Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 June 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10[edit]

Category:Guadalajara, Jalisco[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 as named. Dana boomer (talk) 01:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Guadalajara, Jalisco was recently moved to Guadalajara, and I think the category names should follow. This is a clear case of overwhelming primary usage to the level of a Category:Paris or Category:London. The city in Mexico has a population of 1.5 million (4.3 million in the metro area). The city in Spain of the same name has a population of 84,000. If this category is renamed, the subcategories can be speedily renamed to match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • The reasoning behind the proposal is sound, but it is complicated by the fact that the Province of Guadalajara in Spain (pop. ~250,000) often is referred to simply as 'Guadalajara' (within sources, such as Encyclopædia Britannica, and even within our article). -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:03, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sounds like nothing a good headnote pointing to Category:Province of Guadalajara cannot handle. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • A hatnote is invisible to an editor using WP:HOTCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, we do principally create categories for convenient use by readers, not necessarily for convenience of editors using hotcat ... but anyway, we do seem to make exceptions for other places in categories when the undisambiguated name of the place is primary as determined by the location of the article name. Category:Paris and Category:London are but two examples of this, but it is widespread across places that are not as well known. Why is this one different? Categories are getting to the stage where they are overdisambiguated, in my opinion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:26, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Rename will create ambiguity, and ambiguous category names lead to miscategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:12, 16 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - Sometimes the article name can be simplified without ambiguity, but the category name can't. As noted, category hatnotes tend to be a Bad Idea. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:06, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Your first sentence is difficult for me to believe. How can an article name be unambiguous but an identical category name not also be unambiguous? I think it would be more accurate to say that giving an article an undisambiguated name as primary usage nevertheless allows it to retain some inherent ambiguity. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- The target would cover both a Mexican City and a Spanish Province. It would thus be liable to collect miscategorised articles. The precednet on this is Birmingham, where the categories are at (I think) "Birmingham, Wet Midlands", so that they do not collect articles on Birmingham, Alabama, which is also a large city. If the target were created, it would have at once to be made inot a dab-category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:11, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Guadalajara may be the primary usage for an article, but it is not the sole usage enough to justify not disambiguating the category. I think we have multiple precedents for this with the few US cities that get stand alone name articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:36, 28 June 2012 (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:Legal articles without infoboxes[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) 00:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move this out of articles and include the tagging on the talk page via the project template ({{WikiProject Law}}. Most all of the other projects tag missing infoboxes on the talk page. There is no reason, even if hidden, for this to be located on the articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:57, 10 June 2012 (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:Venezuelan music albums[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: merge to Category:Albums by Venezuelan artists. If an expert would like to move some to Category:Folk albums by Venezuelan artists, go right ahead.--Mike Selinker (talk) 10:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are two different schemes: one by the nationality of the recording artist, another referring to indigenous/folk music of a people group. It seems that they've been combined here. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:25, 10 June 2012 (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:Blue-eyed soul musicians[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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Blue-eyed soul is not a music genre but a subdivision of an existing music genre (soul) based solely on race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadib en (talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (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:Football clubs in Kettering[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: merge. The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only 2 articles, and no scope for expansion, so it fails WP:SMALLCAT. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:11, 12 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> establishments in Vatican City'[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: do not delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Millennia in Vatican City
    1. Category:3rd millennium in Vatican City
      1. Category:3rd-millennium establishments in Vatican City
        1. Category:21st-century establishments in Vatican City
          1. Category:2000s establishments in Vatican City
            1. Category:2009 establishments in Vatican City

Complete tree of 6 categories to host 1 page. Vatican City is a country which is, by definition, smaller than a city. These categories are very unlikely going to have more than 2 notable establishments per year (and most years are likely going to be missing). Way to fine grained categorisation, especially as a start. Upmerge with possibility to split when the master category becomes too large. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dirk one by one nominations are becoming extremely unhelpful, please do a mass nomination so I don't have to keep repeating myself countless times. Keep part of a larger scheme, a recent creation will be further populated if people were less impatient. Tim! (talk) 12:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is there to populate these with? All these categories are going to have at most 2 items, most have one, and a lot 0 (i.e. non-existant). WP:SMALLCAT applies to these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which states that were the cat is part of bigger scheme, then they are acceptable. Lugnuts (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT exemption. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SMALLCAT--this is why it exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts, The Bushranger and Koavf .. a larger scheme? Which only makes sense for large countries in recent years, so it is expanded throughout. I think that a serious rethink of that 'larger scheme' should be done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, a larger scheme: please take all trees into account: you seem to be looking at this from a "vatican City" point only, not from the 2009 point: upmerging this would place this page in the "2009 establisments" cat, and remove it from the "2009 establishments by country" pool, for the sake of "no small cats" only. Such upmergings from some elements from a large group (the 2009 establishments by country) but not others doesn't help anyone but only makes it harder to find (and categorize) things. Fram (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I can agree that for 2009 many of the country categories are having a significant number of articles in them - but already quite a number will have 1 or 2 (almost by definition). Going a few years back will only increase that number (plus giving the illogical situation of countries not existing (yet). I am still not convinced that the larger scheme is beneficial, and would need further discussion (see RfC). --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the bottom category is not only part of this 6-cat tree, but also of other trees: removing it from those other trees is not helpful at all. That this means that a number of small or even very small cats have to be created is not in itself a problem. Please, when nominating cats for upmerging, consider all trees this cat is a part of, not just one of them. Fram (talk) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • It could very well be Category:3rd-millennium establishments in Vatican City, which, certainly for the moment, is more than fine-grained enough here. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Does his mean that you withdraw your nomination of that 3rd mill cat and the three cats above? Fram (talk) 11:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
        • They are there for the sake of discussion, I suggest an upmerge to the lowest level that is reasonable - likely the 3rd one in this (though if it means that if the second level is only filled with a handful of single-page categories then that may be worth discussing as well). I can also agree with making them more fine grained either when can be shown that there are going to be a significant number of articles in a certain level, or when, in time, that level actually starts to fill up significantly. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:33, 11 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> establishments in San Marino'[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: do not delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Establishments in San Marino by millennium
    1. Category:3rd-millennium establishments in San Marino
      1. Category:21st-century establishments in San Marino
        1. Category:2000s establishments in San Marino‎
          1. Category:2001 establishments in San Marino‎
          2. Category:2009 establishments in San Marino‎

Complete tree of 6 categories to host 2 pages. San Marino is a country the size of a small city. These categories are very unlikely going to have more than 2 notable establishments per year (and most years are likely going to be missing). Way to fine grained categorisation, especially as a start. Upmerge with possibility to split when the master category becomes too large. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dirk one by one nominations are becoming extremely unhelpful, please do a mass nomination so I don't have to keep repeating myself countless times. Keep part of a larger scheme, this is a recent creation that will be further populated if people were less impatient. Tim! (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is there to populate these with? All these categories are going to have at most 2 items, most have one, and a lot 0 (i.e. non-existant). WP:SMALLCAT applies to these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which states that were the cat is part of bigger scheme, then they are acceptable. Lugnuts (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT exemption. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SMALLCAT--this is why it exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts, The Bushranger and Koavf .. a larger scheme? Which only makes sense for large countries in recent years, so it is expanded throughout. I think that a serious rethink of that 'larger scheme' should be done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the bottom category is not only part of this 6-cat tree, but also of other trees: removing it from those other trees is not helpful at all. That this means that a number of small or even very small cats have to be created is not in itself a problem. Please, when nominating cats for upmerging, consider all trees this cat is a part of, not just one of them. Fram (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> establishments in the Cayman Islands'[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: do not delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  1. Category:Establishments in the Cayman Islands by millennium
    1. Category:3rd-millennium establishments in the Cayman Islands
      1. Category:21st-century establishments in the Cayman Islands
        1. Category:2000s establishments in the Cayman Islands
          1. Category:2008 establishments in the Cayman Islands

Complete tree of 5 categories to host 1 page. The Cayman Islands are three small islands. These categories are very unlikely going to have more than 2 notable establishments per year (and most years are likely going to be missing). Way to fine grained categorisation, especially as a start. Upmerge with possibility to split when the master category becomes too large. --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • Dirk these one by one nominations are becoming extremely unhelpful, please do a mass nomination so I don't have to keep repeating myself countless times. Keep part of a larger scheme, this is a recent creation that will be further populated if people were less impatient. Tim! (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • What is there to populate these with? All these categories are going to have at most 2 items, most have one, and a lot 0 (i.e. non-existant). WP:SMALLCAT applies to these. --Dirk Beetstra T C 12:53, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT, which states that were the cat is part of bigger scheme, then they are acceptable. Lugnuts (talk) 14:18, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:SMALLCAT exemption. - The Bushranger One ping only 15:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:SMALLCAT--this is why it exists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:34, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts, The Bushranger and Koavf .. a larger scheme? Which only makes sense for large countries in recent years, so it is expanded throughout. I think that a serious rethink of that 'larger scheme' should be done. --Dirk Beetstra T C 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, the bottom category is not only part of this 5-cat tree, but also of other trees: removing it from those other trees is not helpful at all. That this means that a number of small or even very small cats have to be created is not in itself a problem. Please, when nominating cats for upmerging, consider all trees this cat is a part of, not just one of them. Fram (talk) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (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:Images of body parts[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: contains one image. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 09:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The one member is miscategorized, in my opinion: the image is of an album cover that depicts a body part, not of a body part per se. The distinction lies in the fact that whereas this image could be used to illustrate the article about the album, it could not be used in an article about vision. It might be possible to populate this category with various anatomy-related images; however, either Commons or Category:Anatomy images (currently red) would be better homes for such images. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2012 (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:Songs with disputed authorship[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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Nearly every song has 'disputed authorship', for instance every Lennon/McCartney song is credited as such, yet Lennon or McCartney or somebody else claims they wrote it! 'Disputed authorship' is the stuff of myth and fandom. This category has existing for nearly a year and I am grateful there is still only one entry! If the category was more along the lines "Songs whose authorship has been challenged in Court" my opinion would be different. Richhoncho (talk) 09:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I have added more. Like any category, it should only be added if the relevant facts are stated and cited in the article, e.g. "John Brown's Body". Therefore, this category should only collect articles with notable disputes. I am adding this to the category page as a reminder. – Fayenatic London 18:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: I'm not familiar with songwriting credits. What would make a song "officially" written by Lennon? Have these cases ever gone to court? I would support a more precise category name if I heard a specific proposal, such as the one suggested by the nominator. CaseyPenk (talk) 06:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. All (99.9% anyway) of Beatle songs are credited jointly to Lennon/McCartney and are listed 'officially' as such (i.e. not just on the album cover), however many were written by one without further input from the other. This is a fairly common practice and can be seen in other bands. The copyrightable bit of a song is the words and melody and any distinquishing arrangement (not ANY arrangement). There are plenty notable cases where it is claimed the credited writers are not the actual writers. Even with WP:V all I need is some website to say I co-wrote XXX song and I have created another myth! I am grateful to Fayenatic london for his additional text on this category, which goes a long way to allaying my fears about this category, but it should also be considered to fall under the remit of WP:BLP when appropriate, and that unknown or uncertain is not the same as 'disputed authorship' --Richhoncho (talk) 09:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This should be about cases where two people both claim to have written a song separately, so that there is a dispute between them. If two people wrote it jointly, it is a jointly written song. It is futile to argue over how much each contributed.
  • Delete the fact that we do not have Category:Songs with unknown authorship suggests to me that there is not a need for this level of categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (Listify if wanted). "Disputed" can mean many things. Which cannot be explained for each entry in a category. So this should be a list if anything. - jc37`23:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Good point, "disputed" is a loaded word - wish I had made this point in my nomination. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (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:Songs with music by Bernie Taupin[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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. None of the article say he wrote any of the music, some specifically say he only wrote the lyrics. Taupin has never claimed he wrote any music. Richhoncho (talk) 09:30, 10 June 2012 (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:Atlas[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. -- Black Falcon (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per naming convention. The collection of 11 rather varied member pages are already suitably categorised. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:21, 10 June 2012 (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:Maps of astronomical bodies[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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Contains two images that need moving to Commons. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:05, 10 June 2012 (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:Economic maps[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: Merge into Category:Maps. Ruslik_Zero 19:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT and the name is grammatically incorrect. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:02, 10 June 2012 (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:Flag image galleries[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. The galleries themselves are in Commons; everything else here is a list that happens to be graphical. All the lists are now in Category:Lists of flags and appropriate other container categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Needless duplication. There is only one page that deserves to be in the category. The rest are either in Category:Lists of flags (a bit crowed and needs diffusing) or are soft redirects to Commons. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 07:50, 10 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> disestablishments in New Zealand'[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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose split to Category:21st century disestablishments and Category:Disestablishments in New Zealand - with the possibility to split by decade (if the century categories become too full) or year (when decade categories become too full) or, alternatively, by reqion (where appropriate for the latter), if they become too large. A logic expansion of this tree will become historically unsound (Category 9th century disestablishments in the New Zealand, where New Zealand did not exist at that time). Moreover, there is no need to start of with a fine split category when it is unclear whether many articles will be in the bottom categories:

  1. Category:21st-century disestablishments in New Zealand
    1. Category:2010s disestablishments in New Zealand
      1. Category:2012 disestablishments in New Zealand
  2. Category:20th-century disestablishments in New Zealand
    1. Category:2000s disestablishments in New Zealand
      1. Category:2001 disestablishments in New Zealand --Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as this tree is currently being created and populated which due to scope takes a long time. It is part of the larger scheme of Category:Disestablishments by country and Category:Disestablishments by year. There are a lot of articles in, for example, Category:2012 disestablishments that need to split by country and type of organisation, and many articles have not even been categorised with year of disestablishment so need tracking down. I personally am opposed to the creation of categories such as 9th century disestablishments in New Zealand prior to the existence of the country, but it does not exist and isn't a reason to delete the existing categories. Tim! (talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to look here (but maybe I am looking in the wrong place), but that does not give much hope for much more. "That need to be split by country" - that gives for some countries trees which are just way to fine grained, and I am not convinced that this needs a level of years, I am not even sure if it needs a level of decades. As I suggest, start with high level, and split where necessary - not split and hope that there will be enough.
    Note that categories like Category:1040 BC disestablishments in China do exist - that sets a very bad precedent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [This does not seem to give anything that needs categorisation as establishment nor disestablishment .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative.
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 tree '<period> disestablishments in the Netherlands'[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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Propose split to Category:20th century disestablishments/Category:21st century disestablishments and Category:Disestablishments in the Netherlands - with the possibility to split by decade (if the century categories become too full) or year (when decade categories become too full) or, alternatively, by province (where appropriate for the latter), if they become too large. A logic expansion of this tree will become historically unsound (Category 5th century disestablishments in the Netherlands, where the Netherlands did not exist at that time - yet people lived in that area in that time). The whole tree now results in many categories which are having at most 1 or 2 members. Of interest is the non-existence of Category:2011 disestablishments in the Netherlands, there have not been any disestablishments been identified to make this category viable (same is true for 2009, 2005, 2004, 2003, and other gaps in below list).:

  1. Category:2010s disestablishments in the Netherlands
    1. Category:2012 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:2010 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  2. Category:2000s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:2008 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:2007 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:2006 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:2002 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:2001 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  3. Category:1990s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1998 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1994 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1980s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    4. Category:1989 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:1986 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    6. Category:1982 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    7. Category:1981 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  4. Category:1970s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1977 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1975 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1973 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1972 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:1971 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  5. Category:1960s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1967 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1966 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1965 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1963 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  6. Category:1950s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1959 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1958 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1956 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1952 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:1951 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  7. Category:1940s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1948 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1946 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1945 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1941 disestablishments in the Netherlands --Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for now as this tree is currently being created and populated which due to scope takes a long time. It is part of the larger scheme of Category:Disestablishments by country and Category:Disestablishments by year. There are a lot of articles in, for example, Category:2012 disestablishments that need to split by country and type of organisation, and many articles have not even been categorised with year of disestablishment so need tracking down. I personally am opposed to the creation of categories such as 9th century disestablishments in New Zealand prior to the existence of the category but it does not exist and isn't a reason to delete the existing categories. Tim! (talk) 09:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I tried to look here (but maybe I am looking in the wrong place), but that does not give much hope for much more. "That need to be split by country" - that gives for some countries trees which are just way to fine grained, and I am not convinced that this needs a level of years, I am not even sure if it needs a level of decades. As I suggest, start with high level, and split where necessary - not split and hope that there will be enough.
    Note that categories like Category:557 establishments in France do exist - that sets a very bad precedent. --Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    [This does not seem to give anything that needs categorisation as establishment nor disestablishment .. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative. Fram (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you give a, realistic, consideration how many there will be in either of the lowest level categories? As I suggested in the RfC - for those decades where the year-categories are not likely to contain more than 5 pages on average (is that a reasonable number?), I would suggest to upmerge to the decade level (and for the 19th century, maybe a consideration that century level is fine grained enough to start?). --Dirk Beetstra T C 11:37, 11 June 2012 (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:Corporate history of Australia[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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that the only member article is not really appropriate for this category. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 04:23, 10 June 2012 (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:Ships by designer[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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: listify into the approp articles. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose That's an assertion, not a rationale. This is also a clear case where a pull model (annotating articles or categories for categorization) works much better than a push model (writing lists). Andy Dingley (talk) 00:45, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not an assertion, it is a suggestion based on a judgement. Can you explain the push/pull model thing in words of one syllable so I can understand it? -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 01:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    It is far easier to annotate each member article or category as having relevance to a parent, than it is to try and write the parent list in isolation to its members. This is the basis of categorization under MediaWiki, and why categorization is such a useful technique.
    In some cases it's easier to write the list first - typically short, bounded sets with clear pre-existing definitions and known membership sets. Neither of these are one of those cases. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    So are you saying they are there for WP editors? We don't use content-side for that sort of thing. Admittedly in this case they are of use to readers but an even better method to impart the info is to have a list in the article. It does not matter if it is incomplete. It can be labelled as such with {{incomplete list}} (not that I like that sort of tag) or a qualification such as "Notable watercraft designed by XXXX include". Categories don't get anywhere near the amount of traffic that an article gets so having the info in the article (if not already there) is the best option. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. These were created as part of Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_December_23#Dinghies_by_designer, which I closed. It's a legitimate subcategory of Category:Works by creator. However, I would support merging into Category:Boats and ships by designer if others preferred that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:10, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Point taken on being a legitimate subcategory of Category:Works by creator but, on balance, are these categories of use ipsto readers? WP:CLT is all well and good but there are limits to how much we can do. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 05:03, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    They seem useful to me. If you're looking for boats by a specific designer, where else would you look?--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    If you know the designer you would look at the article. The two categories collectively have seven subcategories. That is hardly a significant cross section of marine architects so it is no use to readers for browsing. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 08:27, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    There were eight, and I just added a ninth. Feel free to create more for designers who have created sufficient notable boats/ships to avoid WP:SMALLCAT. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:SMALLCAT relates to the number of articles in a category, not the number of subcats. Oculi (talk) 20:00, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Right. Ah; I see that my comment was ambiguous. I did not mean that the nominated category was liable to be deleted on the SMALLCAT rule if we do not populate it better. I meant that even if the category is not well-populated at the moment, it can be improved. I mentioned SMALLCAT to acknowledge that some designers may not be known for many notable designs (with separate articles), in which case we should not create a category for their boats. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I would think that if the boat/ship has an article and its designer also has an article, then the designer is a defining characteristic of the vessel and so there should be a category (cf Category:Novels by author, Category:Albums by artist). Oculi (talk) 15:12, 12 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I'd prefer Category:Ships and boats by designer, but otherwise that would be a useful merge. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:14, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – these are container categories. Listifying a container category is a novel idea. Oculi (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I separated Ships by designer from Boats by designer following Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 1#Category:Boats designed by Isambard Kingdom Brunel (which was renamed from "boats" to "ships"). That category has a place within Category:Works of Isambard Kingdom Brunel; other designer's categories have similarly been kept or renamed rather than deleted; and since we are keeping categories of boats/ships by designer, they might as well be brought together in this way within "Works by creator". I would not be strongly opposed to merger into Category:Boats and ships by designer, but most nautical architects have designed either one or the other, so keeping them separate serves a small purpose. – Fayenatic London 17:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I see no reason why this information shouldn't be organized in categories as well as lists, per WP:CLN; no argument has been made that it is somehow ill suited for a category structure, and it would not seem to fit any of the to-be-avoided examples at WP:OCAT. postdlf (talk) 14:30, 11 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This could be very useful to search for works of prolific designers, such as William Francis Gibbs, Nathaniel Barnaby, William White, and other notable contributors to naval architecture. Kablammo (talk) 22:50, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Isn't this part of what Wikipedia is for? Helping categorize information that isn't easily found elsewhere? Cool category, btw. :) We need more categories like this. Benkenobi18 (talk) 08:30, 15 June 2012 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_10&oldid=1167402436"