Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 1

< September 30	October 2 >

October 1[edit]

Category:Goods manufactured in the United States[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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 17. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete unless someone has an idea how to fix this. The category mostly contains companies. For products what determines that it was made in the US? Final assembly? 50% of the components? 75% of the components? 100% of the components. Sounds subjective. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:59, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but remove all companies and brands, just keeping articles on individual products - we have a whole, much bigger tree for American manufacturing companies. I appreciate the issues Vegas raises, but noner the less some things can be said to be manufactured in the US, apparently ships cars & knives mostly! I've removed all or most of the companies & added a note to the cat. Johnbod (talk) 13:09, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This still leaves open the entire subjective nature of the category. Do you have any inclusion criteria that would make inclusion objective rather then subjective? Vegaswikian (talk) 23:39, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is not subjective at all; I just don't myself have strong views on which of the many possible objective standards should apply. What is the legal requirement for a "MADE IN USA" label on a product? There'll be one & that would do for a start. Is it really an issue for ships for example? Johnbod (talk) 01:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    - Well, the legal requirement is 'all' or 'virtually all' which becomes rather subjective. Add to that the fact this this only applies to products that use a 'Made in USA'[1] and content disclosure is only required for automobiles and textile, wool, and fur products. So I suppose this could be restricted to products that have the 'Made in USA' since that may be verifiable. However a category for that purpose would be rather limited and clearly would need a rename. Given this, I think deletion is still the correct path and I guess if someone wants to create the more restrictive category for products that bear the 'Made in USA' label, they can do so. I will note that this would be a nightmare to manage since the product content can change over time and the products would be entering and leaving the category all of the time. Finally there is the issue of a product produced in the US that carries that label and is also produced outside of the US and would not be eligible. Our category system is not designed to handle that. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      - But most products that comply will carry a "Made in USA" mark. For those not in the specified groups the "all or virtually all" standard applies. Johnbod (talk) 01:50, 8 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        I'll be honest, I read through most of those articles, and only one, as I recall, mentioned the "Made in USA" mark. So following cleanup, this could well be deleted as OC small. As I said above, even if you can justify keeping a rename is required. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:50, 9 October 2010 (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:Musical groups established before 1900[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: Relisting, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 17. Dana boomer (talk) 00:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not fully understanding the purpose of the category. Is there something special about a musical group being established before 1900? Even if there is, the arbitrary cut off is not suitable for categories. — ξ ^xplicit 21:57, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well-chosen cut off points are not arbitary and all the establishment categories have cut off points which vary according to the number of relevant articles. I am assumming that there is no suggestion that Category:Musical groups established in 1900, Category:Musical groups established in 1901, ... , Category:Musical groups established in 2010 are thought to be unacceptable. As we go further back in time the level of detail in recorded history diminishes and, particularly before the industrial revolution, the amount of time people had available for founding musical groups (and other things such as sports clubs) also becomes more limited. However, if "Explicit" wishes to suggest a different year to 1900 as the cut off point then this could be considered on its merits. Additionally, it might be useful to construct a category hierachy with Musical groups established by decade and by century but of course this involves considerable effort. Greenshed (talk) 15:55, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How is this category a well-chosen cut off, and how did you come to this conclusion? Why not Category:Musical groups established before 1905, Category:Musical groups established before 1850, Category:Musical groups established before 1937? As WP:OC#ARBITRARY states, An exception to this is categorizing by year, since making a category for each year is not arbitrary. This applies in the cases you pointed out, as it refers to one specific year. The nominated category refers to every single year before 1900. A hierarchy by decade sounds reasonable and I wouldn't mind doing the dirty work. — ξ ^xplicit 18:25, 2 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for volunteering to create a category hierarchy. If all the exisiting articles in Category:Musical groups established before 1900 could be accommodated in Category:Musical groups established in the 19th century or Category:Musical groups established in the 18th century, etc then the usefulness of Category:Musical groups established before 1900 would cease to exisit. Greenshed (talk) 13:07, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Category:Musical groups established in 1843 to Category:Musical groups established in 1900 into it. 1900 is not arbitrary, it is a multiple of 100. Subcategorising a large category by establishment is sensible. Doing it by century/decade/year is sensible, depending on the number included in each category, so as to facilitate browsing. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge all subcategories. Similarly, we really only need one category for 1900-1909. This messes up the annual organisations categories (and perhaps others), but that can be resolved by also upmerging the annual categories to that one. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If kept, rename to Category:Musical groups established in the 19th century. I don't care if it's deleted or not, but in its current state of course it's arbitrary. Define a category by when it was specifically established, not by the fact that it happened before or after an arbitrary cut-off. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:30, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you find Category:Musical groups established in the 19th century less arbitrary than Category:Musical groups established in years 1801 to 1900, then I won't object. What about groups established before 1801? How do you prefer to name categories divided by decade? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:15, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between the ones you mention, but we don't have either of the ones you mention. We have Category:Musical groups established before 1900. I'm not sure why you don't see the difference, and I think you are interpreting the meaning of "arbitrary" far too widely. "Established in the 19th century" defines the period in which the org was established. It has a beginning point (1 Jan 1801) and an end point (31 Dec 1900). "Established before 1900" has an end point (31 Dec 1899) but no starting point. It's the lack of start point combined with the cut-off end point that makes it "arbitrary". If no set starting point is established, you may as well choose 1900 or 1905 or 1987 or 2010 as your end point since you are not setting a nice round 100 years as your temporal time frame, but rather are setting it as minus infinity to the arbitrarily chosen year 1900. However, if you set a starting point and an end point and these set a period of time that coincides with a defined century, then you're moving away from arbitrariness.

To illustrate what's going on in this tree, note that we have Category:Organizations established in the 20th century, not Category:Organizations established before 2001. The immediate parent of this category should be Category:Organizations established in the 19th century, not Category:Organizations established before 1900 or Category:Organizations established before 1901. A subcategory parallel to the one I have proposed would be Category:Political parties established in the 19th century.

To answer your other questions, any organizations established before 1801 would go in Category:Organizations established in the 18th century, either directly in the category or in a subcategory. See the subcategories of Category:Organizations established in the 19th century for the obvious naming pattern of by-decade categories if they are to broken down in this way. (I'm not proposing that musical groups need to be broken down in this way, however.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:26, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am indeed having trouble with the usage here of "arbitrary". I now seem to read that it includes any period that is open ended. I think this is perverse. If a timeline is to be divided, either the number of divisions must be infinite, or there must be one or two open ended divisions. I think that an infinite number of divisions should not be made if an infinity of them would be empty.

In this case, of musical groups by year of establishment, there are many in recent years and very few historically. In this case, I think it makes sense that the divisions begin with an open started division. "Category:Musical groups established in the 19th century or earlier" is sensible and manageable. We seem to have an earliest from 1843. I expect that a few more can be found from preceding centuries. I don't think it is sensible to create empty or single member categories just so that the time periods are closed.

I don't think that the nice round 100 years is sufficient, I think any time points in the definition should be nice and round. Turn-of-the-century years are established interest points and so are not arbitrary. Therefore, minus infinity to 1900 is good, minus infinity to 1905 is bad. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The only problem is that your opinion is not one generally reflected in the pre-existing category schemes. There are no other categories for organizations established in the 19th century or earlier, nor do I personally think starting such a scheme would be a good idea. What is wrong with sticking with the system we have and is widely used and accepted? No need to reinvent the wheel here ... Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:11, 5 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That there is already a system of "xxx established in the Nth century" is a good reason to adopt your suggested rename. That said, the Category:Organizations established in the 17th century branch contains a lot of categories for a few pages, and grouping early years could be useful. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:29, 5 October 2010 (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:Boxing Writers' Club members[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: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 22:37, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Does not appear to be a significant club. In fact we don't have an article on the Boxing Writers' Club

Pichpich (talk) 00:49, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Gilbert Odd and Frank Butler (both confirmed members) were leading British sports writers. The Club exists today and awards a prestigious 'Young Boxer of the Year' prize - a Google search on "boxing writers' club" will yield plenty of results, including mentions in national British newspapers. - (use: Gloveman 11) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gloveman11 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A parent article should be written first. With a parent article, this category would be unnecessary. Without a parent article, it looks like a non-notable categorisation. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:04, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not defining. Johnbod (talk) 02:01, 6 October 2010 (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:Mayors of places in Yorkshire[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: upmerge to Category:Mayors of places in England, at least for now. This is only a close result for Yorkshire having the only by-county category. This should not be considered precedent for a project to subdivide all of Category:Mayors of places in England by county.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:30, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: No entries, unecessary, already covered by England and UK cats. Famousdog (talk) 14:54, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no need to split Category:Mayors of places in England by county. (It is not now empty but remains unnecessary so it should be upmerged to Category:Mayors of places in England.) Occuli (talk) 15:02, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If there are enough of them with articles to support a dedicated category, then a city-level subcat such as Category:Mayors of Doncaster would be acceptable. But indeed, we don't need to separate them by county. Delete. That said, an article also does not need to be simultaneously categorized as both "England" and "United Kingdom"; in the absence of a city-level Doncaster category, England alone is sufficient. Bearcat (talk) 20:39, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I have created Category:Mayors of Doncaster; both incumbents so far have been colourful characters. It is an elected position (since 2001) and is surely defining. Occuli (talk) 20:55, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I support the Doncaster category, but it should obviously be in the Yorkshire one. Yorkshire Phoenix 23:33, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is not a single other "Mayors of places in (individual county)" category for any other county in the entire United Kingdom. Why would Yorkshire be unique in needing one? Bearcat (talk) 23:17, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ It's a sensible level between countries and individual cities and boroughs. Now reasonably populated.Cavrdg (talk) 07:48, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Occuli. If kept it should be renamed to Category:Mayors of places in Yorkshire and the Humber which follows the category organization in the parent Category:Local political office-holders in England e.g. Category:Councillors in Yorkshire and the Humber. Tassedethe (talk) 13:46, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge somehow: I would suggest that the parent category should be Category:Elected mayors in England. The mayor of a typical borough (and lord mayor of a city) is little more than a figurehead, usually the most senior councillor who has not been mayor already; and usually for one year. Elected mayors (in contrast) are holders of significant political power, but only a few cities (or boroughs) have one. Please relist. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 30 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — ξ ^xplicit 18:40, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See my preceeding comment for a suggested outcome. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:51, 3 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Upmerge. I've no great problem with Category:Mayors of places in Yorkshire and the Humber but looking at the suggested example of Category:Councillors in Yorkshire and the Humber it has sub-categories by county so a Mayors by Region cat could end up being an extra layer rather thsn the final solution. Cavrdg (talk) 05:18, 5 October 2010 (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.