Category:Wikipedians who have visited User:UBX/Userboxes/Userboxes[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 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.
English footballers by place (small 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.
Keep Football has a rich tradition in England and often the place their born has a say in where the footballer starts their career. Although some of the articles here are small, there is the potential from growth and new articles so I don't think WP:SMALLCAT applies. Inter&anthro (talk) 14:21, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- Players will almost inevitably start their careers in youth teams where they are brought up. Plain deletion loses us data. My preference would be to merge these upwards to county categories, such as Category:Footballers from Buckinghamshire and possibly also Category:People from Dacorum (district), assuming that I have correctly remembered where Dacorum lies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to counties makes sense; I'm not convinced to districts would be useful except where county categories are very large. Severo (talk) 19:13, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to 'footballers from county' and 'people from place' categories. Oculi (talk) 15:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to counties/districts. These towns aren't notable for a category, but keeping the data is a good idea. Joseph2302 (talk) 22:03, 3 March 2016 (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.
Ah, those are deliberate shared name categories, I didn't know they exist. As these categories are apparently accepted, I suppose the nominated category should also be kept and renamed to Category:Memorials of Skanderbeg. Or otherwise the entire tree of Category:Monuments and memorials by person should be nominated for deletion, but personally I wouldn't expect any consensus for that. In other words: withdraw nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 25 February 2016 (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:convert to list within section of article, as nominated. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:58, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- Several of the items need purging as they seem effectively to be redirecting to the British queen, as monarch of certain Commonwealth countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:52, 21 February 2016 (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 shows set in Buenos Aires[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: All the pages in the category are television programs produced in Buenos Aires, so their plot is set in Buenos Aires basically by default. So, it is a trivial categorization in all cases. The category would not be trivial for some hypothetical show set in Buenos Aires and produced somewhere else, but none of the articles is like that and I'm not aware of any show that may fit that description. Cambalachero (talk) 13:35, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Where a show is produced has little relevance to a category by setting. This in not trivia and the category is well-populated. Dimadick (talk) 14:40, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose where a show is set is germane to its categorization and not trivial. Where shows just happen to be in an unnamed big city, then there aren't set in Buenos Aires even if produced there. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:15, 25 February 2016 (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.
Sportspeople from Canadian small cities and small towns[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:upmerge categories with under 10 members, manually checking that they are in a sportspeople by province category. In practice, it was easy in most cases to add more members from the parent category, so only Fort Saskatchewan needed merging. – FayenaticLondon 16:18, 21 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge all. The following sportspeople categories will be upmerging. Because the sportspeople from small cities and small towns are considered too small. And the cities and towns are too small because of the smallest population, mostly towns. Here are the upmerging details. The sportspeople categories have how many articles currently, to the existing "people from categories" for a grand total of articles after upmerging. The maximum of articles on a single category page is 200. From now on the categories will be upmerged, and sometime in the near future someone or I can re-create these Sportspeople categories, but only if it's big enough. Steam5 (talk) 03:14, 19 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what criterion these are being proposed on. Strictly speaking, WP:SMALLCAT aoplies to none of them, because that refers to categories with just one, two or three entries and not categories with 15, 20 or 30 — there are a couple here where the number of entries is low enough that they may as well be deleted anyway, but none where the number of entries mandates deletion under SMALLCAT. And while the geographic location is not a defining characteristic of the person per WP:OCLOCATION, that rule does permit geographic location to be used as a way to reduce the size of a very large parent category — so if any given province's "Sportspeople from Province" category is large enough to warrant subcatting, which they are, then the size of any given city's "People from individiual city within that province" category doesn't matter: because "Sportspeople from Province" is populated into the thousands, the city subcategories are allowed to exist regardless of how populated the "People from City" categories are or aren't. Accordingly, I would delete Aurora, County of Brant, Fort Saskatchewan, Kindersley, Meadow Lake, Steinbach and Tillsonburg, because they're all in the single digits — but keep the rest, as they're all populated well enough to be useful, and the "Sportspeople from Province" categories do need the diffusion pipe. Bearcat (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My take on WP:SMALLCAT gets us up to 4 articles, but that still doesn't apply. Maybe it's better to group sportspeople at the provincial level but that's a different argument. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge if Upmerged All of these should be upmerged to the sportspeople by province categories if these categories go away per Lugnuts. (I'm neutral on the whether to keep them though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 22:47, 20 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all those with at least 30 articles (or thereabouts, 2 or 3 articles in a category aren't useful but a category with more than 30 is, in my view), double upmerge for those with less than 30 articles without prejudice to recreate if they do get to a sizeable number of articles in future. Severo (talk) 12:34, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many. I can imagine that for biography categories a higher WP:SMALLCAT cut-off than for topic categories is useful (for topic categories the number of 5 is often mentioned), but even with biographies I wouldn't go any further than 10 or 15 or so, in order not to overpopulate the province categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many -- I also do not know where the cut-off should be, whether 5, 10, or 15. I certainly would not go higher than that. Full upmerge (to all parents) on the rest. Should the target be a county for the smallest categories? Peterkingiron (talk) 17:57, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hold on users, remember what my Nominator's rationale said. It says on my nominator's rationale "The maximum of articles on a single category page is 200". So all sportspeople categories might be upmerge all. Not talking about WP:SMALLCAT. Steam5 (talk) 19:20, 21 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Most articles does feature hockey players. Hockey player articles should kept Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario for e.g.. If it's a hockey player from Ontario article, it should kept as Category:Ice hockey people from Ontario, So Category:Sportspeople from Ontario is not needed, but if it's hockey player article. Steam5 (talk) 00:01, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, so you mean a double upmerge is highly undesirable because (nearly) all sportspeople are in a subcategory at provincial level already. That makes sense, I also noticed a soccer subcategory and some others. So that's an important point. Still, I would keep my hesitance towards too much merging, but then more because too much merging would hinder navigation at a local level. Not only would it become difficult to find sportspeople at local level but also, for examples, if you're looking for local politicians in a certain place, they are now easier to find because you can skip the sportspeople to begin with. After merging you would also need to check the sportspeople to find politicians. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:30, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The thing you're missing is that these subcategories are not only parented by "People from City"; they're also parented by "Sportspeople from Province". And the "Sportspeople from Province" categories are large enough to require subcatting, regardless of the size of any individual "People from City" category. There's no rule that all of the parent categories have to be over 200 people before an intersecting subcategory can be created — if one of the parents is large enough to require subcat diffusion, then that's enough in and of itself and any city which has enough sportspeople from it to escape WP:SMALLCAT is allowed to have one of these regardless of how big its own "People from City" category is or isn't. Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Partial support for some - only those where the proposed category is under 10 articles (based on the numbers in the nomination, this isn't the case for most; the numbers may change before the discussion is closed); and also upmerge them to the province category (unless they are also in some other subcat, such as the subcat for some specific sport in the province). עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 11:57, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Based on User:Steam5's earlier comments I checked a number of articles and in fact by far the most of them are already in a subcat of a province. So it should be either a manual dual merge or an automated single merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:17, 23 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all. Clear overcategorisation. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most. Not sure where to draw the line, but some of these cities are large enough to warrant sub categories. -- Earl Andrew - talk 20:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the users have spoken. The users are in favor to upmerge all, the discussion is expecting to close in 24 hours or Saturday. Steam5 (talk) 00:58, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Those are two wrong conclusions. 1) There is clear consensus about upmerge some but no agreement on any more than that. Note that it is up to the closing admin of the discussion to determine whether or not to upmerge some or all, not only by judging the discussion but also by keeping the guidelines into account. Note that in this discussion I haven't seen any references to guidelines that would support the merge other than WP:SMALLCAT. 2) The discussion is expected to close on Saturday at earliest but I would be quite surprised if the discussion would really be closed so soon, especially while there is no general agreement. It can also take two more months. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:42, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep most Some of these categories are big enough that the subcategory is warranted. Not sure where to draw the line (20 pages? 30 pages?), but we definitely shouldn't be upmerging all of them. Canuck89(have words with me) 07:50, February 28, 2016 (UTC)
I have removed one category off the board. The category will be keep is Category:Sportspeople from Burnaby. I, repeat, Category:Sportspeople from Burnaby is removed and will be kept. Steam5 (talk) 00:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the second category off the board. The second category will be keep is Category:Sportspeople from Red Deer, Alberta. Steam5 (talk) 01:01, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I almost forgot, will all of the remaining proposed categories be an Upmerge all after I remove and keep the Burnaby and Red Deer sportspeople categories? Steam5 (talk) 21:06, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Why so? The Moose Jaw category has still no less than 40 entries and there are many left with numbers in the 30s and 20s. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Tell you what, if anything over 40 articles on any of the sportspeople categories. I will remove one off the board and will be keep. So, thanks for the reply. Steam5 (talk) 07:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
40 articles is not the minimum baseline for a category like this — anything with even 10 articles in it is large enough to keep. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not you, Bearcat, I am talking to User:Marcocapelle. Steam5 (talk) 03:41, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is your question again (insofar not answered by Bearcat already)? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Anybody is allowed to reply to any comment in the discussion — you don't get to play the "I was talking to so-and-so, not you, so you're not allowed to say anything at all" game. Bearcat (talk) 08:58, 3 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The third category that is going removed and is going to keep, first it's Burnaby, the second one is Red Deer, Alberta, the third category is off the board and will be keep is Category:Sportspeople from Moose Jaw. Steam5 (talk) 01:26, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all none of these categories are large enough to justify splitting by occupation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all. This entire nomination is nothing but a POV-fest. I'm not willing to support the destruction of a fully fleshed, standardized category tree because someone waltzed in with a personal definition of "too small". Also, procedural keep all due to the number of people making it clear that there are far too many categories nominated and that some should be kept. Arbitrarily removing the odd category doesn't 'fix' this problem, imnsho. Resolute 00:35, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's too late user, The majority of users are in favour of upmerge all. And I hate to say this but you're comments are very late by the last moment and this discussion will be closed very soon. Steam5 (talk) 00:58, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My, aren't you the presumptuous one. Incidentally, are you the same person who has been periodically emptying some of these categories out of process using IPs, or is that just coincidence? Resolute 01:10, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No, I was temporary inactive from Wikipedia a few months ago for a long break. Steam5 (talk) 01:15, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
M'kay. I found this discussion because an IP tried emptying a category with over two dozen entries this very day, and which is still included in your CFD here. Which is a major reason why the number of "keep some" comments should invalidate this entire discussion. Someone is running around trying to make your desired goal a fait accompli, and it's hard to tell how many articles these categories do or did contain before all this nonsense started. Resolute 01:19, 18 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I find it curious that you started this CFD exactly one week after I reverted *hundreds* of articles that were arbitrarily removed from these sportspeople categories by an anon using multiple IPs. I think I might be a fool if I thought that mere coincidence given there are four "per nom" supports by IPs in this discussion also. Resolute 01:23, 18 April 2016 (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.
