Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 May 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 15 May 17 >

May 16[edit]

Category:Disco films[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, without prejudice to re-creation if a definition can be written and applied properly, as discussed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Convert Category:Disco films to article List of disco films
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what the inclusion criteria for this category is, and it appears to currently be being used (and sometimes erroneously) for any movie in which any disco song appears, which doesn't seem appropriate for categorization to my mind. Also of note is that there's no article such as Disco film (that I could find) to make it more clear what would be appropriate for inclusion here. A sourced list seems like a better way of handling this. DonIago (talk) 13:13, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't specifically remember creating this category, but apparently I did. Thanks Doniago for notifying me of the nomination. In all likelihood, I noticed that there was no equivalent category to Category:Rock music films (and other sub-categories of Category:Films by music genre) for films about the disco era. I'm fairly neutral on converting it to a list. It makes some amount of sense. I don't see this category as significantly different than the others mentioned above, though, most of which also contain no clear definition nor an article (like Rock music films or Jazz films) - Themightyquill (talk) 13:47, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In theory, I can see the validity of this category for some films — Saturday Night Fever being the obvious no-brainer — but I agree with the nominator that it's getting used for a lot of films whose connection to a "disco genre" of film is tenuous at best (Behind the Candelabra and Airplane!, for instance, are not "disco films" per se, but merely have a disco song on the soundtrack, or a brief scene set in a discotheque, because of their time settings). So it's not necessarily an unreasonable category per se, but it is getting used incorrectly. Purge of all films not defined by their disco-ness. Bearcat (talk) 17:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (from a non-expert). I would suggest that the category be kept, but with a tighter definition of what qualifies and it should then be purged of items that do not belong. That assumes that a robust tight definition can be provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:07, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be amenable to that, though I worry that six months from now, regardless of the definition, we'd be right back where we started. In any case, the definition provided at the Rock music category referenced above could probably be adapted, if this is the direction we want to pursue. DonIago (talk) 19:54, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete suffers the usual problems of films about... categories, though phrased differently. Moreover, categorizing films by the type of music that's played in them or whether there's a scene in a disco, is just not a useful or real-world categorization scheme. Against an article creation because there are no reliable sources that any of these are "disco films", much less how such is defined. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:35, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and purge per the suggestion of Peterkingiron. Dimadick (talk) 00:31, 25 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:Philosophy of disciplines[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to make it less ambiguous with regard to the fact that it concerns disciplines of science. This nomination and the next four ones are related to this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:39, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Anyway all I was saying was that we should be a bit careful when we're going to purge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:44, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't agree, we then run in WP:SHAREDNAME issues as RevelationDirect was mentioning. We have academic disciplines and sports disciplines (and maybe other disciplines?) that only share a name but aren't related at all. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:05, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • They share the name discipline because they are both human creations played / practiced with specific rules (= disciplined, obey to certain rules). Stefanomione (talk) 14:19, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Practising by following rules" is a too broad topic for a category. Virtually everything in life happens by following certain rules. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:29, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Category:Creativity is also very broad, that would require a separate discussion. But at least there exists a concept creativity, we don't even have that when talking about "Practising by following rules" (which involves much more than just Disciplines). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly open to other non-scientific "discipline" categories if you have a specific subject area in mind. But "disciplines" in general seems like it is too broad to help readers find what they are looking for. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support More WP:POINTy behaviour from Stefanomione. X per "disciplines" doesn't make a whole lot of sense since there is no consensus about what "disciplines" are supposed to group, beyond shared name overcategorization and just random stuff. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:02, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Rename to Category:Philosophy by discipline, which will be comprehensive and include history and law, as well as technologies. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 18 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:History of disciplines[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 and purge, as nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename to a less ambiguous name, to make clear that it concerns disciplines of science - and purge, move content that isn't about scientific disciplines to Category:History by topic. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:38, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly, that's why the nomination also proposes purging, a better example than the four subcategories you mentioned is Category:History of sports which is definitely not a scientific discipline. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I observe that "topic" exists and is a parent of what we are discussing, so that this would be a partial upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:06, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is partially in line with the nomination, as it was said there: purge and move everything that doesn't fit in the category to Category:History by topic. However, there are also quite a few academic disciplines involved that may keep their own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:40, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the notion of where some disciplines self identify as sciences (contrary to assertions in this discussion) - the notion of specific History by subject topic or discipline seems a sensible move JarrahTree 11:17, 24 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:Works in the philosophy of disciplines[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 proposed. SSTflyer 11:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: rename, this concerns disciplines of science, the proposed name is less ambiguous about that. The proposed format is similar as Category:Philosophy of science literature which should become a child category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support More WP:POINTy behaviour from Stefanomione. X per "disclines" doesn't make a whole lot of sense since there is no consensus about what "disciplines" are supposed to group, beyond shared name overcategorization and just random stuff. Plus "Works in the philosophy of..." is barely English, for pete's sake. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:01, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the related subject category (discussed above). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 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:Works about the history of disciplines[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:55, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, this concerns disciplines of science so the contents should be in the science category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Here I'm a bit puzzled. Do you really think that economics, law, political science and philosophy aren't scientific disciplines? Marcocapelle (talk) 13:20, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • For now it goes too far to dispute that, in any case social sciences is one of the four major groups in branches of science so we should definitely not exclude social sciences. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:58, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I propose an elegant solution for this naming ambiguity below ... Stefanomione (talk) 14:06, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. As explained at the Cfd for Category:Disciplines, "Disciplines" grouped two unrelated categories that had "discipline" in the name, one of them a now-deleted category for "sports disciplines," and then a bunch of other stuff that Stefanomione has decided are "disciplines." So this category makes no sense, either. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 13:49, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match the outcome of the related subject category (discussed above). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 18 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:Works about the development of disciplines[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) 03:53, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete, "development" is not a defining characteristic of the content of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:31, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename if Kept No strong opinion on whether "development" is meaningful here. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete oh good heavens. So now we're to create a category structure based on the development of things, as determined by Stefanomione's own idiosyncratic rationales? Categories are supposed to aid navigation, as a way is that people might reasonably look for things. They are not meant to be a sandbox for one editor to ceaselessly and uselessly fuck around. This isn't categorization, this is masturbation, and it has to stop. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I think everything in it already has appropriate categories; and I am not sure they are about development, more about ideas about subjects. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:12, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnecessary. Pichpich (talk) 20:40, 2 June 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:Bosnia and Herzegovina footballers in England[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) 06:38, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per consensuses in WP:Footy, and to avoid overcategorization, a wide cat for sportspeople should be created first. So for XXX expatriate footballers in YYY were all deleted (correct me it is not; even Brazilian were not subcategorized). Matthew_hk tc 09:26, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is an appalling mouthful. I just wonder whether we need this triple intersection. An alternative might be a broader upmerge. Certainly UK not England, but we should ensure that an expatriate B&H footballer category survives. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:17, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. It's only a long name because the country names and the standard WP format makes it that way. Category names are not required to be short and pithy, especially when they contain long compound nouns. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 25 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:Paintings by national location[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: relisted here. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:00, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is the only category on Wikipedia that seems to be named "by national location", as far as I can tell. It is for categorizing articles on individual paintings by their physical location by country, and is child to Category:Arts by country. It subcategories, such as Category:Paintings in United States, are children to Category:Arts in the United States, which is part of Category:Categories by country. Through I feel that "by national location" is perhaps a bit more clear, we have a dilemma: rename for standardization or consider introducing an entirely new tree for many other concepts that would be "by national location". And considering that we have Category:Sculptures by country, and so on, which work pretty well, I think we should just rename this outlier and move on. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:33, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename For Now Let's standardize the odd man out. If you want to come back later with a broader rename, I'm open to it. RevelationDirect (talk) 21:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Paintings are different from most "by country" categories, because they can easily be moved and because they don't have any specifically national association, other than where they were created. Most other subjects with lots of articles either can't be moved (Category:Cities by country) or have specific national associations (Category:People by country, Category:Submarines by country) that apply regardless of current location. Consider Mona Lisa, which is of Italian origin and is currently located in France. It belongs in Category:Italian paintings (it's a member of the subcategory Category:Paintings by Leonardo da Vinci) as well as Category:Paintings in France (it's buried in that category tree), both of which would fit into "Paintings by country", but because of the distinction between country of creation and country of current location, those two are in the separate Category:Paintings by nationality and Category:Paintings by national location categories. This proposal would effectively merge the two (if "national location" becomes "country", why shouldn't "nationality"?) and thereby create confusion. Nyttend (talk) 15:03, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Italian paintings is properly categorized by "paintings by nationality". That there is some miscategorization of "by nationality" and "by country" container categories is a problem to fix, yes, but argument that this is intended to merge nationality and country categories is a straw hat. We are just standardizing the "odd one one" in naming here. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, if renamed it should become clear what we mean with "by country". Is it country of creation (which sounds more intuitive), or is it current location (as apparently intended by this category). In the former case I would suggest renaming to Category:Paintings by country of creation, in the latter case I wonder if the proposed rename is unambiguous enough. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:21, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Paintings by country of creation. I agree with Marco that "by country" is confusing because it does not specify whether the country is that where the painting was made or where the painting is currently located. Neutralitytalk 19:22, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I like User:Neutrality's clarification, it seems like a good compromise. Through in this case it should be "Paintings by country of location", I think? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 04:46, 30 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm guessing that User:Neutrality suggests not only to rename but also to re-purpose the category. It would indeed make more sense to categorize by country of creation than by country of current location because the latter may vary too much to categorize. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, it would be a rename and a repurpose (or clarification of purpose). Neutralitytalk 13:23, 3 June 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.

Dutch Brazil[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 of Category:1648 in Dutch Brazil to Category:Dutch Brazil, Category:1648 in Brazil, and Category:1640s in Dutch Brazil. There may also be a good case for deleting Category:1640s in Dutch Brazil. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, there are two articles for three year categories in a very short-lived colony. After merging, the (grand)parent container categories can be deleted as empty. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:56, 16 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:Political engineering by coup[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 (and distribute contents as discussed). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as this is not a defining characteristic, the term "political engineering" is not even mentioned in many articles. The contents of this category should be moved partly to Category:Coups d'état and partly to Category:Military dictatorships. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 16 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:Nowpunk films[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) 05:16, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not exactly a specific genre of film. Quick internet search does not suggest the importance of said genre (only Sterling, the inventor of the term, seems to use it in any serious sense) (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nowpunk&safe=off&tbm=bks) and (https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=nowpunk&safe=off) Andrzejbanas (talk) 05:45, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The main article is in fact a section of something else, making it clear that this is one person's Neologism. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:31, 19 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:Actors Studio members[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) 03:58, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCASSOC and WP:NONDEFINING
The Actors Studio is a prominent theatrical school in New York City known for method acting. The school offers training on site as well as Masters Degrees in association Pace U and previously with the New School so we have a separate "Category:Actors Studio alumni" for that purpose. In contrast, this membership category consists of 300+ professional actors who belong to the organization both as a social club and to support training new actors. A few articles in the category do mention this membership in passing (Will Hare) while most don't mention it at all (Jack Nicholson, Jane Fonda, Dustin Hoffman). - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified DavidESpeed as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Theatre. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- We do not normally categorise by membership of an organisations, though there are some exceptions, such as Fellow of the Royal Society. The alumni category (covering both the sponsored institutions) is certainly legitimate. Those who had been through some earlier (less formal training) might be added to that, but I am dubious of the merits of having a category for club members. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:36, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NONDEF. While membership of Actors Studio has been added quite consistently in the Wikipedia articles that are in this category, it gives the impression that it's a single-editor issue. For example in the Internet Movie Database membership of Actors Studio remains pretty unnoticeable. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 27 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:Ernst & Young Entrepreneur of the Year Award winners[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. For information, in case there is a need of further listification, there was currently only Julie Meyer in this category. She wasn't an "overall winner" of that year though. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:13, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD (WP:NONDEFINING)
The introduction to the main article, says that "according to Ernst & Young, in the 25 years the award has been given, there have been over 10,000 individuals recognized, an average of over 400 per year." Lisfifying doesn't seem to be a viable option here. I have found some biography articles that mention the award but it doesn't seem defining especially since it's given early in a person's business career. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Ottawahitech as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Business. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:01, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify and then delete -- There is a list in the main article, but it is clearly incomplete. This applies the usual outcome for OCAWARD cases. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:38, 19 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:Salvation Army buildings[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, with two conflicting naming conventions. Good luck with trying to get the article renamed. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: An opposed speedy. Suggestion was for renaming to match head category Category:The Salvation Army and main article The Salvation Army. We already have another subcategory that uses the same format, Category:The Salvation Army camps. (Category:Salvation Army brass bands does not use this format, but that's because the main article for that category is Salvation Army brass band.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:48, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy nomination
  • Keep per the brass bands; this isn't any different. As RevelationDirect notes, the article should probably be renamed, because this is basically the same as The George Washington University, The Ohio State University, and lots of other institutions with an unnecessary "The" beginning their names. Nyttend (talk) 14:53, 22 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:Metropolitan areas of Barbados[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) 04:02, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Formal definitions of metropolitan areas do not exist for Barbados, as far as I'm aware. Even if they did, this category would still likely run afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. Cobblet (talk) 00:02, 16 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge (not necessarily to all parents) -- I strongly suspect that Bridgetown is the only possible member of the category. Similar considerations will apply to other island capitals in the West Indies. The answer is to have it directly in Metropolitan areas in the Caribeean. Peterkingiron (talk) 09:49, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Currently unsure. Note that this one is part of the established scheme Category:Metropolitan areas by country, with quite a number of subcategories existing since 2005 or 2006. Merging dozens of subcategories to Category:Metropolitan areas of Europe or Category:Metropolitan areas of Asia might not be a good idea. On the other hand, if every single country got its own subcategory, there might be quite a number of categories with less than five metropolitan areas. Also, I don't know how complete our coverage of less industrialized countries is. --PanchoS (talk) 23:22, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Barbados is by far the least populous and smallest country listed among Category:Metropolitan areas by country. It's an exceptional case. Cobblet (talk) 14:46, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If it's true that Barbados is an exceptional case, then we would keep the category, as a handful of WP:SMALLCATs within an established category scheme is perfectly acceptable. We would only delete it, if a substantial part of all (existing or non-existing) per-country-categories would inevitably be WP:SMALLCATs. --PanchoS (talk) 20:52, 23 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_May_16&oldid=1138410122"