk) 13:25, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This violates the rules against most awards categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete Is anyone really defined by their inclusion on the New Rochelle Walk of Fame? Alansohn (talk) 04:37, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- another unnecessary category for an award: listify if necessary.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 15 July 2013 (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.

Category:Buildings with blue plaques

 * 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:21, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting buildings with blue plaques


 * Nominator's rationale: This category was dicussed in 2006 with a "no consensus" result. Having a blue plaque (BP) on a building is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of that building - having a BP is not in itself sufficient for a building to be notable enough for a WP article (the building may be notable because of its connection with a famous person, but that's not the same thing). In most of the articles in this category the BP is not mentioned in the lead. The lead image at Blue plaque shows some problems with this category; a plaque saying "1851-60, Charles Dickens, Novelist, Lived in Tavistock House near this site" commemorates a person who lived in a nearby building for a small part of his life.  Note: About half the articles currently in this category are about streets etc (that contain buildings with BPs) - it's even less of a defining characteristic for these.  For info: The List of blue plaques includes addresses and can be linked where there is an article about the building.  For info: many blue plaques categories (containing bios) were recently deleted. DexDor (talk) 05:18, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete The problem with this category is shown by the example blue plague in the article. That one is on a building that has no direct connection to Dickens. This is not a notable enough characteristic of a building to categorize by. It is at best an award category, and not one sufficiently notable to categorize by.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete little difference from a Category:Buildings George Washington slept in type... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:51, 17 July 2013 (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.

Category:Association football clubs by capital

 * 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 to Category:Association football clubs by city to keep them in the city tree. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 19 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting association football clubs by capital


 * Nominator's rationale: This container category (although not tagged as such) does not appear to serve a useful purpose as being from a capital city is not a meaningful categorization of a football club. The corresponding category for people was recently deleted.  The association of "capital city" is no more valid a container category than FCs from cities founded in the 1800s (collecting all the "Football clubs in" categories of cities that match), or FCs from cities beginning with "L" (so that FCs from London, Los Angeles, Lisbon, and Lahore can be found together quickly, etc). It is unclear if this would include FCs from capitals of German states etc. DexDor (talk) 04:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete – same rationale as cfd for people by capital. Oculi (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Association football clubs by city. That the city is a capital is not defining, especially since capitals can change (Lagos/Abuja come to mind most quickly).John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 13 July 2013 (UTC)
 * I will support the merge suggestion, but I am not sure of the merits of the underlying principle of having categories of this kind. Clubs should be categorized by country. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:48, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Manual selective merge to Category:Association football clubs by city, only for the cases that are not in a country sub-cat of that one. – Fayenatic  L ondon 22:20, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete per same reasons as people by capital. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:52, 17 July 2013 (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.