Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 18



Category:Internal migrations

 * 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:  at 2016 OCT 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:49, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Internal migrations to Category:Internal migration by region
 * Nominator's rationale: Fully descriptive name Otherwize it is unclear why there are both category:Internal migration and category:Internal migrations. - üser:Altenmann >t 21:19, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to Category:Internal migration. The category contains internal migration by country (mostly) or continent (incidentally) - but not by region. Since it is too small to split between a country and a continent subcat it seems better to just merge it to the parent. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:36, 26 September 2016 (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:Buses in Doncaster

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:18, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Buses in Doncaster to Category:Bus transport in Doncaster
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 21:12, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, this looks like an entirely uncontroversional WP:C2C nomination and should better have been posted at CFDS. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:34, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * In principle support but I would question whether this should be split down to district level. I would have thought that "South Yorkshire" was the lowest level that we need.  Peterkingiron (talk) 21:35, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Apart from West Midlands, there are only city categories for bus transport in England. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:05, 23 September 2016 (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:Burials in the Royal Pantheon at the Basilica of San Isidoro

 * 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. This is not a straight "do not rename", because I think the nominator has an extremely strong argument here: this was a nomination to simply make these category names consistent with all of the other burial categories. There is little reason to have some that use "in" and some that use "at" (unless a distinction is going to be drawn between crypts vs. cemeteries, as discussed – but that distinction is not what exists currently). (Personally, I think it would be easier to just have one standard naming format and apply it to all of these burial categories, but sometimes divergent user opinion makes things more complicated. But I don't think it would be considered "bad" English to say that someone was buried "at a crypt" or "at a cemetery", nor would it be considered "bad" to say that they were buried "in a crypt" or "in a cemetery". YMMV. We should just choose one and go with it rather than having two different standards for no apparent reason, as is the result of this discussion.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Royal Pantheon at the Basilica of San Isidoro to Category:Burials at the Royal Pantheon at the Basilica of San Isidoro
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Royal Crypt of Weilburg Schlosskirche to Category:Burials at the Royal Crypt of Weilburg Schlosskirche
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Royal Crypt at Nieuwe Kerk, Delft to Category:Burials at the Royal Crypt at Nieuwe Kerk, Delft
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Protestant Cemetery, Rome to Category:Burials at the Protestant Cemetery, Rome
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Pantheon of Kings at El Escorial to Category:Burials at the Pantheon of Kings at El Escorial
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Pantheon of Infantes at El Escorial to Category:Burials at the Pantheon of Infantes at El Escorial
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Jay Gould Mausoleum to Category:Burials at the Jay Gould Mausoleum
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Ducal Crypt of the Jelgava Palace to Category:Burials at the Ducal Crypt of the Jelgava Palace
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in the Cappella Gonzaga, Church of San Francesco (Mantua) to Category:Burials at the Cappella Gonzaga, Church of San Francesco (Mantua)
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in Troyekurovskoye Cemetery to Category:Burials at Troyekurovskoye Cemetery
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in South Brisbane Cemetery to Category:Burials at South Brisbane Cemetery
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in Saint John's Cemetery (Norwalk, Connecticut) to Category:Burials at Saint John's Cemetery (Norwalk, Connecticut)
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in Mill Hill Burying Ground to Category:Burials at Mill Hill Burying Ground
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in East Norwalk Historical Cemetery to Category:Burials at East Norwalk Historical Cemetery
 * Propose merging Category:Burials in Drayton and Toowoomba Cemetery to Category:Burials at Drayton and Toowoomba Cemetery
 * Propose merging Category:Burials in Balmoral Cemetery, Brisbane to Category:Burials at Balmoral Cemetery, Brisbane
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in Balmain Cemetery to Category:Burials at Balmain Cemetery
 * Propose renaming Category:Burials in Calvary Cemetery (Cleveland, Ohio) to Category:Burials at Calvary Cemetery (Cleveland, Ohio)
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories. at cemeteries. in countries Rathfelder (talk) 20:48, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Consolidation Suggestion Just for ease of other editors, I think this might be an easier conversation if you consolidated this to one nomination or a couple logical groupings. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I strongly support RevelationDirect's suggestion. Without consolidation these nominations will probably end up as a procedural keep or no consensus, like this earlier batch of nominations. It makes sense to divide the burials in two groups, one with cemeteries (which look like entirely uncontroversial WP:C2C nominations and could have been posted at CFDS) and one for the remaining burials categories, for which there may be some more discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:21, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support above comments about consolidating into groupings - then we can see what is going on, as it is it is not something to make a comment at every nomination JarrahTree 08:30, 19 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I am afraid I cannot work out how to nominate a group of categories. But you are quite right that CFDS would have been more appropriate, had I remembered it.  I don't think any of these are controversial.  There are hundreds of burial in cemeteteries categories, all using "at".  I don't think there is anything different about any of these.Rathfelder (talk) 14:33, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I already told you in the previous discussion, there is no way if you mean an automated way. If you're starting a nomination it just requires typing. If you want to correct it afterwards, which you can still do, it requires that you edit this discussion page and put the nominations together, and you need to adapt the CfD templates on the category pages such that they point to the right section on this discussion page. I agree that it would be nice if batch nominations could become a bit more automated, but that it is not the case yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The nominations have been bundled. Not sure why everyone needs to complain about it, it only takes about three minutes of work... -- Tavix ( talk ) 05:00, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Thank you very much.Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment – I don't see why we can't oppose or support once here, to include all the similar ones below. I support 'at' for all the cemeteries (per everyting in say Category:Burials in England by cemetery) but 'in' for crypts. One is surely buried in a crypt rather than at one. Oculi (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * I would say that people are buried "in" cemeteries. But Wikipedia usage is, for reasons not known to me, "at".Rathfelder (talk) 20:32, 19 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Personally I'm neutral here because it concerns linguistics, I'd be fine with "in a cemetery" or "at a cemetery" either way. But I can just imagine that if the noun is not cemetery, that some people more strongly find "in" an appropriate preposition, for example "in the crypt", that's why I suggested to split the discussion in two groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:53, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * I'd be perfectly happy with a differentiation, but I'm not sure it would work. Some articles using the term cemetery may actually relate to something I would call a crypt.  And I'm not sure that the distinction is of much utility. Rathfelder (talk) 11:46, 20 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Burial takes place in the ground (not at it). One might say that the burial service took place at a church, but "in" is again better. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:39, 21 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as is for now english is such lovely language because the burial(event) can take place at a cemetery, but one is buried in a cemetery during that event(it probably should be clarified as whether the articles are about the event or about people who were burried in there).. It's an internment in a crypt not a burial so I suggest that the cyrpt categories be renamed to Internments in Foo crypt Gnangarra 11:45, 22 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep as is regardless of country, cemetery or crypt JarrahTree 01:07, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment I have broader concerns that, unless the burial locations is an honor or a battlefield, these aren't defining. I have no opinion on the which pronoun to use though. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
 * now its relatively easy to bury a person anywhere, but that hasnt always been the case and the fact a person is buried somewhere is a defining characteristic as the place chosen to bury that person is an indication of the persons importance, as to what the persons family/friends felt was where the person had their greatest connection. Gnangarra 05:42, 3 October 2016 (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:Bulgarian companies established in 2007

 * 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:  at 2016 OCT 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:43, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bulgarian companies established in 2007 to Category:Companies of Bulgaria established in 2007
 * Nominator's rationale: in line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 15:22, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:NARROWCAT, even a much bigger country like Germany has a very underdeveloped company establishment tree. If kept, agree with rename. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:41, 26 September 2016 (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 of Downtown Houston

 * 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:  at 2016 OCT 5 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings of Downtown Houston to Category:Buildings and structures in Downtown Houston
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with other categories Rathfelder (talk) 14:56, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Question should we really categorize buildings by "downtown"? Currently we don't even have a category like that for New York or Chicago. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 26 September 2016 (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 in Barnstaple

 * 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. I was able to add to the single article in the category and place another 12 articles in it and one subcategory, so I assume this takes care of the concern about the category being small. I don't think WP:SMALLCAT ever applied, since unless there was only one building or structure in Barnstaple there is no reason that the category would have ever had "no potential for growth". Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Barnstaple to Category:Buildings and structures in Barnstaple
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 14:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to Category:Barnstaple per WP:SMALLCAT. If kept, agree with renaming. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 26 September 2016 (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 in Toodyay

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Buildings in Toodyay to Category:Buildings and structures in Toodyay
 * Nominator's rationale: In line with other similar categories Rathfelder (talk) 14:52, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Or speedy rename per WP:C2C. - Evad37 &#91;talk] 08:03, 19 September 2016 (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:Hospitals in Sibu

 * 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, also to Category:Sibu (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:51, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Hospitals in Sibu into Category:Hospitals in Sarawak
 * Nominator's rationale: There seems to be only 1 hospital in Sibu Rathfelder (talk) 10:31, 18 September 2016 (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:Hospitals in Miri

 * 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 empty category (non-admin closure) . Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting hospitals in miri


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty category. There appears to be only one hospital in Miri.   Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 18 September 2016 (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:Films about marriage, unions and partnerships in the Philippines

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 17:19, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Films about marriage, unions and partnerships in the Philippines into Category:Films about marriage
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article right now. There isn't even a Category:American films about marriage. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 08:34, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per nom. ''' Too small category to be useful. Dimadick (talk) 12:36, 18 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Upmerge Not enough links....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:33, 18 September 2016 (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:Traditional Vietnamese objects

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting traditional vietnamese objects


 * Nominator's rationale: delete, traditional is not a useful categorization criterion, if an article belongs in a Vietnamese category then it's pretty likely that it is indeed traditionally Vietnamese. (No need to merge the category, because every article is in another Vietnamese category already.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete -- I also checked. All the Vietnamese items had another Vietnamese category.  The other two were not specifically Vietnamese and do not need one.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:40, 18 September 2016 (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:Objects by type

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:35, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting objects by type


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT, there are no clear inclusion criteria.
 * (However, I would suggest to move the following four subcategories to parent Category:Objects, namely: Category:Fictional objects, Category:Metaphors referring to objects, Category:Religious objects and Category:Unidentified flying objects.) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:13, 18 September 2016 (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:Bhatti

 * 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) 05:56, 26 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bhatti


 * Nominator's rationale: I find no requirement for category containing one article. Regards, Krishna Chaitanya Velaga (talk &bull;&#32;mail) 05:54, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * DElete -- The one article (spelt differently) is adequately categorised. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 18 September 2016 (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:Manga based on light novels

 * 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 both; merge contents of Category:Manga based on light novels to Category:Anime and manga based on light novels and those of Category:Manga based on novels to Category:Anime and manga based on novels. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 29 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting manga based on light novels


 * Propose merging manga based on novels


 * Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Anime and manga based on light novels. If I recall, there was a large batch of similar categories that was deleted a few months ago. G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 04:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)  Added Category:Manga based on novels per 's suggestion.  G S Palmer (talk • contribs) 16:20, 18 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Support, per this discussion. In addition to the nomination, merge content to Category:Anime and manga based on light novels and leave a redirect. Could you add the parent Category:Manga based on novels to this nomination? Because that one should probably be upmerged for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:52, 18 September 2016 (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.