Category:Companies by city in the Netherlands[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate layer. The three city subcategories are each in the category of the relevant province. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep Part of an established category scheme. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Are any of these intermediate categories Category:Organisations by country and city useful? I dont mean "organizations based in a city", I mean distinguishing between organisations categorised as being in a city and those not in a city. Rathfelder (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is a host of such categories: Category:Topics by country and city. I don't see them as being intermediate; it's the province which is intermediate. Oculi (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strictly the argument is a valid but if looking for a company with a Rotterdam HQ, it is not helpful to have to know which province Rotterdam is in. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: Why would anyone pick on one country within Category:Companies by country and city for deletion, rather than a batch nomination of them all? And why deletion – if you're "not suggesting abolishing categories of companies in cities", shouldn't those national categories be merged to Category:Companies by city rather than removed from that hierarchy, which is what your nomination would do? – FayenaticLondon 15:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt realise there was a full hierarchy. If there is agreement that these intermediate categories are not useful I'm happy to nominate all 51 for deletion. I dont see any need to merge these categories to Category:Companies by city. They are already in it. Whether it is a useful category in its own right is a different question. Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: you didn't realise because you didn't look. Before you nominate a category in future, PLEASE look at its parents, and explore around them to see what it is part of. If you still think it should be deleted, at least you will be able to make a well-informed nomination. In some cases it will help you to see the need to nominate for merging rather than deletion. – FayenaticLondon 07:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merging is not an issue in this case. all the entries are already in the relevant categories. That is why it's superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: (i) Wrong – deletion would remove the contents from Category:Companies by city, despite your assertion to the contrary, as Marcocapelle has demonstrated above. (ii) IIRC you have made many other nominations for deletion where you had only bothered to look at one parent category, but your nominations would have disrupted other parent hierarchies where merger rather than deletion would be required. If you utterly insist on refusing to learn this, it may be necessary to consider sanctions against you, such as a ban from working on categories. – FayenaticLondon 09:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a place for discussing categories. Why I am threatened with sanctions because I want to discuss them? If you don't like my suggestions they will be rejected. But I dont see why I need to spend hours constructing an immense list of categories that would be affected before I can raise an issue for discussion. Your position effectively means that all existing category heirarchies, no matter how misguided, cannot be discussed.Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a forum of discussion in the sense that you seem to think. The WP:CFD main page says in the Scope section: CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages.Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the similar categories are "Companies by city in Foo". Its not helped by the fact that American use of the term City seems to include what in England would be called villages. Rathfelder (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would this issue benefit from a wider ranging discussion? I accept that there is nothing terribly special about the Netherlands category? Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do not expect to get more support with a wider nomination, because the opposing arguments are not country-specific. Especially User:Peterkingiron has a good point in keeping this category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Neither are the opposing arguments topic-specific. Category:Categories by city in the Netherlands includes quite a few topics, some present in more cities than others. I expect we could find companies based in Nijmegen say if we tried. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt the point. I'm perfectly happy with categories of organisations in particular cities. But I dont see why anyone wants to distinguish between companies classified as being in Dutch cities as opposed those classified as not being in cities. Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are categorized by city rather than in cities and only the biggest cities with a sufficient number of articles about companies based there will pop up. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So why would anybody be interested in articles categorised in such an arbitrary fashion?Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 9 October 2018 (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:People from Sainte-Edwidge-de-Clifton, Quebec[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for one person from a small town, and a parent category for its MRC (which is not the level at which we standardize categorization of people from Quebec) with no other content. As always, every town does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one person from that town with an article -- we wait until there's a reasonable number of articles already available to be filed in it, and otherwise we just categorize them at the higher county or region level in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:14, 3 October 2018 (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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary as soundtracks have only been around for two centuries. Also, everything in here is a by decade category anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dimadick: Why should decades always be grouped by century? Should centuries always be grouped by millennium? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories are navigation tools, and several of them serve as bridges allowing readers to locate relevant articles through the century tree. Category:20th century is parent ti multiple subcategories on the people, events, and works of the century. In most cases, there are not enough articles to populate millennium category trees. Dimadick (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2018 (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:Rename. Timrollpickering 18:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Really, there's many, many more of these kinds of categories that could be added here. If other editors wish to add similar categories, I have no objection. DonIago (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia; the suggested targets suffer the same problems of most "about" categories; how much about the subject must the film (or whatever) be? and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Clearer scope. And once again I find Carlossuarez46's argument nonsensical. Don't you ever get tired of this drivel about "trivia"?Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will say some of the categories may qualify for deletion under WP:SMALLCAT...but bluntly, this request was time-consuming enough to put together without getting into that. If editors want to break out the categories for deletion, they can be my guest. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2018 (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: The en dash signifying the symmetric relationship between bridge and tunnel is used in article space; is there a reason not to do similarly in category space? Same for sub-categories... Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Dicklyon: it would save work later if you would tag the sub-categories and list them here. Thanks in advance – FayenaticLondon 16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
OK, listed the 3 here; will tag them next... Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a pretty good hash of that; got it right finally, I think, but don't know if I created side-effects in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support per its article Bridge–tunnel which appears to have been stable since 2017. Oculi (talk) 09:50, 2 October 2018 (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.
