Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20[edit]

Category:Die Wende/Category:German reunification[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. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational: Both are about pretty much the same thing and they both contain all the same articles. Charles Essie (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess there is a distinction between the two, but they're both part of the same revolution, the thing is they're so inter-connected that I don't think they warrent separate categories. Charles Essie (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2014 (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:Largest cities by population (Global)[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear inclusion criteria; currently lists 18 cities, so why not the 19th? Then why not the 20th, etc. McGeddon (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a-no inclusion criteria. b-this is the type of thing better covered by a list, especially since it changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there, McGeddon. I am currently creating the Global Metropolises category & the Largest Cities by Population (Globally) category. I'm not desperately attached to keeping both categories, but I do think there is a subtle distinction. At this point, my plan is to add the 100 largest cities to each category but I think that as other's contribute to the categories they may grow to contain different datasets/cities and certainly people will find each caytegory for different reasons, from different searches on the search engine. I was inspired to create these categories because I was frustrated by how regionally atomized information was on the cities category page, and it seems to labor intensive to me to constantly edit and update pages like the "World's largest cities, since the same cities are usually going to appear on the list, but they are constantly changing ranks with each other. Does that make sense? Why do you want to delete the Global Metropolises category?
    Support/Include/Do Not Delete Sorry it's a bit unclear if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "oppose" or if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "support." I've discussed my arguments for inclusion in detail on the talk pages (see below). Basically I am frustrated by the regional atomization of city information as it is currently categorized on Wikipedia. I do not propose dismantling the current regional organization, I just think there should also be categories that are global in scope. I think a better option than deleting the categories at this point would be to create criteria for inclusion. Perhaps only cities with more than 1 million people should be included? What do you think should be the criteria?ThomasMikael (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - lack of inclusion criteria and redundant category. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Include/Do Not Delete(per WP:NOTVOTE) I've added inclusion critera to both pages. "Criteria for inclusion: cities must have a population above 1 million to be included in this category."ThomasMikael (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full discussion from both points of view is quoted below:

Content copied from User talk:ThomasMikael by that user
The concept of "global metropolises" seems a subjective one, with several competing lists - it's not clear which one your category is using, and it's probably a bad idea to make such a category without specifying. (From WP:CAT, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." - and global city is, I'd said, already that exact list article.)
Category:Largest cities by population (Global) may make sense renamed to something like "100 largest cities" so that the reader knows what to expect, but this feels a little arbitrary (why not 50 or 200?).
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20 is where these two are being discussed, though, so that's the best place to leave a comment about it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The concept of "global metropolises" seems a subjective one, with several competing lists." Can you refer me to the competing lists? I think you may have a fair point here, but when I was looking for a big exhaustive list of global metropolises, I couldn't find one.
I think your suggestion about changing the name to "100 largest cities" would make sense, except for the fact that this would then become a list that would have to be updated constantly--at the very least once a year--whereas if we leave it open and it grows to include 200 cities or 300 cities, that would only increase it's utility for researchers. I only have time to add 100 cities today, but I might return to add more, or someone else might continue to build the list, and I think that would be great personally. Does that make sense to you? I'm open to discussion about this obviously, I'm just stating my point of view here.ThomasMikael (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the global city article there - it lists six different indices. If you're open to discussion, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20 is the place to do this; I'd have that discussion before spending too much time adding the same 100 cities to two lists with different names. --McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished adding all of the top 100 cities to both categories--the ones that have currently existing Wikipedia pages. Creating pages for the cities that don't have pages but have million of citizens is out of scope for me today : ) At any rate, as per your suggestion, I will copy & paste this convo to the discussion page you referred me to, and we'll let other arbitrators chime in.
Making the cutoff is arbitrary which we discourage. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY, because it inevitably stops at xth-largest, and it is arbitrary to choose any value of x over x+1 or x-1.
    Fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, because the definition of a city's population depends on a choice of census boundaries or local govt boundaries, either of which may or may not encompass the city's full extent.
    These categories are unstable, because censuses are held at different intervals in difft countries, and as cities grow or expand their rankings change. This sort of data is much better handled in a list, which can explain all the different factors in each case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete we don't do "biggest", "largest", etc categories, nor do we have arbitrary cut-offs. If there was some grouping of "The United Nations Top 10 cities in the world" that was truly defining for these cities, you might have something, but I don't think such a thing exists. Category:Lists of cities by population is what you want, there are plenty of lists there, and more could be added if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could be a list (then the arbitrary cutoff would be just that — arbitrary.) Should not be a category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's especially odd about this category is that while its name suggests that it should only contain the one city which is the largest by population in any given country, in actual effect it's been added to almost any city with a population over one million even if that puts several cities per country into it. And I've even caught one case where instead of a city, the category had actually been added to an entire state of the United States. So in addition to the concerns about arbitrariness above, the category's name doesn't even correctly match its contents. We have plenty of lists that already cover this criterion quite well; we don't need a category for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a change to "Cities of over X million" , but "largest" is just vague and the cut off of 1 million as being "largest" is arbitrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The best way to deal with largest items is in a list, which can provide details of population and thus rank them in order. "Cities with a population over 1 million" would be a valid category, as would "Cities of over 10 million people" as its subcategory. However a list does the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2014 (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:Global metropolises[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Global cities was CfD'd a long time ago - the global city article provides a full six different ways to categorise them with no one system being canonical. McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No standard, agreed upon method of defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Include/Do Not Delete Sorry it's a bit unclear if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "oppose" or if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "support." I've discussed my arguments for inclusion in detail on the talk pages (see below). Basically I am frustrated by the regional atomization of city information as it is currently categorized on Wikipedia. I do not propose dismantling the current regional organization, I just think there should also be categories that are global in scope. I think a better option than deleting the categories at this point would be to create criteria for inclusion. Perhaps only cities with more than 1 million people should be included? What do you think should be the criteria?ThomasMikael (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Include/Do Not Delete I've added inclusion critera to both pages. "Criteria for inclusion: cities must have a population above 1 million to be included in this category."— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMikael (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 February 2014‎
(Striking out that bold and second WP:NOTVOTE, for clarity.) This personal definition seems unrelated to the concept of a global city ("a city generally considered to be an important node in the global economic system"). --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full discussion from both points of view is quoted below:

Content copied from User talk:ThomasMikael by that user, identical to collapsed content in above section
The concept of "global metropolises" seems a subjective one, with several competing lists - it's not clear which one your category is using, and it's probably a bad idea to make such a category without specifying. (From WP:CAT, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." - and global city is, I'd said, already that exact list article.)
Category:Largest cities by population (Global) may make sense renamed to something like "100 largest cities" so that the reader knows what to expect, but this feels a little arbitrary (why not 50 or 200?).
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20 is where these two are being discussed, though, so that's the best place to leave a comment about it. --McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
"The concept of "global metropolises" seems a subjective one, with several competing lists." Can you refer me to the competing lists? I think you may have a fair point here, but when I was looking for a big exhaustive list of global metropolises, I couldn't find one.
I think your suggestion about changing the name to "100 largest cities" would make sense, except for the fact that this would then become a list that would have to be updated constantly--at the very least once a year--whereas if we leave it open and it grows to include 200 cities or 300 cities, that would only increase it's utility for researchers. I only have time to add 100 cities today, but I might return to add more, or someone else might continue to build the list, and I think that would be great personally. Does that make sense to you? I'm open to discussion about this obviously, I'm just stating my point of view here.ThomasMikael (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the global city article there - it lists six different indices. If you're open to discussion, Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20 is the place to do this; I'd have that discussion before spending too much time adding the same 100 cities to two lists with different names. --McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just finished adding all of the top 100 cities to both categories--the ones that have currently existing Wikipedia pages. Creating pages for the cities that don't have pages but have million of citizens is out of scope for me today : ) At any rate, as per your suggestion, I will copy & paste this convo to the discussion page you referred me to, and we'll let other arbitrators chime in.
  • Delete per WP:OC. Subjective criteria and arbitrary cutoff. This sort of heavily-qualified material belongs in lists, not categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete while I sympathize with your efforts, there isn't an agreed upon definition of "Global metropolis" and as such we can't categorize accordingly, as such categorization would be subjective, and someone would always be coming along to say "Hey, my city X is *also* a global metroplis". It's rather easy and indisputable to say 'City x is in country Y' ,but saying "City X is DEFINITELY one of the top 10 cities on the globe", well, based on what? This cat isn't workable. delete--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; please consider WP:CSD#G4. Just because it has a different name, doesn't mean it's a different category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Arbitrary inclusion criteria; G4 as recreation of a deleted category without a good reason why the circumstances might have changed. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete completely arbitrary -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- Too vague. See comments on Largest cities (next item above). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2014 (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:Audio engineering schools in Canada etc[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 may still be some that need to be removed from Category:Audio engineering schools. I erred on the side of caution, so feel free to purge further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are some fields of education for which there are many institutions dedicated just (or mainly) to that field (e.g. agriculture or nursing). Audio engineering does not appear to be such a field; many universities/colleges may (currently) offer a course in that subject, but that's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an institution like University of Strasbourg or Texas State University.
There are a very small number (e.g. Ontario Institute of Audio Recording Technology, Salford Acoustics and Recording Workshop – RECW) which should be upmerged to the parent category which should be also be purged. The UK category was recently CFDed; I intend to withdraw that CFD in favour of this one. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Colleges and universities that offer a wide variety of programs should not be categorized as subject-specific schools in every single subject in which they happen to offer a program — that would just lead to extreme category bloat as each article gets progressively added to "subject schools" for every subject in which they offer a program. If we have a separate article about that specific program (which we often don't), then that article certainly belongs in the category, but the general overview article about the whole school does not. (For comparison's sake, Category:Journalism schools does not contain the main article about every college or university that happens to have a journalism program — it only contains articles that are specifically about the journalism programs themselves, as well as the relatively few institutions which exist solely as journalism schools.) And once the inappropriate articles are purged, the remaining ones that are specifically "audio engineering schools" won't be high enough in number to warrant subcategorization by country and should thus be upmerged into the parent. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all to Category:Audio engineering schools, and purge any article which is not specifically about audio engineering. Bearcat's cogent explanation of the clutter that will result from trying to categorise universities by every course they offer is a exactly right. Most universities offer courses in dozens or even hundreds of subjects, and this sor of categorisation should be nipped in the bud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I think having a Category:Audio engineering schools is inline with how post-high school educational institutions are organized. This, of course, would be for specific schools, not programs within a school. Liz Read! Talk! 00:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all but parent (Possibly after listifying) -- This is being misused so that it is a performacne category for univserities that have an audio engineering course. Keep parent for schools that teach nothing else; I expect there are a few. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If this was like law schools or medical schools where we had aritcles on the instutitions themselves (such as J. Reuben Clark Law School), it would work. However since these are institutions that grant this among other degrees (it is not clear there are even institutions that only grant this degree), we should not have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2014 (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/2014_February_20&oldid=1146512778"