Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 June 19



Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta

 * 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: keep. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Governors and Governors-General of Malta to Category:Governors of Malta
 * Nominator's rationale: A category has been created for Governors-General. This category shouldn't cover both therefore. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 23:43, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * NO -- merge the Governors-General back here. That office lasted a mere 10 years and was held by just two people.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * The split could have been meaningful if the Governors-General could be parented to Category:State of Malta. However, since the latter doesn't exist, presumably by lack of further content, the split between Governors and Governors-General becomes pretty pointless. So I agree with Peterkingiron that Category:Governors-General of Malta should be nominated for merge back. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:34, 27 June 2017 (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:Iranian diaspora political office-holders

 * 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: relisted at Categories for discussion/Log/2017 July 5. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:02, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting iranian diaspora political office-holders


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-notable intersection. TM 22:18, 19 June 2017 (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:Organizations based in Mandatory Palestine

 * 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: keep.  ℯ  xplicit  00:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Organizations based in Mandatory Palestine to Category:Organisations based in Mandatory Palestine
 * Nominator's rationale: Since the term Mandatory Palestine refers to the time when this geographical region was ruled by the UK, it should follow British spelling. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose per the parent Category:Palestinian organizations and Oxford English, prevalent throughout the British Empire. Oculi (talk) 21:22, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support -- as a British territory, British English should be used. OED does give both spellings, but S is the normal British English.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 25 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose as it would not be desirable to depart from the successor Category:Organizations based in the Palestinian territories, kept below. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:20, 5 July 2017 (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.

Organizations based in the Palestinian territories

 * 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 per Option B, noting that this also matches local usage by bodies that include the word in their name, e.g. the PLO and Leaders Organization. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:08, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Propose renaming under one of the following options:
 * Option A - "Organizations" to "Organisations"
 * Category:Organizations based in the Palestinian territories to Category:Organisations based in the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Organizations based in Ramallah to Category:Organisations based in Ramallah
 * Category:Environmental organizations based in the Palestinian territories‎ to Category:Environmental organisations based in the Palestinian territories‎
 * Category:Human rights organizations based in the Palestinian territories to Category:Human rights organisations based in the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Political organizations in the Palestinian territories to Category:Political organisations in the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Sports organizations of the Palestinian territories to Category:Sports organisations of the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Youth organizations based in the Palestinian territories to Category:Youth organisations based in the Palestinian territories
 * Option B - "Organisations" to "Organizations"
 * Category:Disability organisations based in the Palestinian territories to Category:Disability organizations based in the Palestinian territories
 * Category:Non-profit organisations based in the Palestinian territories to Category:Non-profit organizations based in the Palestinian territories
 * Rationale: These categories all have the same national scope, so they should have the same ENGVAR usage. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Brazil - closed as Organisations
 * Greece - closed as Organizations
 * Iran - closed as Organisations
 * Poland - closed as Organisations
 * Israel - closed as Organizations
 * Puerto Rico - closed as Organizations
 * France - closed as Organizations
 * Angola - still open
 * Turkey - closed as Organizations
 * Bolivia - relisted
 * Republic of Macedonia - still open


 * Support Option B – per WP:RETAIN, the subcats should all have followed the lead of Category:Organizations based in the Palestinian territories, which has been there since 2010. Moreover 'organizations' is perfectly good UK English; see Oxford English. Also per Category:Organizations based in Mandatory Palestine and Category: Palestinian organizations. And finally the cfd for the neighbouring Israel closed in June 2017 as Organizations. Oculi (talk) 21:09, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Support Option B Per WP:RETAIN. The parent cat was created seven years ago as Category:Organizations based in the Palestinian territories and has been stable since. The vast majority of the subcategories use the -iz spelling. There would be no reason to change to -is spelling as Palestine has no strong national ties to the -is spelling. AusLondonder (talk) 23:10, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Option A -- This was a British territory where I would expect British English. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 25 June 2017 (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:Baseball players from Ponce, Puerto Rico

 * 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: double merge for baseball and basketball players; single merge suffices for boxers (since they are already in Category:Puerto Rican male boxers).
 * Propose merging Category:Baseball players from Ponce, Puerto Rico to Category:Sportspeople from Ponce, Puerto Rico

Also propose merging-
 * Category:Basketball players from Ponce, Puerto Rico to Category:Sportspeople from Ponce, Puerto Rico and
 * Category:Boxers from Ponce, Puerto Rico to Category:Sportspeople from Ponce, Puerto Rico
 * Nominator's rationale: :Nominator's rationale: Per multiple CFDs, here, here, here, here here, and here just being six examples, we don't subcategorize sportspeople at the city town level. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:38, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Merge all - even if the parent category and its subcats have no overlap, the parent categry will end up with 49 articles, so it doesn't need splitting. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:18, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Also upmerge, respectively, to Category:Puerto Rican baseball players, Category:Puerto Rican basketball players, and Category:Puerto Rican boxers. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:23, 19 June 2017 (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:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash albums

 * 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: soft delete while there is no info about the albums. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:24, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting bastard sons of johnny cash albums


 * Nominator's rationale: A bit of a pointless category as it contains only redirects all going to the same article which offers no details about the albums themselves. Doesn't benefit readers. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: There does appear to be a precedent to keep album categories, even if they are filled with redirects and not articles with actual content. However, the cited discussions were from several years ago. Perhaps consensus on the matter has changed; more input is needed.
 * Speedy keep There have been many, many conversations on keeping or deleting album categories which contain redirects for several years and all of them have been keep. I can get diffs if you really need. Cf. WikiProject_Albums/Album_article_style_guide. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:48, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * E.g. Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_December_3, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_10, Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_9, etc. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:50, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If the redirects provided sourced information about each of the albums, it would be beneficial to readers. Clicking on any of these to always go to the same page that only provides a listing of these albums with no details is a waste of the reader's time. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 16:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment – compare with Cajun Dance Party (album), a useful targeted redirect to a section on the specific album, with a tracklist. I don't personally think that un-targeted redirects deserve to be categorised at all. Oculi (talk) 09:52, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete, it's pretty frustrating - while the category suggests there is a lot of content - readers will find there is no information at all after clicking 10 links in vain. No objection against recreating the category once articles are being written. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:49, 13 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Delete – there is an overall consensus to categorise useful redirects, which should be targeted to a section of an article, such as the redirect Cajun Dance Party (album). In contrast Bend in the Road (Bastard Sons album) (and every other redirect in Category:Bastard Sons of Johnny Cash albums) is not a useful redirect as it directs us to an article with no information on the album. Oculi (talk) 09:53, 19 June 2017 (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:Culverts

 * 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. I checked the ones beginning A to P and confirm they are still all adequately categorised as the nominator says – some in "subterranean rivers". – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:48, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting culverts


 * Nominator's rationale: The articles in this category are generally about rivers, canals and bridges and are categorized as such - this category is unnecessary. Categorizing some canals (e.g. Lancaster Canal) in Category:Bridges is strange. DexDor(talk) 05:46, 5 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Support – even the articles with 'culvert' in their names are in fact bridges. This seems to gather together anything that goes under or over a water course at some point. Oculi (talk) 09:45, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Delete. Culverts are small bridges (see File:Old Enon Road Stone Arch Culvert, northern side.jpg and its article, for example), so it makes sense to have bridges categorised as culverts.  However, it's not particularly useful to separate culverts from other kinds of bridges; as far as I can tell, the dividing line is subjective.  Nyttend (talk) 22:35, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment In Britain a culvert is an underground channel, not a bridge, anywhere in size from a substantial yet shortish drain to a lengthy artificially buried river. Ah, I now see culvert tells me the latter is a specifically UK usage. River Moselle (London) isn't a bridge. Has anyone categorised the Lancaster Canal as a bridge? I see the article says "the canal was culverted in three places, despite a local campaign for bridges to be built" so is that something to do with it? Thincat (talk) 22:42, 6 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Category:Culverts places Lancaster Canal in Category:Bridges. DexDor(talk) 19:48, 7 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see. But the other folk above seem to be saying culverts are bridges which certainly isn't true where I live. In the light of all this I agree that "culvert" isn't a good name for a category at all. A typical culvert (for me) wouldn't be notable anyway and a big one one would be better categorised as Category:Subterranean rivers or whatever. Things some people call culverts that i would call bridges can be categorised as bridges. For me, Lancaster Canal isn't any of these. It does not seem to be defined by its culverts or bridges. BTW, I'd like to distinguish artificial underground rivers from natural ones. Thincat (talk) 21:00, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: For consideration of a rename proposal.
 * Rename then purge -- There is room for a category for watercourse (rivers, brooks, etc) which are culverted for a substantial part of their course, but some of the articles are about waterways (such as Lancaster canal) most of which is not in a culvert. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:27, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  01:49, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * If renamed and purged, the category name may be changed to Category:Subterranean watercourses, to which the existing Category:Subterranean rivers may be parented. I'm neutral between deleting and renaming, for that matter. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2017 (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.

Historic farms

 * 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 Category:Centennial farms to Category:Century farms, keep the rest. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Centennial farms merge to Category:Historic farms in the United States Category:Century farms
 * Propose merging Category:Century farms merge to Category:Historic farms in the United States
 * Propose merging Category:Historic farms by country to Category:History of agriculture by country (only the Norwegian subcat, the US one is already in it)
 * Propose deleting Category:Historic farms (becomes empty after above merger)
 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:09, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger of "Centennial farms" and/or "Century farms" into generic "Historic farms". Thanks for notice about this.  There's no difference intended between "Centennial" ones vs. "Century" ones;  I have a small bias towards choosing to use "Century".  Setting up a category redirect or merging "Centennial" into "Century" is fine.  Also, Century farms can naturally be a subcategory of Historic farms.  However, the term "Century farm" is a designation like a historic site listing which is specific, is recognized by various state agencies, involves documentation that one family owned and operated the farm for 100 years (where "in the same family" and "operating the farm" have to be defined well enough, which may vary slightly by state).  This is like the difference between generic historic houses vs. houses which are specifically listed on the U.S. National Register of Historic Places or the City of Los Angeles' Historic-Cultural Monuments or the like.  See the Century Farm article which lists the state recognizing bodies.  It is temporarily a small category because previous members were lost in the past (perhaps one or both categories were deleted in the past).  ["Category:Century farms" was previously deleted by this CFD in 2011, in which !voting participants were ignorant even about what a century farm is.  Perhaps Century Farm article was developed more then or after.]  There is room for an explicit list of them, but Categories and Lists are complementary (per wp:CLT), and it makes sense to allow the category so that members for a list can be identified. -- do  ncr  am  04:32, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * P.S. wp:SMALLCAT applies to categories with little or no potential for growth.  Check out this 23 page list of new Century Farms designated in Iowa in 2016, for just one state's listings, found in 2 seconds of Google searching.  I am not expecting that each one of these needs a Wikipedia article.  But where they are notable and have articles, putting into a category to group them together is helpful. -- do  ncr  am  04:43, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. There were only a couple members when the categories were nominated.  Now it includes:
 * Boyd–Wilson Farm
 * Brabson's Ferry Plantation
 * Corbett Farm
 * Davies Manor
 * Spencer Eakin Farm
 * Earnest Farms Historic District
 * Fairvue (Jefferson City, Tennessee)
 * Augustus Fanno Farmhouse
 * Farrar Distillery
 * Harms Farm
 * Maden Hall Farm
 * Maymead Farm
 * McPhail Angus Farm
 * Oak Hill Farm
 * Shamrock Acres
 * Smithson–McCall Farm
 * Taylor-Stevenson Ranch
 * and perhaps more.
 * Also Jacob Nuffer Farmstead in Minnesota (currently a redlink) is a NRHP-listed one which will get an article and the category sometime, as will many others. Of 2,000+ NRHP entries with "Farm" in their name, it's not easy to see which are designated century farms, but a good number are.--

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Thanks! I've adapted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:43, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay, thanks for that, that's what I care about most. -- do ncr  am  15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose merging Category:Historic farms and Category:Historic farms by country (which includes subcategories for U.S. and Norway) out of existence. I don't care so much, but I don't see why these should be eliminated.  They seem to be clear categories.  Members in Norway's subcategory include places like Thomas Erichsens Minde, an estate and manor house.  That fits in "historic farms", but doesn't fit in "to Category:History of agriculture by country.  I looked at another couple which don't look like they would transfer nicely, either.  Note also that Category:Historic farms in the United States just got a lot larger, by my adding as a subcategory Category:Farms on the National Register of Historic Places, which has about 1000 members. -- do  ncr  am  15:24, 26 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose -- This nom amalgamates two different concepts. Centennial farms have passed down a family for 100 years.  Historic farms should be a NTHP (or equivalent category).  However two of the nom cats have a single article and should be merged (or reverse merged).  There must be 100s of historic farms in other Europeans countries, but they are probably categorised elsewhere.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 28 May 2017 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ℯ  xplicit  00:42, 19 June 2017 (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.

Parodies of Sarah Palin

 * 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, ensuring that the last two members also remain categorised as parodies. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:04, 5 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Parodies of Sarah Palin
 * Nominator's rationale: We already have a Category:Cultural depictions of Sarah Palin, which covers a wider scope of portrayals of Sarah Palin than just parodies alone. Also this is more in line with all the other categories which list cultural depictions of celebrities. Shouldn't parody categories be restricted to works? User:Kjell Knudde 15:04, 19 June 2017 (UTC).


 * Delete: Agree with nom, this category is redundant. Bonewah (talk) 14:30, 19 June 2017 (UTC)


 * Upmerge to parent category Category:Cultural depictions of Sarah Palin. No reason to leave the articles uncategorized. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 19 June 2017 (UTC)
 * No need to upmerge it. All the articles listed under "Category:Parodies of Sarah Palin" are already categorized under "Cultural depictions of Sarah Palin" too, so we won't lose any articles by simply deleting "Categories:Parodies of Sarah Palin". User:Kjell Knudde 13:17, 20 June 2017 (UTC).
 * Keep. Parodies are a legitimate form of cultural expression much different from simply the more general "cultural depictions", which could be graffiti or a campaign hat. Sagecandor (talk) 17:01, 20 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment: It looks like I created the Parodies category in November 2008. The Cultural Depictions category was created in December 2016. I have no strong opinion about having these articles in one of these categories vs. the other. KConWiki (talk) 02:25, 21 June 2017 (UTC)
 * Upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only the last 2 articles in the category clearly belong here. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:49, 22 June 2017 (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.