Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 October 17

< October 16	October 18 >

October 17[edit]

Category:Arab Israeli politicians[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: Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arab Israeli politicians to Category:Arab politicians in Israel

Nominator's rationale: Rename to a more neutral name. Not all politicians in this category identify as Arab Israeli. Some call themselves Palestinian citizens of Israel, 48 Arabs etc. Arab Israeli is a political term. I'd also be open to another neutral name if this is not suitable. The main article is Arab citizens of Israel.TM 23:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. If the term "Arab Israeli" is considered contentious, and I'm not sufficiently familiar with the region to be able to confirm that, but going with the nominator's assertion, renaming to a a more neutral name seens like a good idea. __meco (talk) 08:36, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Proposed title sounds more neutral. Linda Olive (talk) 23:06, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also note this prior consensus.--TM 23:55, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

*Oppose - "in Israel" does not mean the same thing as "Israeli citizen". HupHollandHup (talk) 04:07, 23 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:Movement (hip hop crew)[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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:33, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. As below, this category is based on a music group (or crew... or whatever) with no Wikipedia article. These types of categories are generally deleted. No prejudice against recreation should the article be created at any time in the future. — ξ ^xplicit 22:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If we do not even have an explanation of this term, it's impossible to even know what we are categorizing. __meco (talk) 08:38, 18 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:Buddha Baby[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. Sole article is already in Category:South Korean rappers, a subcat of Category:South Korean hip hop groups, so no need to merge. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category is based on a music group with no Wikipedia article. These types of categories are generally deleted. No prejudice against recreation should the article be created at any time in the future. — ξ ^xplicit 22:54, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to ~~Category:South Korean hip hop groups~~ Category:South Korean hip hop musicians, no need for a category for a single article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:45, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Merging to Category:South Korean hip hop groups wouldn't make sense, as MC Sniper is a single individual. — ξ ^xplicit 00:51, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're right, modified. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 21:57, 18 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:Disasters covered in the TV series, Mayday[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 both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:25, 25 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Having been covered or otherwise mentioned in a TV series is not defining for these disasters and accidents. We can't categorize historical incidents by which TV series discusses them—that would lead to enormous category clutter. Information of which incidents are covered in the series is in List of Mayday episodes, which is the most logical place to find the information. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as overcategorization on the basis of a non-defining or trivial characteristic. Note that the related template is being considered for deletion here. -- Black Falcon ^(talk) 02:13, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, these categories was setup to replace a navbox, but I agree with the nominator's rationale. -- d'oh! _[talk] 03:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We have just deleted a very similar category of buildings that have been climbed in another TV series. This relation is extremely trivial and does not warrant a category, in my opinion. __meco (talk) 08:32, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator.William 14:38, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This feels too like an award of performance category. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 19 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:All files proposed for deletion[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) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: PROD can't be used for files anyway, so this category is useless. As for misplaced tags, Category:Proposed deletions needing attention exists already. — Train2104 (talk • contribs • count) 19:26, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PROD doesn't work for files, only articles (and Category:All articles proposed for deletion exists). __meco (talk) 08:45, 18 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:Desert Storm artists[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: rename. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:34, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Desert Storm artists to Category:Desert Storm Records artists

Nominator's rationale: To match parent article, Desert Storm Records. — ξ ^xplicit 19:24, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support to match parent article. Armbrust ^Talk _Contribs 00:42, 18 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:Yiddish-language operas[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: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 17:16, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. All of the entries in Category:Yiddish-language operas were actually operettas, not operas. So I created Category:Yiddish-language operettas, and moved all the entries there. To my knowledge, there do not exist any operas in the Yiddish language, only operettas. Softlavender (talk) 08:07, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As operetta by definition is a specific form or type of opera, this cat correctly exisists as part of a larger categorization scheme. Yiddish operettas are in fact a type of Yiddish opera, just like English operettas are a type of English opera. To try and say operetta is not opera is an error.4meter4 (talk) 08:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as part of the broader parent Category:Operas by language. Alansohn (talk) 01:54, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If they are all operettas, we could rename the category, but there is no reason to delete it. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 4meter4 - yes, they're all in the subcat "Yiddish-language operettas," but I think categorization practice requires the empty supercat. Roscelese (talk) 23:44, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In this case there is no reason the operettas category can't have Category:Operas by language as a parent. Better that than a pointless intermediate category. Johnbod (talk) 04:07, 21 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:Baalei teshuva[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: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Baalei teshuva to Category:Jewish converts to Orthodox practice

Nominator's rationale: As this is the English language version of Wikipedia, the category should have an English language name. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not married to the proposed name, however. If someone has what they feel is a better suggestion for an English language name for this category, please suggest it. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 03:08, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the particular suggestion. "Converts" implies from another religion. Baalei Teshuva are Jews who have returned (the root of "teshuva" - penitence - is from "shuv" - return) to Orthodox practice. There may be a better English term, but converts is not it. -- Avi (talk) 08:01, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Rename to better match parent article and to reflect that the term "convert" is not accurate. Alansohn (talk) 01:55, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The point of this nomination is that the present name is simply in the wrong language, so the precise wording of the proper English name is a matter than can be hashed out, once that is accepted. How about "Jews who came to adopt Orthodox practice," instead? KevinOKeeffe (talk) 11:59, 18 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to an English-language name. I'm not sure of the specific name. Or perhaps split into two overlapping categories; secular Jews "returning" to religious observance, and Jews "returning" to Orthodox religious observance. I have no idea which is intended by this category, as the article includes both. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:29, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose A Baal teshuva is NOT a convert to Judaism from another religion, as the proposed name would imply. A Baal teshuva is one who is born Jewish while not observing the religious practice, and then adopted it. For example, I consider myself to be a Baal teshuva; I fit that description. The process of becoming a Baal teshuva is in no way, shape, or form conversion. A convert to Judaism is one who is not Jewish from birth, who goes through the religiously prescribed process. My dad, who was not born Jewish, is an example of that. Linda Olive (talk) 23:16, 21 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:Overseas Vietnamese companies 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: Delete. Dana boomer (talk) 15:00, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I got here from a US company that was founded by people who where from Vietnam. Is that really defining for the company? Since there is no introduction it is hard to say that it is worth saving. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:52, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as irrelevent intersection. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 02:03, 18 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: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: Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 15:06, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 22:15, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

- I'll point to this article as a reason that this category is problematic. Either the vehicle is made in the US or not. According to the article's categories, some of them are not made in the US so they should not be in the US category. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Goods get labeled as "Made in X" if the final assembly was done there. This is a highly deceitful practice if most of the components were made elsewhere. I thus agree that this si a problematic category. However, the description is not OR or POV if they carry the tag "Made in USA". Neutral. Manufacturers should not appear here, but in a relevant company category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep But this "goods" refers to products and the article should contain articles on products, not companies. Linda Olive (talk) 23:18, 21 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: Delete after merging to appropriate subcats of Category:Musical groups by decade of establishment.. Dana boomer (talk) 15:05, 26 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]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 22:16, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unknowing of this nomination I just created Category:Musical groups by decade of establishment and the hierarchy to go with that. The binary cut-off method which the nominated category represents (i.e. a nuanced hierarchy on one side and everything else lumped together on the other) is not the best solution we can produce. Incremental cut-offs with diminished level of detail is much better because it allows for seemless integration with the larger category hierarchy which the Musical groups establishments hierarchy is part of. As can be gleaned from the newly created parent category there are sound grounds for setting a cut-off at the year 1900. For musical groups established in the 19th century I would suggest that the years categories be upmerged to organizations by year and musical groups by decade. As I intend to also create an accompanying Category:Musical groups by century of establishment hierarchy, I propose then that the last, odd item, Category:Musical groups established in 1653 be upmerged to the century category, and to the decade category of the Organizations parent structure. __meco (talk) 11:03, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Meco's approach, I think. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 12:20, 17 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with condition. Delete but only when categorized articles can be distributed into the appropriate pre-1900 decade or century cats (not all yet created). Greenshed (talk) 14:10, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. It will take a little time to place every article currently in this category into the ordinary hierarchy. Maybe we have a category banner for that purpose – "This category has been decided to be deleted. Please help emptying it by placing articles in appropriate categories". __meco (talk) 15:06, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure the whole tree -- We recently deleted 20th and 21st century categorisation as too like "current" and "former" categories. What we need to do here is to delete the pre-1900 annual categories; categories by decade are quite enough. I would have thought categories by decade in the early 20th century would also be adequate. If this is converted to a "19th cnetury" category, we need to make sure that there are no 18th century items in it and move these to a an "18th century" or "before 1800" category. I thus alos support Meco. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We do of course have general categories for the 21st and 20th centuries, as well as the preceeding centuries. (Category:21st century, Category:20th century, Category:19th century, ...). I see no reason why we should not have Category:Musical groups established in the 21st century, Category:Musical groups established in the 20th century, Category:Musical groups established in the 19th century, ... Greenshed (talk) 20:45, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

That is a rather myopic point of view considering we already have a huge category structure molded on this model. Just take a look at what exists within Category:20th century and specifically Category:20th-century establishments which these categories will be part of. __meco (talk) 21:35, 19 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.