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.
Category:Half Man Half Biscuit
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 per consensus of this ddiscussion, and many many precedents of deleting eponymous categories for musicians where the topics are already interlinked. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
Nominator's rationale: With only albums and songs subcategories, which already interlink from one another, an eponymous category for this band simply isn't necessary.
WP:OCEPONStarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The rationale boils down to, "the subcategories are well-populated, and good housekeeping means that the base category is clean; it is therefore not needed". There is an obvious flaw in this logic: a messy base category with poorly-categorised entries would not be vulnerable to that argument.
The fact that the subcategories link to each other is good. The nomination overlooks the fact that readers couldn't find them without a base category.
It is incorrect to say that the nominated category contains only the two subcategories. It also contains the article
Half Man Half Biscuit.
The nominated category is used in
Template:Half Man Half Biscuit – which, very correctly, is included in several articles and contains no redlinks.
I fail to see how deletion of this category would help readers in any way at all. For me, ease of navigation for readers trumps all other considerations.
Narky Blert (
talk)
22:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, every eponymous category is going to have its eponymous article as an entry. There is nothing else but the songs and the albums though. This would suggest every single artist that has albums and songs categories (and only albums and song categories) should also have an eponymous category, which will just lead to overcategorization per
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Not quite... There's a difference between invoking tradition for its own sake and stating that we have, on many prior occasions, considered the value of categories just like this one and found them to be lacking. --
Black Falcon(
talk)23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Other than the main article and 2 subcats, the only other page that I found that could be categorized here is the template—in other words, hardly enough content to warrant an eponymous category. The main article, as stated above, and the navigational template serve as gateways to the album and songs subcategories, which are also interlinked. --
Black Falcon(
talk)23:54, 19 January 2019 (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.
Jabal al Akhdar
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.
Category:Railway stations by city
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.
Theatres by city
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.
Category:Wave mechanics
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.
I think wave mechanics is a fine subcategory of waves. 'Waves' containing types of waves', 'wave mechanics' concerning the mechanics of waves. The dab page at
Wave mechanics is nonsense to me. No one calls Schroedinger mechanics an unqualified 'wave mechanics' (although 'quantum wave mechanics' is used).
WP:2DAB would apply. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I'm inclined to agree with Headbomb -- it makes good sense to separate out the articles pertaining to wave mechanics instead of having them mixed in with all the other articles in
Category:Waves.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
09:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I suspect there is considerable room to create several rather more focused categories (sub-categories) out of the two that we have here.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:09, 9 February 2019 (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:People from the Province of Rome
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. Despite the unwieldiness of the proposed new new title, there is consensus here to rename as proposed, based on the current title of the head article:
Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. That article has been moved 5 time since its creation in January 2015, each time without any sign of discussion, so it is unclear whether the current title accurately reflects
WP:AT and relevant guidelines. Other subcats of
Category:Metropolitan City of Rome Capital have been moved without discussion, some via CFDS (which shouldn't have happened, in view of the inconsistency) and at least one by an un-notified move of the category page, while
Category:Rivers of the Province of Rome still uses the old title. This is all a bit of a mess; the best procedural path would have been a
WP:RM discussion on the head article, followed by a group CFD nom of all the subcats. If editors have concerns about the title chosen here, please start with an RM discussion on the head article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I know the cat tree was named after People from the Province of foo, but the Province of Rome was renamed to the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. So, the cat should use the name of the second-tier administrative area (first tier is region) at that time or current name?
Matthew hk (
talk)
23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: The only cat left in question would be
Frazioni of the Province of Rome, which the nature of the cat itself is questionable. frazione (as well as zone or other similar words) was the administrative (not historical) subdivision of comune. However, the subdivision of Rome was Municipi, but not sure why there are cats
Municipi of Rome and
Districts of Rome and
Suburbs of Rome, which the whole cat tree of frazione may need a separate discussion about the wording and structure. For example, normalize the wording of that subdivision inside Metropolitan City of Rome Capital, using "Districts " or Frazioni or others, and or which one of the cat of Rome should be the subcat of that new cat. Lastly, some "frazioni" in the comune in the former province, such as
Fiumicino, was referred in the news and it-wiki as zone. Not sure it was due to Fiumicino comune was part of Rome comune until 1992 or not.
Matthew hk (
talk)
18:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, Lazio is a region, which is officially breakdown into province or "Metropolitan City". And the Province or "Metropolitan City" are break down into comune or plural comuni. However, not all comuni of the Metropolitan City had their own subcat. For the whole cat tree,
People from Lazio should be a container cat in general, as we either know people exact POB , or don't. It rarely just known notable to associate with the Lazio region.
Matthew hk (
talk)
07:45, 6 December 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.
Category:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name
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: What is the purpose of this triple intersection? How is the fact that a book has the Divine Name a defining thing for a book?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
15:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Actually this does seem to be a thing. Whether and how the
Tetragrammaton is represented in a manuscript is considered significant in the scholarship of Biblical texts. That the the nom talks about a "book", rather than different manuscripts of the same book (or, in fact, tiny bits of it) suggests she knows little or nothing about the field. All the articles seem to mention this matter, many going into some detail - eg see
Papyrus Fouad 266. Since the articles (like many of the MS fragments) are very short it does seem defining. Just because a drive-by editor does not immediately understand the purpose of a category is not a reason for deletion. If not kept, listify. The name might be improved. It used to be
Category:Septuagint manuscripts with the Divine Name, but as the category note points out, there are in fact several different Greek translations of the Bible, besides the
Septuagint. The category has been around since 2014 btw.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments – At least one of the manuscripts in this category,
4Q120, uses the Greek
trigrammaton ΙΑΩ (surprisingly a red link), so a name with "tetragrammaton" may not be fully accurate. Also, if kept, I would suggest the title should contain "manuscripts that contain/display/include/use..." instead of "manuscripts containing/displaying/including/using...". Lastly, isn't "Early" more appropriate than "Ancient" in the context of dating Bible manuscripts and versions? --
Black Falcon(
talk)19:26, 13 January 2019 (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:Hospital buildings in Australia
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.
Keep. They're not hospitals, they're hospital buildings which are specifically notable. Categorising nurses' homes, heritage-listed structures within notable hospitals, or abandoned former buildings of continuing hospitals as just "hospitals" is incorrect and unhelpful to readers. All of these structures are notable because they're heritage-listed (though it's plausible similar articles could be notable for other reasons, they don't presently exist): this category is essentially an Australian equivalent of
Category:Listed hospital buildings in the United Kingdom and
Category:Hospital buildings on the National Register of Historic Places (both subcategories of
Category:Hospital buildings), except it doesn't specify a specific register because Australia devolved its equivalent of the NHRP to the states in the 2000s. As the nominator has other similar nominations going of categories whose contents were just plain old hospitals, I'm not entirely sure they ÷even looked at the contents of this one.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
10:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
This would shift it out of whack with the Australian category tree, which doesn't generally have categories amalgamating "heritage-listed" and "type of thing". "Listed" without further clarification also makes no sense in an Australian context.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Heritage-listed is equally fine. It is the defining characteristic of these buildings so even if a heritage-listed tree does not exist yet in Australia, this is the perfect place to start.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
It is not necessarily the defining characteristic of these buildings: it is perfectly possible there could be a notable hospital building for architectural or other reasons besides heritage listing. I don't see any reason to make an exception to the vast majority of the Australian category tree here.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
09:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. These are not hospitals but buildings which house or used to house hospitals, and are preserved for cultural heritage reasons. They should not be in a category tree for organizations.
Dimadick (
talk)
14:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
None of these are about defunct hospitals either. Firstly, several of these are still in use. A nurses' home is still not a defunct hospital. Former buildings of ongoing hospitals are not "defunct hospitals": the hospital is not defunct if it ceases to use a notable building. I organised this category to have no overlap with
Category:Defunct hospitals in Australia, because this category specifically refers to buildings - articles on institutions don't belong here.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Clearly
The Drover's Wife has put some thought into this. I'm quite happy for these articles to be categorised together. But if we are not careful all the other hospitals in Australia will appear in this category too. The note on the category page is clearly intended to stop that, but in my experience such notes dont have much effect. It's easy not to see them. I think the name of the category has to be clearer. Perhaps Notable hospital buildings in Australia?
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
This category is specifically for articles about buildings that are notable. Plenty of hospital buildings are mentioned in articles about hospitals where nobody suggests that the building itself is notable.
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I oppose that rename and oppose relisting with a clear consensus to keep. This is not necessarily a category solely for heritage-listed buildings; it could well be that a hospital building was, for example, architecturally notable. There is no "heritage-listed buildings" category tree in Australia: moving an Australia-level article "to match" a Queensland-level article that's out of sync with the rest of the Australian category tree is a strange suggestion.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
09:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There is no category tree for "heritage-listed buildings by type" in Australia, so what you're advocating means creating a random outlier that doesn't fit with the entire rest of the Australian category tree. The title is exactly what it says on the box, hospital buildings as opposed to hospitals, and any unlikely confusion is easily explained away by the category note. It's hardly "too nuanced for categorisation" - we categorise all kinds of buildings by type, and there are tons of notable hospital buildings on Wikipedia.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
20:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, but then my next choice would be to delete this category since, at present, it is a random outlier that doesn't fit with the rest of
Category:Hospital buildings. I am not questioning the notability of the buildings, but I am struggling with the somewhat amorphous boundaries of this category—for hospital buildings, not hospitals (although most articles about hospitals should cover both the legal entity/organization as well as the building in which it is located), that are "specifically notable" due to a variety of unrelated/unconnected reasons. --
Black Falcon(
talk)05:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Most articles about hospitals would, indeed, cover both the organisation as well as the building - but articles about physical buildings do not. They aren't articles about hospitals, they're about buildings, and removing the category for what they actually are means that they inevitably get awkwardly miscategorised as hospitals - there's just nowhere to categorise them if you delete the category for what they actually are. We have this structure for many types of buildings, and I'm not sure why you seem to have difficulty with this one.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
05:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The only national-level categories I see in
Category:Hospital buildings are for heritage-listed buildings. For me, that is a difference in scope, not just a difference in application. I think my point stands that, without an additional qualifier (e.g. "heritage-listed"), it is impractical to maintain a distinction between Hospitals in X and Hospital buildings in X categories. --
Black Falcon(
talk)06:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
comment a possible use for the category under its present name but not the proposed "heritage-listed" name would be any buildings that remain on the former site of the
Royal Adelaide Hospital. the hospital moved entirely to a new site in 2017 and the state government is renewing the old site under the title "Lot Fourteen".
[1] Not all of the buildings are to be demolished, but I don't now if any of the kept ones are not heritage-listed, and even less if they are or will become wikinotable buildings. --
Scott DavisTalk01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is exactly the sort of case as to why I'm vehemently opposed to an outlier category for "heritage-listed": there are many other "types of buildings" categories of which many of the entries have articles because they're heritage-listed, but there are always buildings notable for other reasons. I can think of quite a few in similar situation to the old RAH that would pass
WP:GNG.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
01:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There are notable non-heritage-listed buildings, however, and that is not sufficient grounds to create an outlier that doesn't fit with the entire Australian category tree.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
21:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There may be such buildings, but there dont seem to be any articles about them. And why would Australia be different from the rest of the world in this regard?
Rathfelder (
talk)
08:14, 7 February 2019 (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 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:Half Man Half Biscuit
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 per consensus of this ddiscussion, and many many precedents of deleting eponymous categories for musicians where the topics are already interlinked. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
Nominator's rationale: With only albums and songs subcategories, which already interlink from one another, an eponymous category for this band simply isn't necessary.
WP:OCEPONStarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me02:08, 7 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. The rationale boils down to, "the subcategories are well-populated, and good housekeeping means that the base category is clean; it is therefore not needed". There is an obvious flaw in this logic: a messy base category with poorly-categorised entries would not be vulnerable to that argument.
The fact that the subcategories link to each other is good. The nomination overlooks the fact that readers couldn't find them without a base category.
It is incorrect to say that the nominated category contains only the two subcategories. It also contains the article
Half Man Half Biscuit.
The nominated category is used in
Template:Half Man Half Biscuit – which, very correctly, is included in several articles and contains no redlinks.
I fail to see how deletion of this category would help readers in any way at all. For me, ease of navigation for readers trumps all other considerations.
Narky Blert (
talk)
22:13, 12 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Well, every eponymous category is going to have its eponymous article as an entry. There is nothing else but the songs and the albums though. This would suggest every single artist that has albums and songs categories (and only albums and song categories) should also have an eponymous category, which will just lead to overcategorization per
WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me04:56, 18 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Not quite... There's a difference between invoking tradition for its own sake and stating that we have, on many prior occasions, considered the value of categories just like this one and found them to be lacking. --
Black Falcon(
talk)23:54, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Other than the main article and 2 subcats, the only other page that I found that could be categorized here is the template—in other words, hardly enough content to warrant an eponymous category. The main article, as stated above, and the navigational template serve as gateways to the album and songs subcategories, which are also interlinked. --
Black Falcon(
talk)23:54, 19 January 2019 (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.
Jabal al Akhdar
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.
Category:Railway stations by city
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.
Theatres by city
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.
Category:Wave mechanics
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.
I think wave mechanics is a fine subcategory of waves. 'Waves' containing types of waves', 'wave mechanics' concerning the mechanics of waves. The dab page at
Wave mechanics is nonsense to me. No one calls Schroedinger mechanics an unqualified 'wave mechanics' (although 'quantum wave mechanics' is used).
WP:2DAB would apply. Headbomb {
t ·
c ·
p ·
b}09:20, 1 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I'm inclined to agree with Headbomb -- it makes good sense to separate out the articles pertaining to wave mechanics instead of having them mixed in with all the other articles in
Category:Waves.
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
09:35, 2 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I suspect there is considerable room to create several rather more focused categories (sub-categories) out of the two that we have here.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
13:09, 9 February 2019 (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:People from the Province of Rome
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. Despite the unwieldiness of the proposed new new title, there is consensus here to rename as proposed, based on the current title of the head article:
Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. That article has been moved 5 time since its creation in January 2015, each time without any sign of discussion, so it is unclear whether the current title accurately reflects
WP:AT and relevant guidelines. Other subcats of
Category:Metropolitan City of Rome Capital have been moved without discussion, some via CFDS (which shouldn't have happened, in view of the inconsistency) and at least one by an un-notified move of the category page, while
Category:Rivers of the Province of Rome still uses the old title. This is all a bit of a mess; the best procedural path would have been a
WP:RM discussion on the head article, followed by a group CFD nom of all the subcats. If editors have concerns about the title chosen here, please start with an RM discussion on the head article. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
07:00, 8 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I know the cat tree was named after People from the Province of foo, but the Province of Rome was renamed to the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital. So, the cat should use the name of the second-tier administrative area (first tier is region) at that time or current name?
Matthew hk (
talk)
23:19, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
@
Laurel Lodged: The only cat left in question would be
Frazioni of the Province of Rome, which the nature of the cat itself is questionable. frazione (as well as zone or other similar words) was the administrative (not historical) subdivision of comune. However, the subdivision of Rome was Municipi, but not sure why there are cats
Municipi of Rome and
Districts of Rome and
Suburbs of Rome, which the whole cat tree of frazione may need a separate discussion about the wording and structure. For example, normalize the wording of that subdivision inside Metropolitan City of Rome Capital, using "Districts " or Frazioni or others, and or which one of the cat of Rome should be the subcat of that new cat. Lastly, some "frazioni" in the comune in the former province, such as
Fiumicino, was referred in the news and it-wiki as zone. Not sure it was due to Fiumicino comune was part of Rome comune until 1992 or not.
Matthew hk (
talk)
18:37, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Also, Lazio is a region, which is officially breakdown into province or "Metropolitan City". And the Province or "Metropolitan City" are break down into comune or plural comuni. However, not all comuni of the Metropolitan City had their own subcat. For the whole cat tree,
People from Lazio should be a container cat in general, as we either know people exact POB , or don't. It rarely just known notable to associate with the Lazio region.
Matthew hk (
talk)
07:45, 6 December 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.
Category:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name
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: What is the purpose of this triple intersection? How is the fact that a book has the Divine Name a defining thing for a book?
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
15:32, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep Actually this does seem to be a thing. Whether and how the
Tetragrammaton is represented in a manuscript is considered significant in the scholarship of Biblical texts. That the the nom talks about a "book", rather than different manuscripts of the same book (or, in fact, tiny bits of it) suggests she knows little or nothing about the field. All the articles seem to mention this matter, many going into some detail - eg see
Papyrus Fouad 266. Since the articles (like many of the MS fragments) are very short it does seem defining. Just because a drive-by editor does not immediately understand the purpose of a category is not a reason for deletion. If not kept, listify. The name might be improved. It used to be
Category:Septuagint manuscripts with the Divine Name, but as the category note points out, there are in fact several different Greek translations of the Bible, besides the
Septuagint. The category has been around since 2014 btw.
Johnbod (
talk)
15:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Comments – At least one of the manuscripts in this category,
4Q120, uses the Greek
trigrammaton ΙΑΩ (surprisingly a red link), so a name with "tetragrammaton" may not be fully accurate. Also, if kept, I would suggest the title should contain "manuscripts that contain/display/include/use..." instead of "manuscripts containing/displaying/including/using...". Lastly, isn't "Early" more appropriate than "Ancient" in the context of dating Bible manuscripts and versions? --
Black Falcon(
talk)19:26, 13 January 2019 (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:Hospital buildings in Australia
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.
Keep. They're not hospitals, they're hospital buildings which are specifically notable. Categorising nurses' homes, heritage-listed structures within notable hospitals, or abandoned former buildings of continuing hospitals as just "hospitals" is incorrect and unhelpful to readers. All of these structures are notable because they're heritage-listed (though it's plausible similar articles could be notable for other reasons, they don't presently exist): this category is essentially an Australian equivalent of
Category:Listed hospital buildings in the United Kingdom and
Category:Hospital buildings on the National Register of Historic Places (both subcategories of
Category:Hospital buildings), except it doesn't specify a specific register because Australia devolved its equivalent of the NHRP to the states in the 2000s. As the nominator has other similar nominations going of categories whose contents were just plain old hospitals, I'm not entirely sure they ÷even looked at the contents of this one.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
10:50, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
This would shift it out of whack with the Australian category tree, which doesn't generally have categories amalgamating "heritage-listed" and "type of thing". "Listed" without further clarification also makes no sense in an Australian context.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Heritage-listed is equally fine. It is the defining characteristic of these buildings so even if a heritage-listed tree does not exist yet in Australia, this is the perfect place to start.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:15, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
It is not necessarily the defining characteristic of these buildings: it is perfectly possible there could be a notable hospital building for architectural or other reasons besides heritage listing. I don't see any reason to make an exception to the vast majority of the Australian category tree here.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
09:06, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Keep. These are not hospitals but buildings which house or used to house hospitals, and are preserved for cultural heritage reasons. They should not be in a category tree for organizations.
Dimadick (
talk)
14:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
None of these are about defunct hospitals either. Firstly, several of these are still in use. A nurses' home is still not a defunct hospital. Former buildings of ongoing hospitals are not "defunct hospitals": the hospital is not defunct if it ceases to use a notable building. I organised this category to have no overlap with
Category:Defunct hospitals in Australia, because this category specifically refers to buildings - articles on institutions don't belong here.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
22:38, 1 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Clearly
The Drover's Wife has put some thought into this. I'm quite happy for these articles to be categorised together. But if we are not careful all the other hospitals in Australia will appear in this category too. The note on the category page is clearly intended to stop that, but in my experience such notes dont have much effect. It's easy not to see them. I think the name of the category has to be clearer. Perhaps Notable hospital buildings in Australia?
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)reply
This category is specifically for articles about buildings that are notable. Plenty of hospital buildings are mentioned in articles about hospitals where nobody suggests that the building itself is notable.
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:59, 26 January 2019 (UTC)reply
To be clear, I oppose that rename and oppose relisting with a clear consensus to keep. This is not necessarily a category solely for heritage-listed buildings; it could well be that a hospital building was, for example, architecturally notable. There is no "heritage-listed buildings" category tree in Australia: moving an Australia-level article "to match" a Queensland-level article that's out of sync with the rest of the Australian category tree is a strange suggestion.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
09:36, 16 December 2018 (UTC)reply
There is no category tree for "heritage-listed buildings by type" in Australia, so what you're advocating means creating a random outlier that doesn't fit with the entire rest of the Australian category tree. The title is exactly what it says on the box, hospital buildings as opposed to hospitals, and any unlikely confusion is easily explained away by the category note. It's hardly "too nuanced for categorisation" - we categorise all kinds of buildings by type, and there are tons of notable hospital buildings on Wikipedia.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
20:56, 13 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Fair enough, but then my next choice would be to delete this category since, at present, it is a random outlier that doesn't fit with the rest of
Category:Hospital buildings. I am not questioning the notability of the buildings, but I am struggling with the somewhat amorphous boundaries of this category—for hospital buildings, not hospitals (although most articles about hospitals should cover both the legal entity/organization as well as the building in which it is located), that are "specifically notable" due to a variety of unrelated/unconnected reasons. --
Black Falcon(
talk)05:25, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Most articles about hospitals would, indeed, cover both the organisation as well as the building - but articles about physical buildings do not. They aren't articles about hospitals, they're about buildings, and removing the category for what they actually are means that they inevitably get awkwardly miscategorised as hospitals - there's just nowhere to categorise them if you delete the category for what they actually are. We have this structure for many types of buildings, and I'm not sure why you seem to have difficulty with this one.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
05:35, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The only national-level categories I see in
Category:Hospital buildings are for heritage-listed buildings. For me, that is a difference in scope, not just a difference in application. I think my point stands that, without an additional qualifier (e.g. "heritage-listed"), it is impractical to maintain a distinction between Hospitals in X and Hospital buildings in X categories. --
Black Falcon(
talk)06:23, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
comment a possible use for the category under its present name but not the proposed "heritage-listed" name would be any buildings that remain on the former site of the
Royal Adelaide Hospital. the hospital moved entirely to a new site in 2017 and the state government is renewing the old site under the title "Lot Fourteen".
[1] Not all of the buildings are to be demolished, but I don't now if any of the kept ones are not heritage-listed, and even less if they are or will become wikinotable buildings. --
Scott DavisTalk01:23, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
This is exactly the sort of case as to why I'm vehemently opposed to an outlier category for "heritage-listed": there are many other "types of buildings" categories of which many of the entries have articles because they're heritage-listed, but there are always buildings notable for other reasons. I can think of quite a few in similar situation to the old RAH that would pass
WP:GNG.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
01:56, 17 January 2019 (UTC)reply
There are notable non-heritage-listed buildings, however, and that is not sufficient grounds to create an outlier that doesn't fit with the entire Australian category tree.
The Drover's Wife (
talk)
21:05, 6 February 2019 (UTC)reply
There may be such buildings, but there dont seem to be any articles about them. And why would Australia be different from the rest of the world in this regard?
Rathfelder (
talk)
08:14, 7 February 2019 (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.