Category:Track and field in the United States[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 option B without prejudice to a broader discussion about the most appropriate category names in the whole tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:55, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can see no clear difference in purpose between these two categories, so they should be merged, under whatever title seems best. I think that "Athletics (track and field)" is more widely recognisable, but my main concern is to end the duplication. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:50, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi: that was a bad decision. The article Track and field is little more than a fork of Sport of athletics. The whole Engvar thing has gotten out of hand, with unnecessary variations. We should simply adopt "Athletics (track and field)" track and field for all uses in all countries; it's unambiguous, and saves confusion. Same for the plethora of variant category names for association football, where we should standardise on the unambiguous "association football". But I guess that's all for another day. For now we should just merge these two, one way or t'other. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 00:49, 15 February 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.
Category:Stub-Class Months in the 1900s articles[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. Cross-referencing to a related discussion: a consensus is emerging at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_March_18#Category:Months_in_the_1900s to restructure Category:Months in the 1900s as a decade category within "Months in the 20th century". If that happens then it would be appropriate to rename the WikiProject and all its categories to "WikiProject Months in the 20th century". Anyway, the project doesn't seem to want to keep a category for stubs. As for the meta template, perhaps it should be edited after consideration of the overarching project & category name. – FayenaticLondon 12:04, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Month articles such as October 1912 are lists, not stubs. This category is therefore useless, and should be deleted. GeoffreyT2000 (talk, contribs) 21:18, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I created it only because it was non-empty, and was showing up in Special:WantedCategories. This will happen again whenever someone (rightly or wrongly) classifies one of the relevant pages as a stub ... and then it will be back in Special:WantedCategories, and someone else will recreate it. Much better to keep it, and hope that it will usually be empty ... unless the relevant project banner is amended to that the banner cannot be used to add articles to the category. If you show me where that recoding has been done, I will change my !vote. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:35, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
PS @GeoffreyT2000: I took a peak at {{WPBannerMeta}}, and it seems that there is a way of doing this, using Template:Class mask. I was about to post at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Months in the 1900s to see if there was support for this, but I find that nobody has ever posted there. So that would be a bit pointless. Since GeoffreyT2000 appears to have created the project and its banner ... would you be happy to have the project banner amended in this way? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 23:04, 13 February 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:delete, since the category is meanwhile empty (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support per Oculi. JDDJS (talk) 19:48, 16 February 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:delete. – FayenaticLondon 15:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: Small but relevant category that links several newspapers together by their common president Yemen Geek 23:17, 15 February 2-17 (UTC)
Delete, presidents may come and go, they are not a defining characteristic of a newspaper. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:10, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, also please don't unilaterally delete CfD notices like that. Le Deluge (talk) 17:49, 25 February 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:keep as container category. – FayenaticLondon 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's a specifically defined geographic region. Why not make the category a container category for the redundant subcategories? Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:54, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but containerise, as a {{Container category}}, and diffuse the articles to the existing by-state categories which I have just added as sub-categories.[1] The Pacific Northwest is one of many geographical regions around the world which intersect multiple political divisions, and they are as valid an approach to geographical study as any other. This one is well-defined, and it should be retained but used properly. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That might be a useful solution but the article Pacific Northwest specifically indicates that there is no consensus on what geographic areas are in the region.--TM 14:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
If I wasn't interested in having a discussion and coming to a consensus, I wouldn't have brought this matter to categories for discussion.--TM 16:16, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: Sure, and sorry if my comment appeared to imply something else. My point above is that the scope question is broader than just this one category, and that a decision needs to be reached about the scope of the whole of Category:Pacific Northwest. A deletion debate on one of its subcats does not seem to be a good place to do that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
At a minimum containerise as putting them directly in this cat makes no sense when they would (or should) already be in what should be subcats by state/city. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:49, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problem with closing this discussion and making it a container category in line with other geographic regions.--TM 23:22, 13 February 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.
Nominator's rationale: Similarity. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:40, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - yeah, the articles in these categories are a bit of a mess; notably, global financial system is a member of both categories and repeatedly uses "international finance" as a synonym for "global finance". Although finance as it relates to interactions between one or more countries is slightly different than finance as it relates to all countries at once, it wouldn't be different enough to warrant separate categorization in an encyclopedia. Ivanvector (Talk/Edits) 12:51, 13 February 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.
Exterminate per nom.Le Deluge (talk) 00:55, 20 February 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.
Category:Geography of the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia[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. – FayenaticLondon 19:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:upmerge, having three category levels for two articles is a bit too much. Let's only keep the middle category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support - also the "towns of Ukraine built in the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia" has an anachronistic & politisized spirit (what are the exact border of Ukraine? How relevant was Ukraine region naming during the Galicia-Volhynia period?) and thus violates the spirit of Wikipedia, which aspires for stability of article names.GreyShark (dibra) 07:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support The deep categorisation was excessive. Laurel Lodged (talk) 11:30, 14 February 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.
Category:Categories by voivodehsip of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth[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.
Agree, the name of the target category can be speedied at the same time. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:32, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Target category has now been renamed, I've adjusted the nomination accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:53, 18 February 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.
Category:Listed storage buildings in Copenhagen[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.
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 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorizing by occupation/city. These cities have never had their own military. Most of these people were members of a state or national military regiment. It seems to make more sense to categorize them by their state affiliation than city. TM 05:06, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support This is a clear example of over-categorisation. It seems to satisfy WP:COP more to categorise on a state basis at the least. AusLondonder (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - the subcategorization by occupation/city is well accepted to diffuse what become unwieldy people by city cats for large cities (or even just old cities who end up with lots of notable people). The fact that there is no Baltimore or other military means nothing in these types of categories, as the people would not even necessarily have been in the military during their time in Baltimore. What these subcats by occupation do is move people from the People from Baltimore (or other city) into occupations, not necessarily their occupation during their time in said city. WP:COP does not really address this, as it does not address the occupation/city categories at all. The fact that Military personnel by city is fairly well populated from around the globe (I had nothing to do with the non-US cats) tends to show there is a basis for these, not to mention those cats and their editors should also be nominated/notified if this discussion is to be used to delete those without their participation. Lastly, your upmerge would need to move them back into the People from XXX, which then means they are in two cats instead of one, which is another purpose of the city/occupation cats, move into one cat instead of being in two, which helps reduce overcategorization. Aboutmovies (talk) 17:20, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCLOCATION can provide some guidance on this: "In general, avoid subcategorizing subjects by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the subjects' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state)." That someone is from Baltimore and served in a military unit are two separate characteristics that have nothing to do with one another. Their city of origin in no way defines their military career. However, that they served in a military unit, usually one associated with their state, does have a relevant bearing on their other characteristics.--TM 18:31, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I am well aware of that and have been involved in prior city/occupation debates. The problem is, we have a de facto city/occupation structure that directly contradicts OCLOCATION. I would also disagree as to some sort of association with their state based on military service. With the modern military structure, there is often little connection between their service and any particular location whether that be city or state. This is why these city/occupation cats are from and not of. The "chefs of CITY" cat tree was deleted a few years ago, specifically because of the connection issue and it also did not match the "from" occupation structure. Frankly, this city/occupation diffusion is inevitable as the encyclopedia continues to grows and we need to create smaller, more manageable and specific cats for cities. Do you really want to increase the number of categories in an article, as again, to make the deletion work you have to move the pages into both the from cat of the city and the occupation? Aboutmovies (talk) 19:01, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Aboutmovies. New York, Philadelphia, Pittsburgh and St. Louis have the same category, but they are not being nominated for deletion. The argument that state military affiliation is more important might be compelling if most individuals were affiliated, but most were not. Of the 72 individuals listed in the Baltimore category, just 11 have any affiliation with a state military unit (militia, National Guard, Civil War state regiment), and only 6 of those were a Maryland affiliation. Given Baltimore's history as a maritime city, it's not a surprise that 37 of the 72 were mariners (Navy/Coast Guard). It appears to me that a correlation exists between being from a port city and serving in the navy, so the city of origin might in fact help define the individual's military career. GcSwRhIc (talk) 14:33, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@Aboutmovies: it is definitely not inevitable that we're getting increasingly refined geographic/occupational intersection. There are so many other Category:Military personnel by FOO categories that the chance that a biography doesn't fit in any of the subcategories is very small. We can well live without a geographic diffusion within the military. And on the other hand, diffusion within city is pretty meaningless in case these people don't have a connection with that city other than been born or raised there, so why bother if these categories get exceptionally big? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:05, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe its just me (but given I am not the only person who creates this occupation by city cats I doubt it is just me), but my head hurts when I look at a category like this with over 4000 entries. From a social science perspective, it tells me nothing other than it is a big city and likely has hundreds of articles that could be diffused into existing sub cats. On that note, from a social science perspective, and having diffused hundreds of cities, I personally find it interesting the patterns I find. For example, most cities with at least 50,000 people that have been sizable for a few decades have enough people to fill out a sportspeople cat. Ditto with a politician cat. The interesting thing is that in college towns you then get enough of the writers, artists, and musicians for sub cats. In poorer cities though, even when larger, instead of the arts, it is simply more athletes. You also get great concentrations of politicians in historically important cities, even when relatively small. You also get some weird outcomes, such as some cities with a disproportionate number of actors/actresses that you would not expect (LA you expect a large amount) given the lack of a local movie industry. But I digress. Aboutmovies (talk) 18:42, 4 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusions like that are only possible if people keep living where they grow up. When people move and become notable somewhere else, these categories merely get blurry. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to state categories. We have gone too far in creating by city categories. This is especially true because we have never been sure if they refer to the city proper or the metro region. Due to how much some people move this indiscriminate creation of city+occupation categories is just going to lead to category clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:57, 20 March 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 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.
Comment. There used to be a lot of people trained in morse code for maritime and airborne navigation, and also huge numbers of people trained to operate the manual switchboards which preceded automatic telephone exchanges. I don't know whether en.wp has coverage of these topics, but any such material would clearly belong in this category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 13 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This is a new category. All categories start off with one article. Should give it a period of time to see if any other articles are added to this category. I will see if there are any candidates. Others who are interested could as well. Ericcoll (talk) 03:57, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
All categories start off with one article No, no they don't. If they did, they wouldn't need a category. Note also that commenter created the single article in the category.v--Calton | Talk 10:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, absent any evidence that this is a sufficiently noteworthy and useful category. --Calton | Talk 10:03, 15 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: the two above categories are now empty, since the one article that populated it has been deleted. --Calton | Talk 01:39, 16 February 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.
