Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 1

February 1

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Wave mechanics

• Propose merging Category:Wave mechanics to Category:Waves

Nominator's rationale: main article is a dab fgnievinski (talk) 04:13, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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]

Category:People from the Province of Rome

• Propose renaming Category:People from the Province of Rome to Category:People from the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital

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]

• Support The name reads horribly in English but it would appear that the translation is accurate (according to Google). Shouldn't all the sub-categories of Category:Metropolitan City of Rome Capital be renamed also? Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:11, 2 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]

• Oppose this is too unwieldy and confusing, but I'm not sure I like the status quo either. Is "People from the Rome Metropolitan Area" an option? I'm not sure we need any categories between Category:People from Lazio and Category:People from Rome. power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:29, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  @Power~enwiki: Rome Metropolitan Area is not an administrative area. Per C2D, the article title of the administrative area is the Metropolitan City of Rome Capital and formerly Province of Rome. Matthew hk (talk) 07:40, 6 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]

• Support, while it is a very unwieldy name it is apparently the correct name. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:43, 9 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People from Rome Metropolitan area. The proposal here is far too unwieldy of a title.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  @Johnpacklambert: Rome Metropolitan area is NOT an administrative subdivision, but Metropolitan City of Rome Capital is. A not discussed move of the article to Metropolitan City of Rome was reverted. So please start RM for C2D first. Moreover, Rome metropolitan area can extended beyond the administrative subdivision "Metropolitan City of Rome Capital", which cause more problem on defining the function of the cat. Matthew hk (talk) 12:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Should the "Province of Rome" category be retained as a historical, pre-2015 category? If not, then rename per nom, as arguments about the title being "unwieldy" should be made about Category:Metropolitan City of Rome Capital as a whole, not just the People from subcategory. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 05:53, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I would say no historical significant. Matthew hk (talk) 05:54, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Notice please see CFR here which will interest participants @Matthew hk:, @Black Falcon:, @Marcocapelle:, @Johnpacklambert:. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:47, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Also of interest is Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 18#Province of Rome, which could suggest a need to retain Category:People from the Province of Rome (1870–2014). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 20:17, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:29, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name

• Propose deleting Category:Biblical manuscripts of Ancient Greek Versions with the Divine Name

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]

• Delete, not a defining characteristic. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:15, 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]

• Reply We have Category:Biblical manuscripts and we have Category:Septuagint manuscripts and we have Category:Tetragrammaton. The Kaige revision is a child of Septuagint. What's missing? Where's the crying need for a triple conjunction? Triple conjuctions are best avoided. At most, this needs listifying. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:56, 4 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well, at least four other Greek versions, for a start. But it isn't a triple conjunction. Would a rename to Category:Greek biblical manuscripts including the Divine Name help? Johnbod (talk) 00:16, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The presence of the Tetragrammaton is important to theological scholars (and possibly relevant to individual historical artefacts' notability) but isn't really a defining attribute for the purpose of the category system. Overall, I think this is redundant to categories such as Category:1st-century BC biblical manuscripts. The issues regarding the Septuagint v. other versions are unrelated (and have separate categories such as Category:Septuagint manuscripts). power~enwiki (π, ν) 04:35, 6 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename - Category:Ancient Greek biblical manuscripts using the tetragrammaton. The present headnote says it "includes" them, which is unsatisfactory. The headnote should say that they contain the tetragrammaton or characters representing it. This is a significant subset of such MSS. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 14 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 01:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Hospital buildings in Australia

• Propose deleting Category:Hospital buildings in Australia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Superfluous. They are adequately characterized as hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 10:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• 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]
• ALT rename to Category:Listed hospital buildings in Australia, just like its British sibling. That makes the purpose of the category a lot clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:32, 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]
    • By the way, Category:Heritage-listed industrial buildings in Queensland and Category:Heritage listed buildings in Melbourne already exist. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:17, 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]
• keep as is clearly these are buildings and the category name should reflect that fact Hmains (talk) 19:00, 1 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Could we call them heritage-listed hospital buildings? As far as their relationship with hospitals goes they should be in Category:Defunct hospitals in Australia‎ Rathfelder (talk) 19:45, 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]
• Keep. They are hospital buildings and not hospitals .Shyamsunder (talk) 11:10, 2 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]

• No, everything on Wikipedia is notable, so that is not a useful descriptor. It's either heritage-listed or nothing at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 3 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]

• Notability is a criterion for inclusion/exclusion of topics from the encyclopedia, but in and of itself is not a defining characteristic of the topics in question. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest Category:Heritage-listed hospital buildings in Australia to match industrial buildings in Queensland. I assume Heritage-listed is the appropriate local term. Some will have been converted to other purposes; others will be still in use to that merging to defunct would not be right. Please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 14 December 2018 (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]
• Purge and then rename to Category:Heritage-listed hospital buildings in Australia, per User:Marcocapelle and User:Peterkingiron. This category is attempting to capture something which does not fit within current category structures and probably is too nuanced for categorization (based on the title, no one is going to think this is for "hospital buildings which are specifically notable" and not just "hospitals"). -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 18:39, 13 January 2019 (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 Drover's Wife: I wouldn't have any difficulties with this category if there existed Category:Hospital buildings by country; however, I suspect the distinction between Hospitals in Foo and Hospital buildings in Foo would very quickly become blurred in practice. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 19:12, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
          • It already does exist, as Category:Hospital buildings, just with a few national differences in application because of differing category trees between countries. The Drover's Wife (talk) 01:44, 27 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 Davis ^Talk 01:23, 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Steel1943 (talk) 00:06, 1 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]