Category:People associated with the Dutch East India Company[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. – FayenaticLondon 20:32, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support all four -- If any one does not fit in the target they can be purged. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:16, 15 April 2017 (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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 20:36, 14 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: So, 900,000+ pages have coordinates here and on Wikidata. No indication whether these are the same or not though (the category contains both pages with the same coordinates, and pages with different coordinates!). Benefit of this category? Has this, in the three years it has now existed, improved even one article? Fram (talk) 10:09, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a tracking category, which functions as a tools for editors to do that checking if/when they want to. It may be an incomplete tool, but the remedy should be to improve it rather than to delete it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:58, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
No one has bothered improving it in three years, no one can actually use it to track anything practical. I can create dozens of tracking categories, but if they aren't useful, they should not be kept on the off chance that someone may someday want it for some unknown reason. We have things like Category:Coordinates not on Wikidata (50,000 pages) which is not up for deletion and which may at least have a purpose, although not one for enwiki. We have two other very small cats of wikidata coordinates tracking not up for deletion. If someone wants to create Category:Coordinates different on Wikidata, be my guest, that one may have a purpose. But what can one really check with this category? Fram (talk) 12:47, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Once a category like this exists, lost of things can be done with it. For example, it can be used with Petscan https://petscan.wmflabs.org/ to identify articles which don't have this parameter set. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep harmless tracker category. Wikidata is still very much work in progress. These tracker categories assist in this. Multichill (talk) 17:21, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
In what way? How does Wikidata improve by having a 900K category of enwiki articles which also have coordinates? There must be something that paople actually do to justify keeping this, not some handwaving. Fram (talk) 20:13, 13 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I too fail to see why this exixts. The cat states "This category is populated mainly for tracking purposes" - mainly? So it has another function? What is it? Who's monitoring this category? Lots of articles have lots of parameters on WD, is there a need to track them too? Seems pretty pointless. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 09:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly delete, but only after the WikiData team have had a good chance to explain the proposed use of the category in more detail. I.e. this discussion shouldn't be closed as Delete without being open for weeks/months and/or discussed with WikiDatians. I'm no WikiData expert, but I imagine the intent is to one day run a process that identifies discrepancies between data in WikiData and data in (each) Wikipedia. However, it's hard to see how this category would assist in that process (other than in estimating the amount of processing). Categories like this do have a cost (watchlist noise etc) and if WikiDatians use bots to add/remove categories like this (date-of-birth-on-wikidata, place-of-death-on-wikidata etc) on en-wp then that cost could become quite significant. DexDor(talk) 19:25, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'd ultimately like to see a system of hidden categories for pages based on whether they have coordinates: one for has-coordinates (populated automatically by coordinate templates, of course) and one for "coordinates not applicable" (for everything lacking a geographic location), and the lack of either category would always be a reason for improvement. Coordinates should be on Wikidata as long as they're applicable, and this category would basically serve as a marker of "Wikidata-related work with this article's coordinates is not needed", distinct from the category (which I think already exists) for pages whose coordinates differ from their Wikidata coordinates. It's not useful for maintenance of the articles included in it, but useful for the maintenance of everything else. We could make it a subcategory of "articles with coordinates", to be activated by a parameter in any coordinates template so that the article wouldn't end up in both the general has-coordinates category and the more specific has-coordinates-on-Wikidata category. Nyttend (talk) 11:47, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
IMO categories such as "coordinates not applicable" is a terrible idea; it could lead to "date of birth not applicable" (on everything except biographical articles), "number produced not applicable" (on everything except articles about vehicles etc)... We'd probably see far more edits tinkering with such categories than edits that actually add missing coordinates. Surely the process here will be that an analysis compares a parameter (e.g. coordinate) in WikiData and in the corresponding Wikipedia article and if there's a significant discrepancy flags this up (possibly by putting the article into a maintenance category) - that doesn't need non-maintenance categorization in Wikipedia. DexDor(talk) 22:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is already in use at Commons. Tons of images neither have coordinates nor appear in the category, but the incomplete setup is better than nothing at all. Nyttend (talk) 23:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand this line of thought correctly, it only becomes useful after (nearly) all articles have been categorized. If too many articles remain uncategorized in this system you still don't know if they haven't been checked or that the coordinates really deviate. So it's quite unlikely that it is ever going to work and to me it sounds like using a cannon to kill a fly. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete. No rationale given for having this or keeping this. I can see the point of Category:Coordinates not on Wikidata (maybe add them), but this serves no purpose. It is not even needed to determine the number of articles with coords also on Wikidata, as that is simply the number transcluding {{coord}} minus the number in Coordinates not on Wikidata. If someone thinks of a use for this then it could be re-added; until then it has no purpose and is just unnecessary clutter.--JohnBlackburnewordsdeeds 07:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: this category is potentially useful and isn't doing much harm. It is an easier way to find the number of articles with coords on wikidata and is useful for tracking. Elliot321 (talk) 13:33, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot321, can you explain what the importance is of knowing the number of English Wikipedia articles with coords on wikidata? DexDor(talk) 21:02, 9 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I may not have came across as I intended to. When I add the coordinates from an article to Wikidata, it is useful to see that the process worked. It is very easy to see that it did if there is a category for Coordinates on Wikidata. If there is an alternate way, please let me know. Elliot321 (talk) 21:05, 9 May 2017 (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.
