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.
Merge or reverse merge: we do not need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:21, 17 June 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge or reverse merge: we do nto need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Merge or reverse merge: we do nto need both. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2013 (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:1903 establishments in South Africa[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:No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the place was clearly the Colony of Natal at the time. It was not part of some larger, multi-colony scheme. Things should reflect the reality at the time. The reality is that the establishments by year by place tree is extremely under developed, and there is no reason to impose the present on the past in such an ahistorical way. Also the gripe about creating the category ignored the fact that the current contents of the category were not categorized as having been organized in any place prior to the creation of the category. Creating Category:1903 establishments in the Colony of Natal did not involve removing things from the South Africa category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:26, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you look around, you will see that there is a body of research that researches the goings on in "South Africa" as a whole before the Union of South Africa existed. As for my "gripe"—it wasn't about removing things from a South Africa category. It was about unilaterally changing the name format of a pre-existing tree that you were (knowingly or not) expanding. Category:1903 in South Africa and Category:1903 establishments in South Africadid exist prior to your creation. And see also edits of this type and this, where you are indeed changing the application of a pre-existing category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:22, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We are not imposing anything, we are creating a category structure that is easier and more relevant for most readers, and that reflects what happened in a current country somewhere in the past. Agree with othet comments by Good Olfactory as well. Fram (talk) 06:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. see below. Hugo999 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this discussion was ongoing, the nominator has created about two dozen-odd categories for "XXXX establishments in FOO", where FOO is one of the South African states or colonies: see [1]. This sort of development can't wait for these discussions to end to see if there is some sort of consensus? Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I've left him a note, asking him to stop while the CFD is ongoing. GiantSnowman 11:25, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: We have three discussions on the same point. Can we close two of them and merge into the the third, so that we aren't repeating everything in three separate sections? - htonl (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1903 establishments and Category:Establishments in Transvaal Colony, and Category:Establishments in South Africa would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:57, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It makes sense to people who look beyond the purely "historical correctness". Looking at what happened in current countries throughout the ages is of far more interest to many readers than having historically correct but currently useless categories. As said before, there is no reason why the historically correct categories can't be added to either the categories (where a straight link is possible) or to the articles (when the current and historical cats have no straight connecttion); but equally, there is no reason to remove information which is interesting to readers but doesn't fit in the more rigid view of some editors. You state that "tis category scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history Wikiprojects", but this is typical of the much too narrow and rigid view some editors here have. We don't categorize only for some projects, we categorize to help all our readers, including those who approach historical events from a current geopolitical POV. Applying your (plural) logic, we should categorize The Minster School, York in Category:627 establishments in Bernicia. Having it in Category:627 establishments in England would be historically incorrect, but much, much more useful. (Replace "627" with "7th century" if such a specific year troubles you, it doesn't change the argument). Fram (talk) 07:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Funny, how we both find the other side 'rigid' in application or discussion. Fact remains, that this type of categories have now been brought to discussion on a larger scale (i.e., multiple cases of concern) by, I think, 4 different concerned editors who think that there is something not right here.
What I am suggesting is that a discussion with history WikiProjects might result in a logical and historically correct scheme, not a rigid scheme like we have now. You say 'we categorize to help all our readers' .. but currently, the ones that are looking for what was established in the Netherlands as they existed in 1750 have a hard time, as they have to scour, and select from, at least 4 different categories (Belgium, Luxembourg, Netherlands, France), and subjects that are now in categorised in the Netherlands may actually be outside of the Netherlands as it existed 200 years ago. You say, to serve all readers, you are with this scheme not serving those readers that want to collect that information, you are only serving the readers that want to know where that subject that was established for a short period 400 years ago would have been located now (they first have to figure out what constituted the area 400 years ago, and how that fits into the current country borders). And that is why I am suggesting that, with the help of multiple editors from the history WikiProjects, probably a better scheme could be made up.
I remain, date and location are interrelated properties, and it is intrinsically wrong to combine those into one category. It goes well for 'modern' subjects, but as soon as you go back in time, conflicts of various sorts arise - subjects are established ánd disestablished in a place before that place was in the country it is now (they may even be established while that place was in one country, disestablished when they were in another, and now 'be' in yet another), subjects are established in one place, and are then reestablished to another place, objects are established in a place which was not even in a country in the time it was established (because that concept was not there), etc. etc. --Dirk BeetstraTC 08:58, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict)Your first point is what I said can be adressed by adding the historically correct categories as well. For "the Netherlands" in 1750, you could add Category:1750 establishments in the Dutch Republic; I have never stated an objection to this. What I do object to, and find way too rigid, is the insistince by some that onlyCategory:1750 establishments in the Dutch Republic is acceptable, and that having at the same time a category relating that year to a current category is unacceptable ("intrinsically wrong", like you state it). Fram (talk) 09:10, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I suggested to split, Fram, to Category:1903 establishments and Category:Establishments in Transvaal Colony, and Category:Establishments in South Africa - We agree it is a 1903 establishment, we agree that it is established both in Transvaal Colony and (as it still exists) in South Africa. Calling something a 1903 establishment in South Africa is, indeed, intrinsically wrong as there was no South Africa in 1903, and it is only worse for an object that was established and disestablished before it was 'located' in the country it would be if it would still be established now, or objects that have been moved since their establishment. It may be an insistence by some, but that suggestion now comes from multiple independent editors. --Dirk BeetstraTC 09:17, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note, this is a subcategory from Category:1903_in_South_Africa - suggesting that there was something like a 1903 in South Africa (which did not exist by that time). --Dirk BeetstraTC 09:07, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, it indicates that what is now South Africa is shaped by things that happened throughout the ages, including the year 1903. A random example of many others: "The Cambridge Illustrated History of France" has as first chapter "France Before the Romans". Does this suggest that France existed before the Romans invaded it? Or that France, the country we now know, has a history that goes back to before the current country was established? Of course, there is also "The Quaternary Period in the United States" or, closer to home, "A Brief History of the Netherlands" with sentences like "[...] the Belgic Gauls, Celtic peoples whose territory extended from Northeastern France into Belgium and parts of the southern Netherlands". It seems like many historians (and their readers) have no trouble understanding the concept of "what happened in a country before that country existed" without lengthy explanations. If you want specifically Belgium in 1750, I can e.g. give you "Cities and Economic Development: From the Dawn of History to the Present", with "Moreover, around 1750 the urban population of Belgium as a whole stood at roughly 25% (or less) of the total population[...]". Fram (talk) 09:26, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- What became South Africa was at this period a series of separate states, united as a dominion in 1910. There will be few articles in each category. We need a single category for each polity for the 1900s. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per the discussion of some things in Category:627 establishments above, I really do not think it would be useful to have any subdivision of a category that only has 3 articles. On the other hand, there are hundreds of articles under Category:1903 establishments.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 19 June 2013 (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:1904 establishments in South Africa[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:No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale The Union of South Africa was formed in 1910. It is an act of imposing the present on the past to unify the 4 colonies that existed in what is now South Africa into one in 1904. Both of the contents of this category at present were organized in Cape Colony and so renaming to that makes sense. I did split off one other article onto the relevant Category:1904 establishments in the Colony of Natal.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Examine Category:Years in South Africa, particularly Category:Years of the 19th century in South Africa. This nomination pulls a single category out of this well-developed scheme and proposes that it be renamed differently. I see no problem with using "South Africa" to refer to what is widely referred to as "the South African states and colonies" prior to the establishment of the Union of South Africa. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Just because some people have already gone and imposed the present on the past, grouping together un-united things does not mean we should stay with it. These need to be year by year nominations because the contents of the categories are unique.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:27, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Of course—but you need to get a consensus before changing it! You've created a ton of these categories without waiting for these discussions to play out. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:20, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yet if one does not do anything people will use the extremely small present state of the categories to argue for not splitting the category. I cannot in good conscience add to an established in South Africa category something that was not established in South Africa. It was established in Natal, which was not part of anything called South Africa at the time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can't in good conscience do it, then don't work in that category tree. Hundreds and thousands of historians and researchers have no problem calling these places "South Africa" or the South African states and colonies". You're the only one I have ever heard of who doesn't find that grouping at all useful or at least understand why others could find it useful. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:51, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We are not imposing anything, we are creating a category structure that is easier and more relevant for most readers, and that reflects what happened in a current country somewhere in the past. Agree with othet comments by Good Olfactory as well. Fram (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. see below. Hugo999 (talk) 02:25, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this discussion was ongoing, the nominator has created about two dozen-odd categories for "XXXX establishments in FOO", where FOO is one of the South African states or colonies: see [2]. This sort of development can't wait for these discussions to end to see if there is some sort of consensus? Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:58, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: We have three discussions on the same point. Can we close two of them and merge into the the third, so that we aren't repeating everything in three separate sections? - htonl (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category: 1904 establishments and Category:Establishments in Cape Colony, and Category:Establishments in South Africa would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:58, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- What became South Africa was at this period a series of separate states, united as a dominion in 1910. There will be few articles in each category. We need a single category for each polity for the 1900s. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:No consensus. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:23, 1 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationael The Union of South Africa was formed in 1910 from 4 British Colonies. It is an act of retroactively imposing the present on the past to use the term South Africa in 1906. The colonies were seperate entities. We categorize things established in Koenigsberg, Germany in 1906 as established in Germany since that is where they were then, we should do the same for things established in Transvaal Colony at that time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Examine Category:Years in South Africa, particularly Category:Years of the 19th century in South Africa. This nomination pulls a single category out of this well-developed scheme and proposes that it be renamed differently. I see no problem with using "South Africa" to refer to what is widely referred to as "the South African states and colonies" prior to the establishment of the Union of South Africa. The proposal will create many small categories when one larger one would be of far more utility. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:32, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is clearly a problem in 1889. The South Africa Republic and the Orange Free State are independent countries, while Cape Colony and the Colony of Natal were integral parts of the British Empire. It is a total and ahistorical mess to put them all together. A category that groups together things that are not joined is not useful. The 1889 category is the only establishments category for the entire 1880s.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:23, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's "not useful"—says who? Most researchers would find them very useful. If you look around, you will see that there is a body of research that researches the goings on in "South Africa" as a whole before the Union of South Africa existed. Things are not as black-and-white useful-not useful as you seem to be suggesting. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:21, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sub-dividing is best but a large chunk of the pre-1910 history of South Africa considers the four colonies/states as a whole with a lot of human and economic movements not respecting the boundaries. Timrollpickering (talk) 02:54, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In 1889 two of these places were British Colonies, while the other two were independent countries. It could also be argued that at times human movement has largely ignored the US/Mexico border, but that does not prevent distinct categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But if modern historians and researchers largely treat all four as one "chunk"—and they tend to call it "South Africa" or the "South African states and colonies"—what is the problem with WP doing the same? A similar thing cannot generally be said for US/Mexico. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:45, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. We are not imposing anything, we are creating a category structure that is easier and more relevant for most readers, and that reflects what happened in a current country somewhere in the past. Agree with othet comments by Good Olfactory as well. Fram (talk) 06:52, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Many of the 19th century years contain one article eg 1814 in South Africa, so where would they go (into Category:1814 in Africa?) without Category:1814 in South Africa as they do not relate to one particular precursor state. Re the comparison with Germany (and Italy etc), the years in Germany do follow earlier German boundaries say pre-WWII or WWI, but eventually go back beyond the German Empire (1871) and German Confederation (1820?) to when Germany was just a number of German-speaking states. PS: The above three proposals should have been combined under one heading, to avoid having three discussions. Hugo999 (talk) 02:22, 11 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. While this discussion was ongoing, the nominator has created about two dozen-odd categories for "XXXX establishments in FOO", where FOO is one of the South African states or colonies: see [3]. This sort of development can't wait for these discussions to end to see if there is some sort of consensus? Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:57, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Question: We have three discussions on the same point. Can we close two of them and merge into the the third, so that we aren't repeating everything in three separate sections? - htonl (talk) 08:50, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The current practice when dealing with "establishment by country by year" categories for predecessor states seems to be uncertain. In Category:Establishments in the United States by year we see that the earliest category is for 1776 (though technically the US only existed from 1777), and in Category:Establishments in the United Kingdom by year the earliest category is for 1801, the date of union with Ireland. On the other hand, in Category:Establishments in Australia by year the categories go back before the Federation of Australia in 1901, and similarly in Category:Establishments in Canada by year they go back before Canadian Confederation in 1867. On reflection I would tend to feel that a single "in South Africa" category is probably best, since the categories are quite lightly populated anyway. The only issue is that before (and for some time after) 1910 the term "South Africa" was used to refer to what we now call "Southern Africa". It should be made quite clear that the "in South Africa" categories apply only to establishments in the states and territories that became part of the Union of South Africa. - htonl (talk) 09:11, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I am not sure the Canada issue is quite on point though. Canada was the accepted term for most of what is now Quebe and Ontario before the Confederation of Canada was formed incorporating other things. So we have for example Category:1860 establishments in Nova Scotia, that is a by country category and lacks a Canada parent. There is also the set of categories like Category:1925 establishments of Mandatory Palestine, although the issues there are different.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It absolutely should be! Examine the categories for pre-1867 "years in Canada". They include info about all the regions that are now part of Canada, and it has been like this for a long time now. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:05, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Split - These categories are just historically incorrect, and lead to massively strange situations. Split to Category:1906 establishments and Category:Establishments in Transvaal Colony, and Category:Establishments in South Africa would make more sense. This categorisation scheme should be thoroughly discussed with history WikiProjects and made more correct throughout. The rigid application of this scheme, which needs to be progressed because of the grand scheme of it is leading to single-article categories, or categories which by no means make any reasonable sense (there are categories in the scheme dating to far before Christ, when the concept of countries did not even exist, there are categories containing establishments in countries which were even disestablished before the country existed, etc. etc.). --Dirk BeetstraTC 07:59, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge -- What became South Africa was at this period a series of separate states, united as a dominion in 1910. There will be few articles in each category. We need a single category for each polity for the 1900s. It is a great pity that we have three discussions. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Agree re retaining Years in South Africa pre-1910. Apart from the number of small categories for various colonies or republics, where did earlier events like the Battle of Blood River in 1838 happen? And the Boer War battles (1899-1902) would be split over years for several colonies or republics. NB: there was a British High Commissioner for Southern Africa responsible for British colonies and protectorates from 1847 to 1964 (eg Alfred Milner), they were responsible for Basoutoland Beuchuanaland, Swaziland (and Rhodesia?) etc also. Hugo999 (talk) 02:05, 22 June 2013 (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.
Categories - Order of Loyalty to the Crown of Malaysia (General)[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 for now, but per Lquilter's comments, this is without prejudice to a future nomination for deletion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:03, 5 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To give to the category the right name of the Order. Mimich (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If kept this (and the related renaming items below) should be renamed properly, but I question whether this award-winner category should be kept at all. The primary purpose of this category is to use it to tag the award-winners, and those kinds of award categories are really disfavored for Wikipedia's category system; see WP:AWARD. Is there any reason why appropriate lists aren't sufficient and in fact better than categories to capture this information? categories are hard to police and can't be sorted in any useful way, and highly notable people are typically not notable for receiving awards, because the awards recognize their notability rather than confer individual notability. --Lquilter (talk) 12:38, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Categories - Order of Loyalty to the Crown of Malaysia (Sub 1)[edit]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To give to the category the right name of the Order. Mimich (talk) 12:01, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See my comment on the "general" nomination above. --Lquilter (talk) 12:39, 9 June 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 08:53, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can't really see the point of this category tbh, so why not just delete it. Number57 12:19, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and limit it to people from Cornwall, not some bloke claiming Cornish ancestry from Humberside or such. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:18, 12 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename this and also parent: Cornwall is not a nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:29, 17 June 2013 (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:Naval Aviation Hall of Honor inductees[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: That a person has been inducted into this HoF is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic (see WP:OC#AWARD). These people are notable as naval aviators (or similar), not notable as HoF inductees. There is a list at Naval Aviation Hall of Honor that can be more complete and contains dates. DexDor (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Retain. The category does no harm and offers a way of navigating easily between the inductees should someone be able to do so (which is the whole point of categories), providing a benefit to the general public when navigating Wikipedia. So it's hard to come up with a non-bureaucratic reason for deleting it. Furthermore, numerous examples of categories of military honorees exist on Wikipedia (by medals awarded, for example) and numerous examples of hall-of-fame inductees (including aviation halls of fame) exist on Wikipedia and commonly also are reflected in lists, so there is no logical justification for singling this one out for deletion while retaining all the others. Also, updating the category with new members is extremely easy, not burdensome, and can (and should) be done simultaneously with adding names to the list, as with other, similar categories. Multiple means of navigation are better than fewer means of navigation. Mdnavman (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2013 (UTC)mdnavman[reply]
Delete - As with most award-winner categories, this is overcategorization when applied to people, since people are generally notable for reasons other than receiving the award. This is particularly true with "Hall of Honor" awards which are ex post awards. The categories serve only to provide navigation and collect the award-winners, as Mdnavman above notes. But they're vastly inferior for that purpose for several reasons: (1) It's impossible to police inclusion/exclusion of articles from the category; and (2) there's no way to sort or add annotating information to the category listing. For this reason lists are much, much better approaches for navigating award-winners. .... As to Mdnavman's comments: (a) "does no harm" is not a useful rationale; (b) lots of examples exist is probably more because people create categories whenever they want but deletion takes a while to get to it; and (c) "multiple means of navigation are better than fewer" is only true to the extent that each means of navigation is actually accurate and helpful, but categories -- while easy to add to individual articles! -- are very difficult to maintain accurately. --Lquilter (talk) 12:44, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify (if necessary) and delete like most awards categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:30, 17 June 2013 (UTC)----[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: That some of a type (model) of car were assembled in a country different to the country of origin (design) is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic. Many of these cars were assembled in many countries (e.g. see Renault 8). This is the only "assembled in" category. This might work as a list. DexDor (talk) 05:27, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to retain the category If it is the only "assembled in" category, that might reflect the unusual situation of the Australian auto-industry. Government action (import taxes) for long years made it prohibitively expensive for people to buy cars that had been both designed and assembled abroad. Cars that had been designed abroad but were assembled in Oz gave work to Australians and so presumably were not so punitively taxed. Is there a case for "cars assembled in..." entries in respect of other countries? Needs discussion on a country by country basis. Australia is the only country I can think of with so many english speaking wiki users (this is English speaking wiki) likely to be interested, though New Zealand might come close - would come closer if there were 20 Million English speakers in NZ. Are there people who may select what they read according to the answer to the question that the category answers? In other words, are there people interested by the grouping of cars assembled in Australia? I would think there are, especially (but not exclusively) among people who grew up in and / or live in Australia. How many? Enough to justify the category? I would guess yes, but short of polling all the viewers of an entry I'm not sure how you test that. Is there any suggestion for an alternative category that might do the job better? I don't see it. In all the circumstances, I think the category should be retained. Regards Charles01 (talk) 05:46, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – not defining. South Africa assembles many makes of car. Nigeria assembles Peugeots. Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria and South Africa all assembled VW Beetles but this is incidental to the article VW Beetle. Oculi (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to retain the category I believe that the category should be retained given that it serves a useful purpose in summarizing and linking the various models which have been assembled in Australia over time. Many of these were actually manufactured in Australia, often with significant differences from the "home market" models. I would suggest that the rules are there to improve the product, not to result in the removal of useful and interesting information which is not readily available, in this grouped format, from any other source. Any satisfaction to be gained by seeing the rules strictly adhered to must be weighed up against the loss that this imposes on the content of this encyclopedia. GTHO (talk) 23:47, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So you are supporting a listify so that the reasons for being built there and the differences can be fully explained. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:17, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Vote to retain the category For an Australian car buyer it is a defining characteristic. I notice there is no record of vehicles assembled there before 1945. Eddaido (talk) 07:41, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (in response to the keep !votes above): The rules are there for a purpose - e.g. to maintain consistency across WP and to avoid having too many categories on articles (which can make categories less useful). If the rules (in particular WP:DEFINING) are relaxed to allow this category then should all the other possible "Cars assembled in <country>" categories also be allowed (note: applying different rules for English-speaking country categories would probably be controversial) ? Then what about categories such as "Drinks bottled in <country>" ? DexDor (talk) 20:38, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on comment. Yes, all other cars assembled in <country> categories should be allowed. Motor vehicle assembly is no longer a cottage industry suited to emerging nations and it is unlikely to develop in places like Burkina-Faso and so there is a natural limit to the quantity of countries / categories. Interestingly enough Australia may be about to pull out of the activity (Ford—this is manufacture—have announced no more Australian Fords will be developed), New Zealand did. But I would expect Burkina Coca Cola Bottlers (there's no mention of this industry in the WP article) to be in business very soon. Eddaido (talk) 23:25, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is the only so named category. We do not want to start categorizing cars by every country in which they may be assembled. Down that road lies madness.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:35, 9 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No they are not. To be manufactured is not the same as to be assembled, and the specific wording matters.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"Down that road lies madness". Now there is an interesting comment, what is it meant to mean / what are you trying to say? Eddaido (talk) 07:48, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is a plan that will lead to lots of cats being applied to many articles. Lots and lots of cars have been assembled in 3 or more countries. That usually tells us the location that some specific examples of the car were assembled in is not defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 15 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I just don't see justification in the WP:ILIKEIT arguments. Where a vehicle is assembled is not defining for the vehicle. It may be of interest for where jobs are are or for tax purposes, but again that is not defining for the vehicles. Even if defining for a country, it would be better covered in an article that explains why and the background. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:14, 14 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The way the motor industry is going, we will have many models assembled in many countries. This is too like a performacne by performer categoiry for my liking. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:32, 17 June 2013 (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.
