Category:Iarnród Éireann stations in County Carlow[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.
Nominator's rationale Contains only 2 articles all of which also exist in their appropriate county category (i.e. Category:Railway stations in County Carlow). Iarnród Éireann is the State operator of railways in Ireland. The proposed category would be a more suitable vehicle for entries such as "Former railway stations in County Carlow" or "Privately operated railway stations in County Carlow" (none of which currently exists). The current category is a case of WP:SMALLCAT and over-categorisation. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:15, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I agree that the result of a successful upmerge here would be to merge to both of its parents. Note also that the by-county sub-category exists for each "Railway stations in County Foo" also, so there's no loss of geographical info. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:50, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further rationale This category violates WP:OC#OVERLAPPING which states "If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, and religious leadership does not radically change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances." Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I perceive that that solution would fix the problem. I also perceive that it would utterly de-populate the category. Why would you want to retain a de-populated category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, I meant to say to remove them from the parent Category:Railway stations in County Carlow, per the rule that an article should be in the most specific categ possible, and should not be in both a categ and its parent. That way they are not in both categs, and the categ under discussion is not empty. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BHG. Snappy (talk) 20:58, 3 April 2011 (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:Railway stations serving harbours and ports in Ireland[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.
Keep. For over a century, railway stations at ports were one of the crucial points of interchange between modes of transport, and they are an important part of the economic and social history of a country. Note that there is also Category:Railway stations serving harbours and ports in the United Kingdom, and there may be similar categories for other countries Just from memory, I identified two further stations which belong in this category (Cobh and Larne), bringing the total to five. There are a number of further closed railway stations which should be added if articles exist (e.g. Baltimore, Killybegs, Fenit, New Ross). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:02, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. History based benefit for this category, per BHG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 22:31, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Isn't the article supposed to be the place for the history section? When did this become the function of the category? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:46, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further rationale This category violates WP:OC#OVERLAPPING which states "If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, and religious leadership does not radically change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances." Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:45, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Laurel, you say the overlap is with County Wexford. Do you know Irish geography at alL? If so you maybe able to answer: which of the following is in Wexford: Larne, Cobh, Baltimore, Killybegs, Fenit, New Ross? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:08, 4 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Really I see no need to adopt that tone BHG. The point could have beenmade quite civilly had you wished I'm sure. To return to your question, it turns on my use of the word "appropriate.". "Railways in Wexford" would be appropriate for Rosslare, while "Railways in Dun Laoghaire" would be appropriate for Dun Laoghaire. I'm surprised that I needed to spell it out for you. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:19, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
A member of this category, Rosslare, overlaps with Category:Iarnród Éireann stations in County Wexford and Category:Railway stations in County Wexford. The same applies to every other member of this category (by changing the county as appropriate). There is no need for a further categorisation of Larne, Cobh, Baltimore, Killybegs, Fenit, New Ross. It is up to the article to make that explicit, not the category. If liked, you could listify Rosslare, Larne, Cobh, Baltimore, Killybegs, Fenit, New Ross and have a "See also" in the parent categories per county (e.g.Category:Railway stations in County Wexford). This is the suggestion at the discussion Category:Members of the 31st Dáil that you are also resisting. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:25, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nearly every category is populated with articles which could also be in other categories. But you misunderstand what an overlap is; in a case such as this where the articles also fit in a variety of other categories rather than just one other category, the overlap is minimal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:02, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BHG. Snappy (talk) 20:59, 3 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Question If it's inappropriate to de-populate a category just to support the category's case for deletion, is the opposite action also inappropriate? That is, the rapid population of a category in order to oppose the category's case for deletion (as has happened with user BHG)? Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:22, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Happens all the time at CFD. When the case for deleting a category is based on it being small and having no potential for growth, it's important that editors can see what it looks like when properly populated. Before nominating a category on the grounds of it being incapable of growth, it is good practice for an editor to check its potential for expansion. If that had been done in this case, we'd all have avoided wasting time with this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 5 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't do as I do, do as I say." The modus operandi is by now well established. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:28, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"Don't listen to other editors views, do what you like, keep doing what you like." The modus operandi is by now well established. Snappy (talk) 23:09, 6 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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 has an accompanying list, List of performers at the Metropolitan Opera, which lists people with the most performances at the Met - that is a valid list, but this category will inevitably end up being applied by well-meaning newbies to anyone who has ever performed at the Met, making maintenance difficult. Besides which, WP:OCAT explicitly excludes performers by performance venue; it simply isn't a useful classification, for the most part. Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:56, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization. As Roscelese pointed out, WP:OCAT explicitly excludes performers by performance venue.4meter4 (talk) 20:17, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear overcategorization. --Kleinzach 23:13, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation. --Folantin (talk) 16:59, 1 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorisation per WP:OC#Performers_by_performance_venue. I hear the case made by Richard Arthur Norton, but it fails to make the distinction between regular employees and artistic performers. Even if the performer spend a chunk of their career on the staff of particular company, they perform at many different venues, and categorising them by such venues leads to clutter. I also note the presence in this discussion of several members of WikiProject Opera, and I have no doubt that if they felt that this category marked a defining attribute of an opera performer, they would be able to supply plenty of evidence for such a case; but they support deletion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:49, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as clear overcategorization. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:59, 2 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete per WP:SMALLCAT; the category will never have more than one or two articles in it (currently only one, Lancashire Senior Cup) because it has been decided that individual season articles for the competition are non-notable. Therefore, the category has no scope for growth. BigDom 14:41, 31 March 2011 (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:Companies based in Menomonee Falls, Wisconsin[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 without prejudice to creating a county level category. The sole article is already in the state category. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:RenameMenomonee Falls is a small town (the article even uses the word "village") so there's only limited potential for growth. The expanded scope will give the cat more room for expansion and it also makes sense to consider companies in a small town as part of the county-wide economy. Pichpich (talk) 14:29, 31 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Alt suggestion: Delete category. I would support straight-up a deletion (not a rename) - Category:Companies based in Wisconsin does the job fine for companies not based in Madison or Milwaukee. Neutralitytalk 04:51, 4 April 2011 (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.
