Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 January 3

< January 2	January 4 >

January 3[edit]

Category:Communist parties in Northern Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger: Category:Communist parties in Northern Ireland into Category:Communist parties in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: There is considerable overlap between the two categories and most Irish communist parties operate in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Charles Essie (talk) 16:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, this category is also a child category of Category:Communist parties in the United Kingdom, next to England, Scotland and Wales. It doesn't make sense to have Northern Ireland disappear as a child of UK. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcocapelle. While the political status of Northern Ireland is certainly disputed, as of today it is still legally part of the United Kingdom — so "Northern Ireland" categories are always subcats of both "Ireland" and "United Kingdom" categories. If Northern Ireland ever actually leaves the UK and becomes part of the Republic of Ireland, then we can revisit how Northern Ireland categories are structured — but as of right now, the current context still demands that Northern Ireland remain in both sets of parent categories for the time being rather than simply disappearing into Ireland. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- the north and the south are separate polities. Republican organisations tend to left wing and amy be republican, hence operating on both sides of the border, but that is not a good ground for merger. This contrasts with those sports that are organised on an all-Irealnd basis. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2015 (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:Trotskyist organisations in Northern Ireland[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: do not merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:58, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger: Category:Trotskyist organisations in Northern Ireland into Category:Trotskyist organisations in Ireland

Nominator's rationale: There is considerable overlap between the two categories and most Irish Trotskyist organizations operate in both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland. Charles Essie (talk) 16:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, if this category would be merged, it should also be merged to Category:Trotskyist organisations in the United Kingdom, but the latter merge would be pretty confusing: we would have pages in the UK category that refer to the whole island of Ireland. Doesn't sound like a good idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Marcocapelle. While the political status of Northern Ireland is certainly disputed, as of today it is still legally part of the United Kingdom — so "Northern Ireland" categories are always subcats of both "Ireland" and "United Kingdom" categories. If Northern Ireland ever actually leaves the UK and becomes part of the Republic of Ireland, then we can revisit how Northern Ireland categories are structured — but as of right now, the current context still demands that Northern Ireland remain in both sets of parent categories for the time being rather than simply disappearing into Ireland. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as with Communist parties (above). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:50, 5 January 2015 (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:Musicians from Fræna[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 as proposed and to Category:Musicians from Møre og Romsdal. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:55, 18 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Musicians from Fræna to Category:People from Fræna

Also propose merging-

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. All categories with just 1 or 2 entries. ...William 13:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support merge All the places have populations of 10,000 or significantly less. Division of their people by occupation is overkill for navigation as there will not be much content to begin with. A double merge to Category:Musicians from Møre og Romsdal should make the county category much more useful and easy to use. FYI @WilliamJE: There may be a few more in that category that are worth adding to the nomination. SFB 22:37, 6 January 2015 (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.

EU/Euratom treaty categorization corrected/consistent[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. (NAC) Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:11, 23 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Treaties of the European Atomic Energy Community to Category:Treaties entered into by the European Atomic Energy Community
Propose renaming Category:Treaties of the European Union with third countries to Category:Treaties entered into by the European Union

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

International organisations have 2 different relationships with treaties: they i) are generally constituted by a treaty and ii) they may enter into treaties themselves as a party. The membership of the latter treaties is with many international organizations now termed "Category: treaties entered into [name of the organization]", while "treaties of" is referring to their constuent treaties. I propose to rename the Euratom and the EU treaty category for consistency. The EU category is presently termed Category:treaties of the European Union with third countries and is also incorrect, as is encompasses many treaties open also to EU states and not only with "third countries".... L.tak (talk) 09:57, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. This is much better for these! As noted, the proposal matches the convention of subcategories of Category:Treaties entered into by intergovernmental organizations. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:37, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per standard phrasing which is just as relevant here. SFB 03:26, 18 January 2015 (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.

Radio stations by frequency[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. MER-C 11:30, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting the following categories:

Nominator's rationale: Delete. A similar discussion took place over 5 years ago when a couple of categories were created under a different style of naming (see WP:CFD Log 2009 July 1). The consensus then was to delete and, for the same reasons listed then, these should probably be deleted again. The frequency of a radio station does not seem defining as the call letters, format, ownership at a specific frequency can change often. Also, I don't see any true connection or relationship between a radio station in California at a certain frequency and a radio station in Florida at the same frequency. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 01:10, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

We allow lists of radio stations at any given frequency (see {{Lists of radio stations by frequency}}) because of the marginal benefit that such lists might offer in helping people to find an article about a station whose title they don't already know — but categorizing radio stations by their frequency is unhelpful and unencyclopedic overcategorization on a characteristic that is not a meaningful or substantive point of commonality between stations on the same frequency or of distinction between stations on different ones, and which does nothing to help readers accomplish anything of value. The only thing a frequency tells you about a radio station is what number you have to turn to on your radio to listen to it — it doesn't "define" a radio station or its programming in any other significant or encyclopedic way. (The benefit of the lists is that you can add cities of license for search-narrowing — but using a category for the same purpose served by the list, you'd have to systematically click through each entry one by one with no help cues.) Delete, for the same reasons as last time. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was going to suggest listify until Bearcat pointed out that they already are. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was against this idea five years ago for the same reasons so eloquently expressed above already, and I'm no less against it now. Mlaffs (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is completely non-defining. kennethaw88 • talk 05:23, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I set this up for one reason: there is no means available to find a radio station by what stations are at a specific frequency. There is an equivalent set of category pages listing Television Stations, you can look up a TV station by its physical channel number or by its virtual channel number. It seems strange that it is acceptable to allow TV stations to be organized by channel number but FM stations should not also be organized by their known assignment (which is by frequency). Is FM radio so worthless to not be entitled to 1/2 of the same treatment as broadcast television, since TV has category pages by physical channel and also by virtual channel? Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:39, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly read WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Just because some editors have categorized TV stations by channel number doesn't mean it's necessarily a good idea in that instance either — it just means nobody had nominated them for deletion yet. But guess what's happened now? Bearcat (talk) 19:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to note this is a category set, not a main space page set. This allows each station to be marked with the category as opposed to editing a main space page. Thus, someone seeing a particular station can find others of the same number and the collection - by using a category - is automatic. It still hasn't been shown why the exact same practice - category by broadcast frequency assignment - made by TV stations is unacceptable for FM radio stations. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:45, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

And why is finding other completely unrelated radio stations that merely happen to broadcast on the same frequency something that anybody actually needs to do? The point of the lists has nothing to do with a comprehensive list of all stations on any given frequency being a thing that anybody actually needs (trust me, nobody does). Rather, they exist because people might know the frequency and approximate location of a particular radio station, but not know its call sign — and while the list can thus help them find the right station since it can also note the locations, a category can't offer any contextual cues to help them do anything except click one by one through each individual station in the category until they finally find the one they're looking for. But helping to locate a particular radio station is the only value that listing radio stations by frequency serves — finding a comprehensive directory of all radio stations that happen to be on the same frequency as each other but have no other substantive point of commonality, just for the sake of knowing what unrelated stations happen to be on that frequency, isn't something anybody needs. Bearcat (talk) 18:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Third, presuming the use of categories is so horribly bad it has to be stopped, how exactly do we have these pages for the individual stations automatically link to their frequency main space page - thus preventing those pages from becoming erroneous or inaccurate as new pages are added - as opposed to a category? Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 11:50, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Don't hold your breath waiting for an answer to your entirely reasonable point. :( --Chaswmsday (talk) 23:44, 9 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

DElete -- Even if this is useful to some Americans, it is of little value to anyone else. BBC Radio 3 is broadcast to me by various transmitters with frequencies between 90 and 92, but I do not see it in the categories. FM transmissions are inevitably local, because a line of sight is needed between the transmitter and receiver. Any such categories are essientially parochial. I see not reason why the categories should not be listified, but it is nopt a suitable subject for a cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as this is useful information (per User:Rfc1394 above, but not defining of a subject to warrant categorisation. SFB 09:46, 6 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- As noted above, such lists already exist (e.g. 104.5 FM). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 18:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, the lists are even easier to find than that: 104.5. kennethaw88 • talk 00:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. My views haven't changed since the close of the previous discussion; I think it's overcategorization. There was a strong consensus to delete then, and it looks like opinions are unchanged. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:50, 14 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is categorization by trivial overlap. The fact that two stations happen to broadcast at the same frequency tells us nothing about the stations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 1 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as while the frequency on which an individual radio station transmits is as much a defining characteristic as community of license or radio format, it doesn't give it anything in common with other stations sharing that frequency except the potential for interference under the wrong conditions. Just as we don't have categories for people born on a Tuesday or left-handed people, this category can go by the wayside. (I'm surprised this is still open a month after a whole month without comment.) - Dravecky (talk) 07:27, 3 March 2015 (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:Memorial roads of Canada[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) 23:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Deleting Category:Memorial roads of Canada

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME, WP:NON-DEFINING and WP:TRIVIALCAT. This category groups roads in Canada with the word "memorial" in their name. Basically, when a new road is opened and a politician says "I dedicate this to the troops" it will end up in this category even though the actual memorial is usually limited to a plaque at a rest stop. In almost every case, the road is not commonly known by the "memorial" name so we're really categorizing by redirect/alternate name which seems trivial. (Exception: One bridge in the category named after the construction workers who died building it is defining as a memorial but it's already well categorized.)RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Canada. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:23, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, it's worth noting that we don't have Category:Memorial roads categories for any other country either, even though many other countries have roads that could be categorized that way (e.g. the numerous roads in the US named after Martin Luther King, Jr.) — and this isn't more of a defining trait when it happens in Canada than it is when it happens in the US or Australia or the UK or Germany or Tanzania. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am inclined to agree with Bearcat and RevelationDirect, memorial roads is not a category of road, it's a dedication, which really does not define the road (for categorization purposes). --kelapstick^(bainuu) 13:42, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Memorial" names can be theoretically Lougheed Highway, Gaglardi Way, Dewdney Trail though perhaps "commemorative" or another word is more useful. On all those names, as per BC practices, the person was alive at the time of naming; BC is a bit odd in that living politicians put their names on of what they've built/ordered e.g. WAC Bennett Dam, Lake Williston, Gordon M Shrum Generating Station. So "memorial" wouldn't fit anyways.Skookum1 (talk) 04:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There does seem to be some belated renaming of highways for these purposes, with a section of the 401 now christened "Highway of Heroes" because of military funeral processions, which is as "memorial" as it gets even if it's not in the name. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:24, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- not defining. In addition there will be a problem as to whehter the road is named as a memorial or merely named after a person. The use of personal names for roads is far too common to be defining. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:53, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_26#Category:Memorial_highways. DexDor (talk) 06:57, 7 January 2015 (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:Social justice activists of Nova Scotia[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; merge contents to Category:Canadian activists. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:30, 12 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Social justice activists of Nova Scotia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category is an odd duck, simultaneously too broad and too narrow to serve as a legitimate category. On the "broad" end of the issue, Wikipedia does not maintain Category:Social justice activists categories for any other country, state, province or territory on earth, as the term encompasses an extremely wide variety of fields of activism and is thus too vague to be useful — rather, activists are categorized much more specifically by the particular topic they were activists for (e.g. environmentalism, anti-poverty, LGBT rights, civil rights, etc.) rather than just as "social justice". And on the narrow end of the matter, Category:Canadian activists is not subdivided by province or territory that the person happens to be from, per our rules against overcategorization by location. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This entry might is a bit vague and is also too close for comfort to the negative term "Social Justice Warriors"--Lenticel ^(talk) 01:40, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Canadian activists for the same reason. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:32, 3 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "activists" by our own article has not consistent, agreed-upon, meaning that distinguishes one person from another. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:02, 5 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Canadian activists. Not a terrible idea for a category but one that is way off the structure at the moment which makes navigation problematic. No opposition to recreation should a much larger social justice activists be created (I'm assuming that actually won't be the case as that is not specific enough). SFB 22:40, 6 January 2015 (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.