Category:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country
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: Following the closure of
WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_7#Category:Listed buildings and structures, it was suggested that I should make the necessary changes to implement my suggestion that this category should have one subcategory per country. I have accordingly edited subcategories, providing a new parent (where necessary) in cases where there were multiple national categories in this one, e.g. Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings in UK (and Hong Kong). Having done so, I found we also have a much more wide-ranging
Category:Heritage registers by country. It looks to me as if what I have ended up with should effectively be a duplicate of that. I am therefore now suggesting merger to that, which is only feasible now after my alteration to the subject's sub-categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
* Support in principle, per nom, per
WP:OVERLAPCAT. However I think that a plain delete is more appropriate than a merge, since a merge would move some subcats to the target that do not belong there.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Admin note: please allow a few extra days for this discussion, as the bot removed the banner linking to this discussion when it moved the page after the previous discussion, and I have only just reinstated it. –
FayenaticLondon08:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Generally concur with Marcocapelle, but also trust that Peterkingiron can do whatever cleanup he has in mind. If anything like the current category name is kept, it should be "heritage-listed" per
MOS:HYPHEN. Anyway, my main concern is that a building/structure is not a heritage register, so such entries should not be dumped directly into any "heritage register[s]" category. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: As I mentioned in the previous nom, "Ideally there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register." As Peterkingiron points out, this isn't quite often followed. It could probably be done both ways, but some categories will need extra layers as a result. Take
Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award recipients for example. Under the two-tree scheme, the category would fall under the buildings and structures tree, while the list article
ASA Architectural Conservation Award would separately fall under the heritage registers tree. Under a merged scheme, there'd need to be an eponymous
Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award to hold both the recipients subcat and the list article, so that it can be placed under the heritage registers tree. Technically this would be a
WP:EPONYMOUS violation, since buildings aren't heritage registers, as SMcCandlish mentioned above. Keeping the two trees separate would be cleaner; it'll require moving the subcategories from the heritage registers tree to the buildings and structures tree, while directly placing the list articles under the heritage registers tree if they aren't already there. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
21:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
You are actually right. The content of the registers categories is also mostly buildings, so there is definitely room for some merging, but we need to check this on a more detailed level. I have struck my earlier support for the proposal.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment from nom -- I made this nom after restructuring the tree in accordance with the previous discussion. This is about governmentally designated classifications, not about awards by professional bodies. I am merely suggesting that we now have a redundant category level.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:39, 23 November 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:Statistical analysis
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:Video games with custom soundtrack support
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: This is a non-"
defining" trait. A spot check of articles in the category had none even mentioning a custom soundtrack feature, nevertheless as a defining trait of the release. czar00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think it's at least true that this category has been overapplied to games for which it's not defining, but I'm not comfortable with removing it en masse from all of these on the basis of a spot check. For example,
Audiosurf and
Musika (both also in the
Category:Music generated games subcat) do mention the custom soundtrack feature. I would recommend manually removing the cat from articles where it doesn't belong. After that, depending on what's left, there may be a clear basis for deleting the cat or downmerging it with
Category:Music generated games.
Colin M (
talk)
07:52, 23 November 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:Buildings and structures on the Hanover-Würzburg high-speed rail line
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:Buddhist scholars by nationality
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: This category tree, for the most part recently created by
User:Invokingvajras, is apparently intended to contain as its members people who were religious scholars on Buddhism. However, this contradicts with its parent
Category:Buddhist scholars, which states, "This category is about
Buddhist people who are scholars. For scholars of
Buddhist studies, see
Category:Buddhist studies scholars." Either this new by-nationality tree should be renamed, or the parent re-scoped (regarding the parent, though, I wonder whether categorising non-religion scholars based on religion isn't a trivial cross-categorisation).
Paul_012 (
talk)
22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
confused. I know a few buddhist scholars personally, and I do not think their categorisation as nationality + buddhist + scholar seems right, it's not as simple as it looks. In some cases I would consider some buddhists as scholars, and some scholars as buddhists, but not sure the nationality helps...
JarrahTree09:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pardon my confusion for the confusion, but would it not be more confusing without nationality? For example,
Category:Japanese Buddhist scholars could refer to either Buddhist scholars of Japanese descent (which is meant here), or scholars of
Japanese Buddhism.
Category:Tibetan Buddhists from Tibet is a prime example of how these distinctions can become a bit sloppy linguistically, but that's the exception.
As for "Buddhists as scholars" and "scholars as Buddhists", well that depends if we're discussing Buddhists who are scholars of all possible fields or scholars of Buddhism who exist outside the scope of
Buddhist Studies, which to my understanding is a strictly academic field that just so happens to include scholars who identify as Buddhist (I may be wrong. It's been a while). The latter approach still doesn't assume that all these scholars would be Buddhist. Another possibility, which I think is implied by branch categories
Category:Christian theologians and
Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, is that "Buddhist scholars" may indicate those who study Buddhism for an explicitly religious purpose. In this case, many of the articles present may well be better off in
Category:Buddhist studies scholars. Nationality may still prove useful as we already have
Category:American Buddhist studies scholars. --
Invokingvajras(
talk)07:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Suggestion - For greater clarity & concision, we should consider renaming all such categories using the formulation "Scholars of Buddhism" instead of "Buddhist studies scholars".
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
11:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
SupportAnomalous+0. I was going to suggest much the same. "Buddhist studies" is unnecessarily long. Generally the religion of a scholar of almost any other subject would not be worth categorising, unless (perhaps) being a Buddhist would result in a different approach to the subject.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:46, 23 November 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:Gaelic-language magazines
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.
@
Black Falcon: I don't believe so. In most of those cases it's needed to resolve ambiguity—does "Portuguese magazines" mean magazines in the Portuguese language or Portuguese nationality of the writers, or based in Portugal? "Scottish Gaelic" refers exclusively to the language, so there's no ambiguity, and "Scottish Gaelic-language" is just redundant.
Zerach (
talk)
06:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support that -- If there were a case where the inclusion of language were necessary to prevent ambiguity, it should of course be included, but unnecessary here. It would be necessary if this were about Welsh ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:50, 23 November 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:Heritage listed buildings and structures by country
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: Following the closure of
WP:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_September_7#Category:Listed buildings and structures, it was suggested that I should make the necessary changes to implement my suggestion that this category should have one subcategory per country. I have accordingly edited subcategories, providing a new parent (where necessary) in cases where there were multiple national categories in this one, e.g. Grade 1 and 2 listed buildings in UK (and Hong Kong). Having done so, I found we also have a much more wide-ranging
Category:Heritage registers by country. It looks to me as if what I have ended up with should effectively be a duplicate of that. I am therefore now suggesting merger to that, which is only feasible now after my alteration to the subject's sub-categories.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)reply
* Support in principle, per nom, per
WP:OVERLAPCAT. However I think that a plain delete is more appropriate than a merge, since a merge would move some subcats to the target that do not belong there.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:21, 12 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Admin note: please allow a few extra days for this discussion, as the bot removed the banner linking to this discussion when it moved the page after the previous discussion, and I have only just reinstated it. –
FayenaticLondon08:23, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Generally concur with Marcocapelle, but also trust that Peterkingiron can do whatever cleanup he has in mind. If anything like the current category name is kept, it should be "heritage-listed" per
MOS:HYPHEN. Anyway, my main concern is that a building/structure is not a heritage register, so such entries should not be dumped directly into any "heritage register[s]" category. —
SMcCandlish☏¢ 😼 21:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment: As I mentioned in the previous nom, "Ideally there'd be a distinction between the categories containing the buildings and structures and the categories containing the list articles for each register." As Peterkingiron points out, this isn't quite often followed. It could probably be done both ways, but some categories will need extra layers as a result. Take
Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award recipients for example. Under the two-tree scheme, the category would fall under the buildings and structures tree, while the list article
ASA Architectural Conservation Award would separately fall under the heritage registers tree. Under a merged scheme, there'd need to be an eponymous
Category:ASA Architectural Conservation Award to hold both the recipients subcat and the list article, so that it can be placed under the heritage registers tree. Technically this would be a
WP:EPONYMOUS violation, since buildings aren't heritage registers, as SMcCandlish mentioned above. Keeping the two trees separate would be cleaner; it'll require moving the subcategories from the heritage registers tree to the buildings and structures tree, while directly placing the list articles under the heritage registers tree if they aren't already there. --
Paul_012 (
talk)
21:11, 20 November 2019 (UTC)reply
You are actually right. The content of the registers categories is also mostly buildings, so there is definitely room for some merging, but we need to check this on a more detailed level. I have struck my earlier support for the proposal.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
16:18, 24 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment from nom -- I made this nom after restructuring the tree in accordance with the previous discussion. This is about governmentally designated classifications, not about awards by professional bodies. I am merely suggesting that we now have a redundant category level.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:39, 23 November 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:Statistical analysis
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:Video games with custom soundtrack support
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: This is a non-"
defining" trait. A spot check of articles in the category had none even mentioning a custom soundtrack feature, nevertheless as a defining trait of the release. czar00:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose I think it's at least true that this category has been overapplied to games for which it's not defining, but I'm not comfortable with removing it en masse from all of these on the basis of a spot check. For example,
Audiosurf and
Musika (both also in the
Category:Music generated games subcat) do mention the custom soundtrack feature. I would recommend manually removing the cat from articles where it doesn't belong. After that, depending on what's left, there may be a clear basis for deleting the cat or downmerging it with
Category:Music generated games.
Colin M (
talk)
07:52, 23 November 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:Buildings and structures on the Hanover-Würzburg high-speed rail line
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:Buddhist scholars by nationality
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: This category tree, for the most part recently created by
User:Invokingvajras, is apparently intended to contain as its members people who were religious scholars on Buddhism. However, this contradicts with its parent
Category:Buddhist scholars, which states, "This category is about
Buddhist people who are scholars. For scholars of
Buddhist studies, see
Category:Buddhist studies scholars." Either this new by-nationality tree should be renamed, or the parent re-scoped (regarding the parent, though, I wonder whether categorising non-religion scholars based on religion isn't a trivial cross-categorisation).
Paul_012 (
talk)
22:12, 14 November 2019 (UTC)reply
confused. I know a few buddhist scholars personally, and I do not think their categorisation as nationality + buddhist + scholar seems right, it's not as simple as it looks. In some cases I would consider some buddhists as scholars, and some scholars as buddhists, but not sure the nationality helps...
JarrahTree09:18, 15 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Pardon my confusion for the confusion, but would it not be more confusing without nationality? For example,
Category:Japanese Buddhist scholars could refer to either Buddhist scholars of Japanese descent (which is meant here), or scholars of
Japanese Buddhism.
Category:Tibetan Buddhists from Tibet is a prime example of how these distinctions can become a bit sloppy linguistically, but that's the exception.
As for "Buddhists as scholars" and "scholars as Buddhists", well that depends if we're discussing Buddhists who are scholars of all possible fields or scholars of Buddhism who exist outside the scope of
Buddhist Studies, which to my understanding is a strictly academic field that just so happens to include scholars who identify as Buddhist (I may be wrong. It's been a while). The latter approach still doesn't assume that all these scholars would be Buddhist. Another possibility, which I think is implied by branch categories
Category:Christian theologians and
Category:Muslim scholars of Islam, is that "Buddhist scholars" may indicate those who study Buddhism for an explicitly religious purpose. In this case, many of the articles present may well be better off in
Category:Buddhist studies scholars. Nationality may still prove useful as we already have
Category:American Buddhist studies scholars. --
Invokingvajras(
talk)07:33, 17 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Suggestion - For greater clarity & concision, we should consider renaming all such categories using the formulation "Scholars of Buddhism" instead of "Buddhist studies scholars".
Anomalous+0 (
talk)
11:55, 23 November 2019 (UTC)reply
SupportAnomalous+0. I was going to suggest much the same. "Buddhist studies" is unnecessarily long. Generally the religion of a scholar of almost any other subject would not be worth categorising, unless (perhaps) being a Buddhist would result in a different approach to the subject.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:46, 23 November 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:Gaelic-language magazines
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.
@
Black Falcon: I don't believe so. In most of those cases it's needed to resolve ambiguity—does "Portuguese magazines" mean magazines in the Portuguese language or Portuguese nationality of the writers, or based in Portugal? "Scottish Gaelic" refers exclusively to the language, so there's no ambiguity, and "Scottish Gaelic-language" is just redundant.
Zerach (
talk)
06:56, 6 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support that -- If there were a case where the inclusion of language were necessary to prevent ambiguity, it should of course be included, but unnecessary here. It would be necessary if this were about Welsh ones.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:50, 23 November 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.