Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 March 31

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 30 April 1 >

March 31[edit]

Category:Bishops appointed by Clement XI[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, per author's consent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:37, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate category. DexDor (talk) 21:19, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. My fault for creating.Patapsco913 (talk) 22:25, 31 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.

Category:Regions of Armenia[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 as suggested in nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:01, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was moved from "Provinces" to "Regions" in 2014 without discussion, but "Provinces" appears to be more appropriate, since all of the articles about the entities are called "XXX Province" and the subcategories use "by province" terminology. I suggest that the category be moved back, over the redirect. (Both Provinces of Armenia and Regions of Armenia redirect to Administrative divisions of Armenia, an article about all levels of the country's subdivisions. There is no dedicated article for just the provinces.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:10, 31 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.

Category:Patient[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: keep. There is clearly no consensus to delete. While there is quite a bit of talk of renaming, specific suggestions for an alternative name haven't been forthcoming or thoroughly discussed. A more focused discussion regarding renaming with specific options offered would be more helpful than relisting this meandering discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:08, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Patient was recently created as a new category. Category:Patients has existed for several years. No need for both categories. Typically, categories about types of people are pleural. Scott Alter (talk) 18:58, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's extended rationale: I fail to see the distinction between content in both categories. Both Category:Patients and Category:Patient are about patients. These are the same entity, and not like the completely different things of Queens (place in NYC) and Category:Queens (monarchy). For related medical examples, there is only Category:Physicians and Category:Nurses, which are both combined "people" categories and "concept" categories. They contain both articles about physicians and nurses, respectively, in addition to biographies of people in those roles as subcategories. If someone could actually explain the difference and reason for both categories, then maybe I would understand.
Furthermore, none of the "X patients" categories should even exist with those names. The proper "people" container category is Category:People by medical or psychological condition. The 3 subcategories of Category:Patients (Category:Coma patients‎, Category:Ebola patients‎, and Category:Psychiatric patients‎) should all go through CFD and be renamed something like "People with X", and be within Category:People by medical or psychological condition. These subcategories may even need to be deleted altogether. There have even been previous CFDs to rename categories of people with a disease (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 2#Category:Cancer patients). There also have been many CFDs to delete categories for patients with a disease, if the disease is not a defining characteristic of the person (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 January 13#Category:People with gastritis, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 13#Category:People with arthritis, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 29#Category:People with gout, Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 13#Category:People with Dupuytren's contracture for a few).
  1. Category:Coma patients is probably not a defining characteristic for the people in that category, but rather the underlying cause for the coma would be. Category probably needs to be deleted.
  2. Category:Psychiatric patients is non-specific. Category should be deleted and articles recategorized in to: Category:People with anorexia nervosa, Category:People with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, Category:People on the autism spectrum, Category:People diagnosed with dissociative identity disorder, Category:People with factitious disorders, Category:Hypochondriacs, Category:People with mood disorders, Category:People with bipolar disorder, Category:People with schizophrenia, Category:People with social anxiety disorder, etc.
  3. Category:Ebola patients‎ should be renamed to something else...maybe something like "People cured of Ebola".
I don't think we need to do CFDs for the above 3 patient subcategories right now, but that should tell you that Category:Patients is not and should not be a "people" category; and there really is no distinction between Category:Patient and Category:Patients. --Scott Alter (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – but rename to include medicine. Yet another example of a category whose name cannot follow the article. Category:Patients is a people category so a merge is not sensible. Oculi (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi:Even a WP:C2D zealot like me has to admit that the main article's usefulness as a category name frays when plurals come into it, like with Queens and Category:Queens. We have a nice tree called Category:Individual physical objects to try and address that problem and I'm wondering if that model would work with biography articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:31, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category Patients is explicitly a people category, being a subcat of 'People with ...'. The name 'Patients' is not ideal either but that category is not at cfd. Oculi (talk) 10:46, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This might be changing the actual purpose of the categories. Doing this makes Category:Patients into a strictly "people" category, which it should not be, and I do not think it needs to be. --Scott Alter (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The intent of having the separate categories appears to be to have a separate people category from my perspective. (Whether or not that's a good goal, I'm unsure.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:21, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The two non-biography articles I moved from Category:Patients to Category:Patient are Patient and Patient Check-In. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Containerize "Patients" These are two different topic areas. I'm hoping containerization would reduce the amount of manual cleanup and there are no loose articles in Category:Patients. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:26, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please explain what the different topic areas are? Both refer to patient. If Category:Patient really is a different topic area, then it needs a much better name. I can't tell the two apart. --Scott Alter (talk) 06:54, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think what users are getting at is the difference between "topic" and "set" categories. "Patient" could be a topic category whereas "Patients" would be a set category. However, like you, I'm not sure that we need this distinction. This should probably be combined into what's discussed in the guidelines as a "topic-and-set category". Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support/Expand Category:Patients is now effectively a container category so there's no issue with the merge at this point. (My purging of the two loose article may be controversial though, see above.) I would not support putting any loose biography articles into that combined category per WP:SEPARATE though. (I'd also be open to removing/recasting the 3 patient biography subcats that Scott Alter outline in his expanded explanation.) RevelationDirect (talk) 12:39, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep as they are different- one is "topic" the other "set"--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:06, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Related Nominations Two of the three subcategories of Category:Patients are nominated in tomorrow's CFD. Your input (pro/con/other) is welcome. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:25, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I just nominated the third subcategory as well (for CFR). It's in the next day's CFD. --Scott Alter (talk) 02:38, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Procedural Hold If all three of those nominations pass (and I don't assume they will or won't), Category:Patients will be subject to a speedy delete and this conversation is moot. (I guess we could still rename the remaining category to add the "S" but that's a narrower conversation.) RevelationDirect (talk) 10:40, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        If the 3 nominations pass, I'd hope that Category:Patients would not be speedy deleted. Before Category:Patient was created last week, Category:Patients had more content besides just these 3 subcategories. If there is just one "Patient[s]" category, I'd prefer the plural form. But yes, the outcomes of the 3 other CFDs would change the direction this discussion has headed. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - there's enough articles to justify a separate topic category, but Category:Patient is a truly horrible name for that topic. I'd go for something like Category:Hospital care or Category:Medical care - the former in particular would allow a cleanup of Category:Hospitals, which (after some specific hospitals were knocked down into the appropriate category) could probably become a container category once the likes of Nightingale ward and Hospital volunteer were moved into a "care" category. As for Category:Patients, I'm in two minds, it's not great but it's not terrible either. Prolonged hospitalisation certainly can be a "thing", and a coma is a)more definable and b)more notable than the underlying disease. Think of Elaine Esposito, Tony Bland or the Terri Schiavo case where the coma is the main reason they're notable, or Sunny von Bülow where the coma was indisputable but two courts (and lots of top medical opinion) came to opposite opinions on what the underlying cause was. Or even someone like Ariel Sharon where the coma of a political leader has political consequences.Le Deluge (talk) 13:33, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    Agreed that Category:Patient is a bad name for that collection of things. Category:Patients has been around for a few years, and Category:Patient is brand new. But "Hospital care" or "Medical care" is overbroad for this, too. Maybe this collection of things in Category:Patient, all containing the word "patient", is not even necessary. All pages and categories in Category:Patient are already better categorized elsewhere. The solution might be to delete both categories. --Scott Alter (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is factually incorrect, I checked 6 articles in the category and 5 of them were not in any of the three before mentioned categories (and frankly, wouldn't belong in any of the three categories either). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Possible Delete -- Yes they are different. I am relying on Scott Alter that everything already has an appropriate category. If not, I would have voted to rename the target Category:Patients to Category:Patients by condition (or disease) and Category:Patient to Category:Patients, with the other as its subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (don't merge or delete), this is a defining subtopic within the healthcare tree. No objection to rename if anyone has a good idea, but haven't seen the good idea yet. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:25, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed that this is a defining subtopic within the healthcare tree. Essentially, this is a proposal to rename Category:Patient to Category:Patients (which needs to be merged, since Category:Patients already exists). It's rare to have a category for a type of person in the singular form on Wikipedia. If someone has a better name than "Patient", please propose it. Lacking a better name, I think that "Patients" is better than "Patient". --Scott Alter (talk) 13:59, 5 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't agree that merging is a good idea. The two categories are completely different. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:31, 9 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point of Category:Patient is to look at healthcare from the receiving end. Maybe it should be merged with Category:Patient advocacy, which is also not a very good name. "Patient empowerment" or "Patient activation" are sometimes used in the UK. But in any case it's not the same thing as Category:Patients.Rathfelder (talk) 21:58, 5 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.

Category:Comedy and humor by nationality[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: split as per nom with no decision on which category should be the parent (if any). There is no consensus on that issue, but there is clear consensus that this is worth splitting. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:25, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Post-closure note: for the record, I used Category:Humour by nationality rather than Humor, per parent Category:Humour; and the Filipino category went to Category:Philippine comedy per Category:Philippine culture. – Fayenatic London 21:25, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


  • Propose splitting:
further country nominations
Nominator's rationale: While it may often seem easier to combine two related categories, this combined catch-all category makes for a rather complicated and inconsistent category tree, being merged and split again at different levels. It also leads to subcategories in the Category:Humorists by nationality tree being very inconsistently defined and categorized as non-performing, humo(u)rous writers only, or including comedians.
    Now from the articles Humour, Humorists, and Comedian, it is obvious that comedy refers to various kinds of humo(u)rous material being performed to an audience. It therefore is a subgenre of humo(u)r. This definition also meets common sense: while performing stand-ups may usually be more specifically referred to as comedians, they are without a doubt just as well humorists, just not humo(u)rists writers. Satire, while sometimes less obvious in being humo(u)rous, is a specific genre that may be related to (performed) comedy as well as to other presentation forms of humo(u)r, while at the same time being serious in criticizing aspects of society.
    Furthermore, the ancient Greek comedy was humo(u)rous, too, but clearly not the only kind of humour existing in ancient Greek times. Jokes, an important feature of a number of cultures, are clearly humour but not comedy. All in all it seems "comedy" is a concept in Western culture, that while originating in the ancient Greek comedy, has been renewed and redefined by contemporary Western, mostly American stand-up comedy, but continues to compete with other humo(u)rous traditions. "Humour" on the other hand is a broader, rather universal concept, that in one way or other exists in probably all cultures, and often goes beyond mere entertainment.
    Taken together, I didn't find an example of comedy that may not be considered humourous, while there are many kinds of humor that are not included in either definition of comedy. As the current situation is not very viable, we should absolutely split this category tree and reparent comedy as a child category of humo(u)r, and comedians as a child category of humo(u)rists. I also propose categorizing only the comedy subtree under Category:Entertainment by country, while the parent "humor" tree should live in Category:Culture by nationality.
    It also seems the "Comedian" genre is a questionable designation for quite a number of biographies in non-Anglophone countries, but we while we can't fix that here, these may be purged over time. In this case it wouldn't be unexpected if some of the smaller Category:Comedy by nationality categories fell empty, which however doesn't constitute a problem. Finally, if participants in this discussion prefer going beyond my proposal to additionally split apart Category:Humorist writers or Category:Humorist (writers) from Category:Humorists, so the writers don't get mixed with other kinds of humorists, then I'd be absolutely fine with that. --PanchoS (talk) 16:06, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
All tagged and completed nomination. --PanchoS (talk) 23:00, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/oppose "comedy...therefore is a subgenre of humo(u)r" - it's complicated, as words change their meanings in time. In particular, "comedian" is not a subgenre of "humorist". From a British perspective, for me a "humorist" is a slightly archaic word that refers to the creator of a certain gentle form of written humour, particularly from the first half of the 20th century. My Shorter OED says it especially applies to someone who creates humour in literary or artistic forms, for me someone like James Thurber is the archetypal humorist (the fact that he did short stories and cartoons ticks both boxes for the OED). My Pocket OED says it's a writer or speaker - I can't quite see a modern Brit referring to a witty after-dinner speaker as a humorist, but at the same time it's more plausible than calling them a comedian. So any inconsistency in the tree reflects the problem that "humorist" was popular when humour was mostly written, comedian reflects more of a performance culture (although I'd suggest that British music hall tradition has at least as much to do with it as anything from the US). Perhaps the best way to resolve it would be to get away from the word "Humo(u)r" altogether, which also solves the WP:ENGVAR issue. I know they're not quite the same thing, but maybe re-engineering it into the existing Category:Laughter hierarchy or a new Category:Wit tree might be a more elegant way of doing it so that comedians and humorists are sisters rather than mother/daughter? Le Deluge (talk) 14:03, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Le Deluge: While stand-up comedians may be considered humorists, I agree with you that "humorist" is a too narrow term to accommodate all kinds of comedians. Please note though that I didn't even suggest that. All I'm saying is that comedy is a form of humour. The correct (though obviously not complete) relations should be as follows:
                                  CULTURE
                                /         \
                      ENTERTAINMENT        ARTS
                     /             \        |
                  HUMOUR        PERFORMING ARTS
                 /      \      /
                /        COMEDY
               /          |   \
Writers    Humorists      |    \       Writers
    \       |  \          |     \         |
    Humorists   \  Comedians  Comedy writers
    (writers)    \     |
             Stand-up comedians
All of this is however beyond the scope of my nomination. Again, all I'm saying is that all in all, comedy is a form of humour (and in many if not most cultures a subordinate one). As humour clearly is the parent term, the by-country subcategories should follow the precedent of Category:Comedy being already categorized as a child of Category:Humour. Cheers, PanchoS (talk) 19:51, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@PanchoS: "While stand-up comedians may be considered humorists" - You're missing my point, which is that this is not true. Per the OED, a humorist is primarily a writer working in a literary context. While a stand-up may write down his material, it's only in order to perform it. A comedian is no more a humorist than Mick Jagger or Adele are novelists or journalists. So whilst comedy may be a subcat of humo(u)r, comedians are not a subcat of humorists, but a sister cat. That asymmetry is always going to cause problems if one tries to have humo(u)r and comedy in the same category hierarchy. Throw in the ENGVAR problem of humo(u)r and that's two good reasons to see if we can come up with an alternative to humo(u)r as a major category tree - and the fact that we are having this discussion suggests "humorist" is too ambiguous to make for a good category name.Le Deluge (talk) 17:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and per above discussion. The discussion is about the question whether or not one of the two split categories should be parented to the other after the split, but there are no objections against splitting as such. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:07, 4 May 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:Mayors of Cranford, New Jersey[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: dual upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one mayor of the community has an article. The categories' only other entry is a list article. Also merge into Category:Mayors of places in New Jersey. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:07, 31 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.

Metropolitan and micropolitan areas[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: don't merge just these five. This closure is without prejudice against a future discussion regarding merging all 50 state categories, but there is clear consensus against merging just this subset. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 05:11, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: - This would be another example of the need for WP:NENAC. In the case of these states, the categories, both individually and combined, have too few articles to justify being split like this. Combining these will not alter the surrounding category structure, as they are interchangeable inasfar as the parents are concerned. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 11:48, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Merging two separate concepts just for the sake of combining a few small categories is no good idea at all. You're saying the surrounding category structure wouldn't be altered, but in fact, Category:United States micropolitan areas and Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States by state would be tainted by irregular member categories and the contained articles. If most member of the overall category trees are large enough, the category scheme is viable, no matter what. Even if a few member categories should be too small to be viable as stand-alone categories, merging them would be a small step towards chaos. --PanchoS (talk) 17:12, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree about "two separate concepts". This is a lot closer to being two different types of the same thing. As for "a small step towards chaos": the category structure is just plain bloated, a fact that interpretations of categorization policy can't excuse away no matter how you slice it. This "small step" is a whole lot smaller than you may believe: if I had my druthers, the nomination would have been far larger than this, plus there would have been plenty more such nominations. The last time I was at CFD was over the clusterfuck known as the Category:Museums in Alaska tree. We're talking Jabba the Hut bloated there. Having just gone over that tree again, I counted 25 categories supporting a grand total of 36 articles and 3 redirects (two other categories were recently deleted as a result of that CFD). In applying a principle of adequately populated categories consistently across the tree, I could only justify the existence of three of the 24 subcategories. Multiplying that by how many times the same or similar exists across the category structure would lead me to believe that we already descended into chaos years ago, whether you realize it or not. Obviously, the community panders to script-editing warriors fond of busy work and going after the lowest hanging fruit, but giving so much free reign to those who view the category structure as a game of FarmVille, and/or that "one size fits all" works just fine despite the obvious reality that not all places or things in the world are equal, isn't exactly helping readers. Or is "we're here for readers" another series of empty words one throws out in a bully board discussion to score brownie points, but doesn't really mean anything? I would think a far larger number of readers are having a far larger amount of their time wasted wading through an endless array of barely-there categories than there would be readers browsing either metropolitan or micropolitan areas by state who would have to sort out a tiny handful of "misplaced" articles. That further leads to the issue of using categories for purposes better served by lists, but I'd rather leave that argument for another time. More to the point: in the past few months of pouring over the category structure, I've come across numerous instances of articles being inappropriately categorized simply to justify the creation of categories containing only that article. The message I get from that is that a double standard applies over inappropriate categorization between creating and deleting categories. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:28, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
OK, to put it short: these are part of a large, overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, so should be retained per WP:SMALLCAT.
Even if by their very definition these few may never have enough members to be viable as stand-alone categories, the large majority of this scheme's categories are large enough. You may question the whole scheme's viability by nominating all of them to be merged up somewhere, but not pick a few out of the whole scheme.
Actually, I think the larger problem with these categories is that Category:Metropolitan areas of the United States contains both official, statistical areas and "common-sense" metropolitan areas, and is weirdly unrelated to Category:Metropolitan statistical areas of the United States, so unlike Category:United States micropolitan areas isn't a child of Category:Core based statistical areas of the United States. You might want to help us sort that out.
Secondly, WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but IMHO we're doing a fairly good job at sorting out inappropriate categories, at least we're doing our best with limited human resources. --PanchoS (talk) 22:07, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm seeing slavish devotion to policy/process excusing away that the category structure is gradually becoming less and less useful to the average person simply to satisfy a few very active editors (the WP:SMALLCAT link) and to excuse away various hypocrisies and inconsistencies (the other link), some of which make Wikipedia out to be borderline schizophrenic. If that somehow trumps real-world practicalities, then I shouldn't expect to hear bullshit platitudes such as "we're here for readers" ever again. Speaking of "trump", Wikipedia is like the Republican National Convention — there's a rule against everything. Keeping that in mind, WP:IAR is the best rule. Anyway, I did glance at that particular tree a little bit and saw that it was somewhat askew, but I'll have to get back to you on that. "OSHA regulations prohibit more than two people from riding my ass at any one time", and I guess someone is expecting a reply somewhere else over their contrived controversy. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Away with all those slavish rules, make Wikipedia great again – is that your point? But wait: articles are our primary business here, and you have all freedoms to "strike deals" with coauthors there, or actually find a consensus. Categorization, on the other hand, is a rather structured business where predictability and consistency are particularly important aspects to properly serve the article mainspace. You don't seem to take that sufficiently into account. But, wait another second, I'm gonna try it with an analogy: what would you say if small states were forced to combine their primaries with the November election, just because they're a bit too small? Wouldn't you complain about this "slavish rule"? Wouldn't you say, let these few small states hold primaries in their own rights? The rule you're complaining about, really just follows common sense. --PanchoS (talk) 07:30, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep two different concepts (large and small is the obvious difference) need two different category structures which involves state, regardless of the current number of articles in each. Hmains (talk) 23:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Obvious difference"? Looks to me like it's really the only appreciable difference, and one that's only important enough to people such as categorization warriors worried about their lemonade stand being knocked over. Several times I've dealt with responses/reversions from category regulars accompanied by a "my way or the highway" attitude. I believe the last time I experienced that from you, you were quick to respond/revert, while not actually providing any information which helped with my understanding of the matter any. Being too busy creating categories en masse to be bothered with inserting introductory text or a {{Category see also}} into any of your creations when it's helpful to do so only exacerbates such problems. If you've ever watched Night Shift, you can imagine how thrilled I am to see all this bitch work which suggests that I'm here to play Henry Winkler to someone else's Michael Keaton. It gets in the way of any efforts I may wish to make to really move Wikipedia forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 01:17, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggestion, why not do the merge in all 50 states, that would solve the consistency issue, and why not do a double merge also to an overall US micropolitan or an overall US metropolitan category, so that you can still search for micro- versus metro-? It doesn't look like it's going to be a huge category in any of the states. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:36, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I referred the nom to that option before, see above. Still I disagree with upmerging all of these. Per Statistical area (United States)#Types and distribution, there are 388 Metropolitan and 541 Micropolitan Statistical Areas. Even if we focus on the smaller number: 388/52 = statistically well over 7 Metropolitan areas per state, with few states having less than 5, yet some states having more than 20 of them. So there's clearly a case for per-state categories. But I agree that would at least be a reasonable CfD nomination. This one is not. --PanchoS (talk) 20:07, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If you're really so worried about consistency, please refer to the articles in parent Category:United States statistical areas. Notice how metropolitan and micropolitan statistical areas are combined in these articles? If tiny categories without substance are okay, why don't we split all these out and have tiny articles without substance? I've yet to see any reasonable explanation of how these are different, just a lot of "I don't like it"-type rationales. What you're viewing as "consistency", I'm viewing as "one size fits all". It's validating the complaints many have expressed about the category structure. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 15:23, 3 May 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:Castles in Beira Alta District[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was never valid, as there was never any "district of Beira Alta". Also, all castles within the category are actually part of the Guarda District, and have been manually moved to that category.ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 10:50, 31 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.

Category:Mayors of Milpitas, California[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: dual merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:30, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only one mayor of the community has an article. The categories' only other entry is a list article. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 02:12, 31 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.

Category:Cargo Airline Association[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:28, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NONDEFINING and WP:OVERLAPCAT
Not single one of the 10 airlines in this category even mention that the company is in this trade association. There is no main article on the Cargo Airline Association (stub added below) and everything in this category is already in Category:Cargo airlines so we're not losing any navigation. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: The creator, User:Russavia, is blocked but I added this discussion has been included in WikiProject Aviation. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at that stub, its only purpose at present is to repeat the same linkspam you contributed to this discussion and to the category page; the category being discussed here wasn't even added. Aren't there better venues for people to be told that a website exists, namely Google? RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 21:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Listified I have no objection to covering this organization with an article, although it still needs to establish notability. I added the contents of the category to that stub article to get the ball rolling. RevelationDirect (talk) 22:29, 31 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.

Category:Long track[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:43, 8 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This follows an attempt to generate discussion at WP Sport on renaming the article, which didn't get very far, so I'd thought I'd try again with the category hierarchy. I came across Category:2011 in long track (as in a form of motorcycle speedway) as a red-linked category that needed creating. That led me to this CfD in 2011 where it was deleted on the grounds of an ambiguous name, but no alternative was provided so effectively it's now in limbo. However, there's still a whole hierarchy at Category:long track including years 2007-10 - it's a complete mess thanks to that CfD. Fair enough - it's reflecting a main article at Long track, but I think part of the problem is that it is mostly a German form of motorbike racing that isn't that familiar to English speakers. I must admit that as a casual sports fan, when I hear the phrase "long track", I'd tend to think of Long track speed skating rather than motorbikes. In December, skating got 1339 hits versus 190 for the motorbikes. I wonder if the answer is to make long track a disambiguation to the skating and to Long track motorcycle racing or similar, and anything else with long tracks in the same way as speedway? Then the categories could move to Category:Long track motorcycle racing (or Category:Motorcycle long track or whatever) and it all works? Another issue is the inconsistency of naming; long track has a space, grasstrack doesn't. As I say, I don't have strong feelings either way, I just want to resolve the logjam created by that CfD. I'm putting up the top category for now but the rest of the tree would need to change as well, if someone fancies adding them... Le Deluge (talk) 00:13, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: I see yet another WP:RM nomination masquerading as a WP:CFD discussion. Editors at the article level have more subject matter expertise and the categories can just follow with WP:C2D. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @RevelationDirect: Two points - 1) I already tried to discuss the article name at WP Sport, with notifications to the motorbike and ice skating projects - and got nothing in over two weeks and 2) This is a problem of CfD's making, by deleting Category:2011 in long track for ambiguity without coming up with an alternative name for the hierarchy. In effect this is just trying to finish what started at CfD five years ago. Le Deluge (talk) 10:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • One doesn't get an unbiased electorate at RMs. An RM at Long track merely attracts a host of motor cycling editors who will state that their interpretation is correct and who heard of any other long track? Proponents of other long tracks (eg skaters or Pink Floyd fans) are not notified of the RM so it fails. Oculi (talk) 11:00, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very true. I'm sure Birmingham seems unambiguous to the predominately English readers who keep on eye on the article. Wikipedia editors are imperfect but, in general, that local/topical perspective is helpful to creating content. But moving RM outcomes you disagree with into a CFD discussion goes against the spirit if not the letter of forum shopping. I also think it hinders reader navigation to have the main article named differently than the category (even if makes categorizing form hotcat easier). RevelationDirect (talk) 12:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Oculi, I agree with User:RevelationDirect. To try to buck the results of an RM via a CFD because one doesn't think RMs are unbiased seems a bit perverse. Yes, an RM is not an "unbiased electorate", but I got news for you—Wikipedia is not an unbiased electorate. Even if we managed to have every WP editor vote, it would not be "fair" or "unbiased". For starters, we are severely male-biased, and that's only the start. But we have to deal with the system we have and not try to subvert it from within. ("Kicking against the pricks" comes to mind, but that might now be too classical a reference to have any resonance.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 5 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_March_31&oldid=1138410098"