< May 11 May 13 >

May 12

[edit]

Category:Lepidoptera of Senegal

[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 result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:29, 20 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Similar categories
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining (e.g. for Heliothela ophideresana or Frosted orange moth). Note: Each of the categories contains about 5 articles (including lists) but the lists (example) show that there are hundreds of articles that could be in these categories - i.e. in most cases editors have not been categorizing articles in these by-country categories. Example previous CFD: vertebrates DexDor (talk) 17:17, 12 May 2018 (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.

Landmarks

[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 result of the discussion was: Not merged or deleted. Some smaller scale nominations may be able to refine the contents as necessary. Timrollpickering 11:07, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
more categories
The following container categories become empty after the above merging:
Nominator's rationale: it is too subjective to assign an article to a landmark category. By far most articles that are currently in these categories are buildings and structures and we already have a Category:Buildings and structures for that. But who decides on whether a building is a landmark or not? Besides, according to the header, landmarks in American English is equivalent to tourist attractions and we already have a Category:Tourist attractions for that. While as regard to British English, note that Category:Landmarks in the United Kingdom and Category:Landmarks in the Republic of Ireland are very poorly populated. So the proposal is:
to manually purge the few articles more generally about landmarks to an equivalent Tourist attractions category
to manually purge the few articles about natural landmarks to an equivalent Landforms category
and finally to merge the remaining majority of articles about buildings and structures to an equivalent Buildings and structures category by bot, as listed above
When all is done, Category:Landmarks may be turned into a category disambiguation page, linking to Category:Tourist attractions, Category:Landforms and Category:Buildings and structures.
Marcocapelle (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for spotting, I accidentally skipped the deepest levels of the tree and they have a lot of additional categories. I did not add Category:Industrial landmarks in Atlanta though; this probably deserves a separate discussion. The categories should be tagged indeed, I think this may be done with a day or maybe two days. I would be okay with deletion (rather than merge) as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • With respect to the latter, some of the merge targets do not even exist yet (e.g. for parts of Boston), so in those cases I would rather rename the categories to buildings and structures than delete them. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:22, 14 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at several of the articles in that Chicago category (e.g. Great Chicago Fire) and the text made no mention of the landmark status (and the articles were in many more appropriate categories) so I'd be in favour of deleting/merging that category (prune and rename might also be a possibility). The alternative to a mass nomination is to pick on (for example) one state as a test cfd, but that would likely face objections for not covering every state. DexDor (talk) 17:00, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that the Chicago category was not included is hopefully an exceptional coincidence, that was because the category was not part of the Landmarks tree at all. I am afraid that editors do not realize there is a special status involved when adding articles to the Chicago category. Possibly an alternative is something like Category:Dallas Landmarks (not nominated) but as DexDor pointed out, it has to be a defining characteristic to begin with. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:59, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That subtree is screwed up already - are you aware that you're proposing to leave Category:Artists from West Virginia in the landmarks category?? Or maybe you'll just agree that the parenting of lots of those is just amiss. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:16, 12 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I've looked at a sample of articles in these categories (e.g. Salah Bey Viaduct) and every one was in the obvious categories (e.g. all those that were buildings/structures were already in a b&s category). It's unlikely, for example, that a bridge is in a landmarks-of-country category but not in a bridges-of-county etc category. Thus I think it would be safe (and simpler) to do a straight delete. DexDor (talk) 19:31, 13 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
not all tourist attractions are landmarks either, and not landmarks are tourist attractions, landmarks are used as guides to help navigate. Gnangarra 06:07, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Is Adana American College for Girls used as a guide to help navigate??? This is the first article in the first nominated category and most articles are like this. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It may very well be given its history and location, though I dont enough about Turkey to be able to judge this. This nomination is a broad stroke across all countries as I said before english is used differently in different areas, as the nomination includes the australian use of landmarks my point is that the broad brush doesnt fit the australian usage, as landmarks are more than the proposed recats to buildings, tourist places, and landforms. Categories are meant to help people find content dropping the term landmark across 1000's of article doesnt help people find anything. Gnangarra 10:00, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination is to purge and merge - not to "just rename". DexDor (talk) 12:03, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dimadick has just made a comment to help inform the discussion as to what a landmark is by reminding us that we have an article the category structures are based on how the articles about the topic defines the topic. Gnangarra 12:17, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I'd like to remind you of WP:AGF, its common for Australian editors to join discussions that impact Australian topics and that the strong negative comments is not the result of some collusion as you imply but a clear indicator that english is a language where its use varies so one size doesnt perfectly fit all. I'd appreciate seeing all the data and methodologies you used while reviewing the categories(and the 1000's of articles) in this nomination to ensure that they do indeed fit within your proposal that must have been a significant task. Making that data available may help us understand the complexity of the nomination that we can comment on areas where we dont have the advantage of local knowledge to immediately respond on those cases, it may also help us to find a better solution that enables alternative comments to allow for the variances in the use of english. This is suppose to be a discussion to reach an acceptable consensus for the benefit of the community as a whole not a gladiatorial challenge where there can be only one winner. Gnangarra 23:55, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I would appreciate a retraction and an apology that "It's hard to believe that this is a coincidence". Your proposal was automatically reported here Wikipedia:WikiProject Queensland/Article alerts (and doubtless many other WikiProjects) where I saw it on my watchlist. I had no prior discussion with any other contributor (Australian or otherwise) prior to reading the proposal. Kerry (talk) 05:53, 24 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any other U.S. state's landmark category would have pretty much the same range of subcategories, so my argument is not dependent on just what will play in Peoria. postdlf (talk) 00:53, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • If nobody else is volunteering, I will. Please note that I do realize these categories do not just contain buildings. But I'm also expecting that the larger amount of natural landmarks are already in an appropriate landforms category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Updated nominator's proposal after this discussion
to manually purge the few articles more generally about landmarks to an equivalent Tourist attractions category (if not already in that tree)
to manually purge the few articles about natural landmarks to an equivalent Landforms category (if not already in that tree)
to rename categories to Buildings and structures if that category does not exist yet, as listed above
and finally to delete (per DexDor) the remaining categories, with the exception of Category: Landmarks in Chicago‎, Category: Landmarks in Australia‎ and the latter's subcategories
When all is done, Category:Landmarks may be turned into a category disambiguation page, linking to Category:Tourist attractions, Category:Landforms and Category:Buildings and structures.
- Marcocapelle (talk) 05:57, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Jim. The text at Category:Landmarks in New York City says it's for "Widely recognized landmarks in and around ..." (i.e. no mention of a legal designation) and in my sample of articles none mentioned the NYCLPC. DexDor (talk) 19:11, 14 June 2018 (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.
More