Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< September 30 October 2 >

October 1[edit]

Category:Joseph Louis Lagrange[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 21:28, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. Only the head article Joseph Louis Lagrange plus 2 others which are not really subtopics of the head article. Already well-interlinked. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said on the talk page Category_talk:Joseph_Louis_Lagrange, after I created it and started to add things to it, I discovered there was a category already at Category:Lagrangian mechanics and began editing articles to be listed in it that weren't already. So yeah, it probably isn't needed. Dream Focus 00:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If the creator's agreed, this can be speedied. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:11, 2 October 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:Ste. Rose, Manitoba[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 21:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Ste. Rose du Lac, Manitoba is a town of only 1,000 people, so there is little chance of expanding this category. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:46, 1 October 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:Willis Carto[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 - jc37 01:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, we use eponymous categories only for subtopics. This one is collection topics related to Willis Carto, rather than a set of sub-topics. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a useful category for grouping topics related to this racial theorist who has had a considerable influence on the neo-nazi and white nationalist movements in the United States, and whose authors are often affiliated with Iran's government supported PressTV and conspiracy news/websites. Redhanker (talk) 22:20, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator. DexDor (talk) 06:53, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. The current contents shows the problems inherent with this sort of category. Why is PressTV in this category? As far as I can tell it's because they sometimes feature writers who sometimes also write for American Free Press which Carto founded. That's a very, very thin link and clearly not the kind of strong, defining link we require for categorization. Why is Ron Paul newsletters in this category? Because there's an allegation that Paul used a mailing list of a paper founded by Carto. This would be a tenuous link even if this allegation was proved. We simply can't maintain these vague "stuff and people associated with person X" categories because they would result in horrible clutter. For instance, imagine placing Barack Obama in categories about people he's associated with: the two Clintons, Rahm Emmanuel, Joe Biden, David Axelrod, Jeremiah Wright, David Plouffe, Richard Lugar, Nancy Pelosi, ... I could on for another 50 lines of people on which Obama has been a significant influence (presidents tend to do that) or that Obama has worked with closely. Pichpich (talk) 19:07, 17 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete most of the contents of this category do not belong in a categorization around Cato. Eponymous categories should have strong links, not loose links.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:20, 18 October 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:Television series produced in New York 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: Manual Merge per BHG. (Should not be merged through the automated process.) I'll drop BHG a note. - jc37 01:13, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can see no other categories for television shows or series by location of production, so basically I think that this category should be deleted. We do have categories by the setting of TV shows, so I propose that this category be selectively merged to Category:Television shows set in New York City. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Not that I'm a big fan of these categories but there are quite a few Category:Television series produced in city XYZ. In Canada alone, there are six: Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Ottawa, Winnipeg and Halifax (see Category:Canadian television series by production location for these and province-specific ones). There's also one for Atlanta and for a few US states (see Category:American television series by production location). If we delete this category, it can't be on the grounds that this type of categorization doesn't exist. That being said, I still think it should be deleted on the grounds that a film by a French director about Chilean mountaineers can be shot in British Columbia with English-speaking Mexican actors and still be produced by a company in Seattle. The link between the location of the production company and the film or television series could be very tenuous so it shouldn't be a basis for categorization. (of course this would apply to all categories of this type) Pichpich (talk) 03:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I am not even at this point making a statement about the value of television series produced in x. The problem is that where something is produced and where it is set are two different things. Many shows are set in NYC but produced in Los Angeles or its suburbs. Many shows are set in places that do not exist, but they are all produced in some real place. These are not the same, so we should not merge them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Please re-read the nomination: I specifically proposed that the category should be selectively merged. That will allow only the shows actually set in NYC to be placed in Category:Television shows set in New York City. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - I don't see any value in a "produced in" category at all but they definitely shouldn't be merged because of the difference between being produced in a location and being set there. Buck Winston (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    See my reply to JPL above. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:31, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree but closing admin read the nomination closely, not a blind merge the opposers didn't read. A selective merge (which is more like a delete and re-add what may be appropriate) seems good. There is no value in categories of cities in which a series is produced. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:53, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- "Produced in" is quite different from "set in". If there are items in the catregory that are set in New York - add that category. then Delete -- I see litlte value in having a "produced in" tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment being produced in has nothing to do with the setting of the show, so the merger makes no sense at all. The merger makes no sense at any level. If BHG feels this category should be deleted, she should propose that. A merger makes no sense at all. This is especially so because production is a function of reality, while "set in" with TV shows often is a function of fiction.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:23, 18 October 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:Listed buildings in Norway[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 21:29, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:09, 1 October 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:Townlands in North Tipperary[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 21:30, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The categories are duplicates of one another. The "of" category should be retained since every other entry in the parent category of Category:Townlands of the Republic of Ireland by county uses "of". Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:34, 1 October 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:Mombasa County[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. This subject is covered by Mombasa District.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:57, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is currently an unreferenced article in category space. AFAICS, there is no such thing as Mombasa County; this appears to be a misnomer for Mombasa District, for which we already have Category:Mombasa District. The category is currently empty, so it it could be speedily deleted per WP:CSD#C1 ... but I have listed it here in case someone who knows more about Kenyan geography wants to correct me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as what is, likely accidentally but still in fact, a WP:FAKEARTICLE in category space. - The Bushranger One ping only 23:01, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to article space and consider further Kenya is currently implementing a major constitutional reform of the way government is organised, with the old provinces and districts being replaced by a single sub-national tier of new counties. Most or all of the counties use the same boundaries & names as the old districts so there'll need to be some consideration of whether to have separate or merged articles which is better done when the situation is clearer. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:34, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this clearly is not a category. There is no reason to move it to article space because it is unsourced, while the closest thing to it in article space is sourced.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lambert. Steam5 (talk) 03:50, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unreferenced material in wrong location. creator(s) can start over correctly, if they can find any sign of factuality. I believe in starting articles from references, not first writing an article then finding refs to back it.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:44, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turn into stub article per Timrollpickering, above. This just looks like another example of misunderstanding/creating a stub in categoryspace. - jc37 01:18, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment arn't articles supposed to have sources? This has zero sources, so I can't really see how we can do other than delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 3 November 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:People known by acronyms[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:24, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Being (sometimes) known by an acronym is not a defining/notable characteristic of a person. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and delete. Has potential as an interesting subject for a page, but I agree that it is not appropriate for categorisation. – Fayenatic London 20:24, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete outright The members of the category are all commentators in the Talmud; being referred to by acronym is derivative of this because of scholarly convention. Probably there are other fields where similar things happen. It's not a defining characteristic, and I see no reason to listify given that there is surely another list already of Talmudic commentators which is the real source of such a list. Mangoe (talk) 21:41, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, actually, I didn't see the last comment soon enough, and I have gone ahead and started the list at List of rabbis known by acronyms. StAnselm (talk) 21:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Mainly per Mangoe. I don't find much value in List of rabbis known by acronyms but I don't think its existence poses much problem. Pichpich (talk) 03:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. In any case, it has been made redundant by List of rabbis known by acronyms. StAnselm (talk) 03:33, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—It does happen in other fields, e.g. taxonomy, the current POTUS and FLOTUS at any time. And it's not defining for either group. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:10, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete JFK, LBJ, TR and FDR are people I assumed would be here, but none of them are, so there is a clear failure to apply it in the most common cases, which probably indicates it is not a truly notable thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Lambert. Steam5 (talk) 03:51, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete accident of some non-notable commonality of naming. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:55, 5 October 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:Recipients of the Croix de guerre 1939–1945 (France)[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:01, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalisation of decoration NtheP (talk) 19:47, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I wonder if the English should be capitalised, following usual English rules, even if French text generally writes it in lower case? – Fayenatic London 20:52, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I don't know perhaps these two CFD's should go on hold while that discussion is reopened at Talk:Croix de guerre? NtheP (talk) 20:59, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm absolutely certain that in French, the correct capitalization is "croix de guerre". Now I'm not sure how we're supposed to deal with that bit of information but I would favor renaming the category to Category:Recipients of the croix de guerre 1939–1945 (France). It seems to me that if we decide to keep the French name, we should keep the French capitalization (in this case, all lowercase). Pichpich (talk) 03:01, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename we name according to English capitalization norms, regardless of foreign capitalization. The French don't capitalize français, so should we not bother to capitalize the name of their language when they don't bother to? That's not how it works: titles, too. We have Category:Prime Ministers of France, when the French term is Premier ministre (lower case "m"). Similarly we don't capitalize all nouns on German categories because they do so in German. Persian has no capital letters, so should we have articles on ayatollah khomeyni? NO, that's why we use English, and the Croix de Guerre is a title and is capitalized like any other titles (see, e.g., treatment of fr:Médecins sans frontières vs Médecins Sans Frontières). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) updated Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom and per Carlossuarez46. English has its own rules of capitalisation, and they should be used in instances like this. Jsmith1000 (talk) 22:07, 7 October 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:Recipients of the Croix de guerre 1914–1918 (France)[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. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:09, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Capitalisation of title of decoration NtheP (talk) 19:46, 1 October 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:Buildings and structures in Kiel, 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:24, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. The town is too small to expect meaningful growth. Note that there's no need to merge since Kiel High School is already properly categorized as Category:Schools in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin whose parent is Category:Buildings and structures in Manitowoc County, Wisconsin. Pichpich (talk) 19:31, 1 October 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:Fair Trade Shops based in 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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The basic problem here is that it's almost impossible to determine objective and non-arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Fair trade certification is a somewhat opaque process and competing certification organizations all have their own criteria. Even if we get around this problem, I'm not sure what constitutes a "fair trade shop". Do we require that every product sold is certified "fair trade"? What about shops who sell 99% fair trade certified goods? 90%? What about shops that sells items for which no fair trade certification exists? Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless some widely accepted system to certify shops as part of "fair trade" exists the application of the category to shops does not work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:06, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom; "fair trade" is whatever you say it is. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:05, 5 October 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:Baronies in the Peerage of Scotland[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 21:31, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Baronies in Scotland before the Act of Union 1707 were a feudal title linked to land ownership rather to succession a bloodline (see Scottish feudal barony). They can be bought and sold, and are therefore not considered to be part of the Peerage of Scotland.
Both of the articles currently in the category clearly relate to feudal titles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:53, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Peerage and Baronetage and WikiProject Scotland have been notified [1] [2]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Lairdship and Parliamentarian Lordship are very different beasts. Brendandh (talk) 06:40, 2 October 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.

Petroleum industry categories[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: relisted at CfD 2012 October 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:45, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To be in line the existing categorization system (e.g. Category:Petroleum industry in Russia). Beagel (talk) 16:01, 1 October 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:Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus[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 both per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge Although I'm proposing a merge, in fact, all three categories have the same content: the article on the First Triumvirate, the three leaders of the Triumvirate and a conference between them. The categories on Gnaeus Pompeius Magnus and Marcus Licinius Crassus just create category clutter with no obvious benefit. Pichpich (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Why would someone create three categories with the exact same content? Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:13, 2 October 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:Electrification Proposals in Britain[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. There is still only one article in the category, and the suggestion of a merger to Category:Proposed public transport in the United Kingdom would be a poor fit for that article (South Wales Main Line). It is an already existing line, rather tha n a proposed new one. The suggestion of listing rail electrification proposals in an article may be more suitable, whether by expanding an existing article or creating a new one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The potential for growth of this category is quite limited so I think WP:SMALLCAT is relevant. Moreover we typically avoid categorizing articles using a transient quality. Pichpich (talk) 14:53, 1 October 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:UPDC participants[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: relisted at CfD October 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:29, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename (I prefer the above suggestion but Category:User page design center participants could also work). The current name can easily be confused with a content category and it's also more helpful for users to have categories that avoid Wikipedia shortcuts that they may not be familiar with. Pichpich (talk) 14:47, 1 October 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:United States Grain Companies[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 to Category:Grain companies of the United States - jc37 01:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The categorization of companies by industry shouldn't be this fine-grained (pun sort of half intended). If we start categorizing agriculture companies by the product they produce, transform or trade, we're going to get a lot of clutter and a lot of small categories that only isolate articles. Moreover it's hard to determine what constitutes a grain company. (How much grain-related activity is required?) I think this could work as a list where some details can be provided for each company. Finally, if the category is kept it has to be under a different title to match the format in Category:Companies of the United States by industry. I suggest Category:Grain companies of the United States. Pichpich (talk) 14:23, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but rename this is an interesting and useful division. All the entries in the category have interrelated businesses (generally corn other agricultural products, ethanol etc), and are competitors. Solution in search of a problem. Benkenobi18 (talk) 12:17, 2 October 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:Software Defined Storage companies[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: relisted at CfD 2012 October 10. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:33, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete The concept of Software defined storage is not well-defined and it's a bit of a buzzword. I don't think it's a sound basis for a category because the inclusion of an article is subjective. I would also note that of the four articles currently in the category, only one explicitly mentions software defined storage. If kept, the category should be renamed to Category:Software defined storage companies (capitalization). Pichpich (talk) 14:03, 1 October 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:Oil and gas pipelines by country[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 all, as the easiest way to finish implementing a split. Some manual tidyup will be required. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:20, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Bulgaria to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Bulgaria
Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Hungary to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Hungary
Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Iran to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Iran
Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Pakistan to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Pakistan
Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Romania to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Romania
Category:Oil and gas pipelines in Turkey to Category:Natural gas pipelines in Turkey
Nominator's rationale: Most of these pipelines are natural gas pipelines, and the revised category will fit better into the parent categories Category:Natural gas pipelines by country and Category:Natural gas pipelines in Europe or Category:Natural gas pipelines in Asia. A few will be moved to an “Oil pipeline in … “ category. Hugo999 (talk) 04:37, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of inconsistency in the current structure under Category:Fuels infrastructure by country. Just nine countries have a "Fuels infrastructure in Foo" category (which, BTW, I think should be changed to "... of Foo"). A few countries have a "Pipelines in Foo" category. Some have "Natural gas infrastructure of Foo" and "Oil infrastructure in Foo" categories but no "Pipelines in Foo". IMO, both "Pipelines in Foo" "Natural gas infrastructure of Foo" are logical subcategories of "Fuels infrastructure of Foo" (and "Natural gas pipelines in Foo" should appear in both). --Orlady (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Oil may be moved in pipelines as well as gas. No objection to a split but this is not the way to do it. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The above proposed changes are the quickest was of splitting the “oil and gas pipelines by country” for those countries that have the category (many don’t) into “oil pipelines by country” and “natural gas pipelines by country” which is what many countries already have. I don’t see a need for “pipelines by country” as the two pipeline categories can be subcategories of one of the “infrastructure” categories (either “energy infrastructure” or “fuels infrastructure”) without an unnecessary intermediate step. The “infrastructure” category is more inclusive eg including oil or natural gas fields and oil refineries so would be useful for those countries that do not have it. Hugo999 (talk) 22:59, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: My reasoning in suggesting "Pipelines by country" is due to the use of pipelines for purposes other than oil and gas (other types include coal slurry pipelines and CO2 pipelines), as well as the fact that pipelines are a topic of interest as linear features that cross the landscape, independent of what fluid they carry. --Orlady (talk) 04:39, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the umbrella category per Orlady as this will provide more systematic approach. Fact that Pipelines in foo categories at the moment are mainly non-existent is irrelevant. In addition to oil and gas pipelines there are coal slurry pipelines and CO2 pipelines as mentioned by Orlady, as also water pipelines, ethanol fuel pipelines etc. So I propose the renaming per nom for now and to continue to develop the proper categories tree for pipelines. Beagel (talk) 13:25, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename per nom. Oil pipelines have aleady been split out to their own catregory tree at every level, as have natural gas pipelines. There only remains the renaming of these categories to finish the split. Hmains (talk) 20:55, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom with cleanup to follow if needed. I often support renames with cleanup since it is far easier to move a few categories by hand after leaving the heavy work to the bots. Even if this is the same as a split which requires a savvy admin to make the best use of the bot. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:24, 8 October 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:Top 200 US Drugs of 2011[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 per WP:OC#TOPTEN and WP:OC#ARBITRARY, among other reasons noted. - jc37 00:53, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete. Why 200? Why US? Why 2011? Original research for someone's limitations. Top xx categories without some objective reason are pure vanity.----unsigned comment from 67.166.158.16 (talk) 02:50, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:
Why 200? – per WP:OC#TOPTEN, a published list that is commonly reported, see for example:
  • "Top 200 Prescribed Drugs by Sales in 2010". Drugs.com. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Njarðarson Group. "Top Pharmaceuticals Poster". Department of Chemistry and Biochemistry at The University of Arizona. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • "Top 200 Drugs A Five-Year Compilation updated with 2010 data". Advanstar Communications. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Why US? – approximately half the world's pharmaceutical profits are derived from the US
  • Why 2011? – agreed, year should be removed from category name and the category membership should be updated as new data become available
  • Original research – No, see the "why 200?" links provided above. Boghog (talk) 08:34, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – Re OC#TOPTEN - the example used was deleted 6 years ago and I haven't found another example so that may need updating. You suggest that category membership should be updated each year, but that isn't the way categories are used in WP - if something has a defining characteristic then it'll always have that characteristic. For example we don't remove people from Category:Politicians if they don't get re-elected; that category is for anyone who has ever been a (notable) politician. DexDor (talk) 05:54, 9 October 2012 (UTC) (struck bit about TOPTEN as I had mis-understood WP:OC) DexDor (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – OK, thanks for your explanation which I accept. The phrase "defining characteristic" is vague and needs to be explained. I apologize for being so stubborn, but I was frustrated in not getting satisfactory response. Cheers. Boghog (talk) 20:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – You're welcome. Agree that we need a clear definition of DC - I'll see what I can come up with. DexDor (talk) 06:28, 11 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – For background, there is ongoing discussion concerning these categories at WP:PHARMA that predates this deletion proposal. Importantly there is a proposal there to reorganize and rename these categories. Boghog (talk) 10:24, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – why indeed? [Someone had removed the tag, which was added but not perfectly set up.] Oculi (talk) 09:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't really see a reason for this. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is quite obviously a bad idea. Imagine doing this for every country (what's so special about the US?) and imagine the number of categories on sildenafil. Pichpich (talk) 14:07, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Pich. Steam5 (talk) 03:52, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Top 217 US Drugs of 2011" and add the missing 17...</sarcasm>, just delete it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:07, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. this material can be made into some sort of administrative grouping/category, or into lists, but should not exist as a category.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 01:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have, as an expremient, added "Wikipedia category|hidden=yes"" to the category page. This way the category is available to project members and can be seen by editors, but be invisible to the average reader. If this DR ends with a decision of delete, I would like to propose that the category tag be allowed to remain as hidden and be maintained under the supervion of wp:pharm. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:19, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Keep</s'> and extend CfD another 14 days to allow members of WP:Pharm to review category. I'm irritated that as the category creator and I wasn't informed of this review, and even though there's tag on the category page pointing toward WT:WikiProject_Pharmacology for a proposed renaming the project wasn't informed either. Also there's a link toward the original list, which has a reliable source ( Pharmacy Times) that establishes notability (not OR) this wasn't considered either. Also, why is the US list notable? Because, 38% of sales and half the pharmaceutical profits in the worldwide come from the US! Please use some common sense and courtesy before starting an unannounced DR destroying hours of hard work. - Stillwaterising (talk) 04:57, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per "not a defining characteristic". Strong keep and rename to Category:Top 200 US Drugs by Sales. From a medical point of view, a US centric category is problematic. However the US is the largest single market for pharmaceuticals and in 2006 (the most recent year for which I can statistics) accounts for 45% of the value of global sales of pharmaceuticals ("Pharmaceutical Pricing Policies in a Global Market" (PDF). Executive Summary. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). 2008. ISBN 978-92-64-04414-2. {{cite web}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)). Hence from an economic stand point, this category is justified. Furthermore, it would be excessive to have categories of this type for every year, so the year should be removed and the list updated every year. Boghog (talk) 06:42, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I will make sure it is updated. Boghog (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The "keep"ers above are arguing that the list should be kept in Wikipedia, but do not provide any reason why this should be a category (it fails WP:Categorization in several ways). If the list is notable then a list article would be better (it can be referenced and watchlisted for example). A table would also mean the list could be sorted in several ways. DexDor (talk) 06:53, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As I already stated above, since half the world's pharmaceutical profits are derived from US pharmaceutical sales, this category is justified on economic grounds. WP:Categorization does not specifically mention criteria for categories (WP:OVERCAT may be more appropriate in this context.) Precisely how does it fail WP:Categorization? You need to be more specific. Boghog (talk) 07:55, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Wikipedia categorization is based on defining characteristics. Where a drug ranks in terms of sales (in a particular country/year) is not a defining characteristic of that drug. See also WP:OC#ARBITRARY. DexDor (talk) 19:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - within the pharmaceutical industry, the top 200 is a well known published list (see sources that I have provided above) and therefore constitute an exception (see WP:OC#TOPTEN). Furthermore, I agree that the year should be removed. The fact that a drug is on the current top 200 list in the largest single market that generates approximately half the profits in the industry is a defining characteristic. Boghog (talk) 04:59, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - There is a list at Wp:WikiProject Pharmacology/Top 200 US Prescriptions 2011 which was used to make the category list. It has been linked to the Cat page from its inception. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:03, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
List of World Health Organization Essential Medicines with corresponding cat has been discussed and would likely be at least half finished by now if I hadn't been forced to spend the last 5 hourse trying to defend my work. Would any of the partipants in the DR like to help with this list? It's listing in our project page is [[3]]. - Stillwaterising (talk) 08:25, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What I and the other members of WP:Pharm are trying to say is that we, as a project, have decided that this is an important category to have, both for project members to use in helping focus our attentions on articles that are mostly likely to be viewed, and to readers who would not have known otherwise this information. What I think the members of this CfD panel, and those members of WP:WikiProject Category sorting I think are saying is that this category goes against are previous decisions not to have Top XX categories. From what I've read of the given reasons so far, NONE of the respondants looked at anything more than than the title of the category before making a voting decision. I personally have never made a category and really don't care about the inner workings of CfD. What I do know is that the pages which are under the domain of WP:Pharm are the only pages affected by this category, so what's the big deal? If the project feels it's best, then why can't it be left alone and handeled by consensus decision on the project page (not here)? - Stillwaterising (talk) 07:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete. As others have noted, categories are for defining characteristics of topics, and a product's position in one year's sales charts for a particular country is not a defining characteristic. If this sort of categorisation was adopted, articles could rapidly become swamped in year/country-sales categories, causing massive clutter.
    If the list captured in this category is useful for a WikiProject's maintenance purposes, then there are two options: a) create a list in project space (or use the existing mainspace list, if its format suits their purposes), or; b) convert this category to a project-related maintenance category, on the articles' talk pages. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert this category to a project-related maintenance category on the articles' talk pages - I've changed my keep vote in favor of BHG's and MWR's proposals. I have hidden the category and would like it to remain so until the move can be made. Any further renaming, if desired can be done so by consensus on the project page. - Stillwaterising (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Simply not defining for an encyclopedia. If the project wants a list like this, use the outside sources or capture the current contents before the close of this discussion. I see no reason for the closing admin to do extra work given this has to be sourced from external sources. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:27, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete even if we accept there is a good reason to only create these categories for the US (which I don't, but will for this argument), and there is a compelling reason to stop at 200 (I see no reason, but will accept there might be one), there is no reason to only have 2011, so we could in fact have every year have its own category from 1950 on, and then have some drugs in 10+ categories. Down that road lies madness. This might be workable as a list (I doubt it, but it is better as a list) but it is a horrible thing as a category. It is similar (at least in some ways) to why we have List of state leaders in 2011 but do not have Category:State leaders in 2011.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:31, 18 October 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_October_1&oldid=1074809847"