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:upmerge, unnecessary category layer with just one city subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2019 (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/merge. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The target categories are not overpopulated, so there is no pressing need to create subcats for the cities. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a meaningful distinction in a state with only two major cities. That was my rationale for creating the categories.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I don't really have a preference about whether they get merged or not.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, to your point about NYC, I think there is value in making a distinction between some cities in the U.S. and their state-level buckets. For example, probably useful to have subcategories for SF, LA, and San Diego in California, at least for years with 100+ entries, of which there are several.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, tho 100 is a low threshold; I'd suggest a minimum threshold of 200 (i.e. one page), preferably about 300. Looking at California since 1980, I see only three years which exceed the 200 mark.
But I'm not sure how WP:defining the distinction between city and state is for establishments and disestablishments.
Also, it's only worth doing if it's going to be part of a viable long series, so that readers don't don't need to jump up and down between category levels. Note for example that the establishments-by-state and disestablishments-by-state cats are automatically cross-linked; that sort of handiness gets lost if establishments are subcatted deeper than disestablishments. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least for New York City I'm happy to go through and also organize disestablishments at the same depth. However, based on my observations, I don't think there's an extremely well-established pattern of tagging disestablished institutions as disestablished. I'm not ignorant of that class of category existing, but it's certainly not as well used as the "Establishments" category.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, to address your concern ("viable long series")...this isn't a passing effort of mine, I intend to be committed to it for the foreseeable future and if you see value in any portion of it would welcome help/advice.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MainlyTwelve, my point is not about your undoubted energies; it's that I am not sure if a long series would be viable. Two reasons:
The further back we go, the thinner such a series gets. It's theoretically possible to say "not before YYYY", but in practice once a series has started, editors expect a "YYYY in Foo" category for every value of YYYY. So the non-existent years become redlinks (WP:REDNOT) or get created and then come to CFD. Either way that creates a maintenance headache.
Thank you for providing the precedent discussion. I struggled to find one, or any. Given that it was up to debate for a similar city with a similar position in its country's national consciousness (London to the UK/NYC to the U.S.) as early as 2012, I think it's reasonable to continue as is with the NYC subcats as they're no doubt much more populated than the London categories were at that point. At the very least, I'd extend this rationale to apply to years where the number of articles currently indexed is similar the number of articles indexed in the categories I've currently worked through. A brief look at the breakdown by decade for NYC through the 20th century indicates this effort would extend meaningfully backward in time to at least the 1910s, and probably earlier.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MainlyTwelve, I draw a different conclusion from that 2012 discussion, viz. don't create estab-by-year cats for 2nd-level national subdivisions.
In the case of NYC, I don't see the numbers to justify creating an exception.
This current discussion should give us some measure of where consensus currently lies on estab-by-year cats for cities. If this closes as keep, then I guess NYC will stay; but otherwise, I will nominate the NYC cats for merger. Please can you hold off creating more of them until consensus is clearer? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs)
Yes, I'm happy to hold off for now.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - I agree that 'establishments by city by year' is not a good idea. Oculi (talk) 10:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Several of those I sampled have 5 articles which is normally judged to be enough for a category. If the nom does proceed, I would suggest there should be a further merge target of the type Category:1990s establishments in Pittsburgh. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:19, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Duplicate (that is, in addition to the annual 2nd-tier) decennial categories at the 3rd-tier are an interesting idea.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:08, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, too small cities for this type of categorization and agree with Oculi that it is just not a good idea in general (see also the parallel discussion about New York). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:09, 4 March 2019 (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.
Delete -- The article will make a main article for the albums subcat and the civers (if we need it) can be its child. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:24, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I used to put covers categories as subcats of the albums subcat (items related to 'Foo albums') but someone kept reverting ('not albums' which is true). Oculi (talk) 16:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Serving only as a parent to one subcategory of articles is not useful or needed per WP:OCEPON. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:37, 28 February 2019 (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 as there is currently nothing left to merge to the works subcategory (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Downmerge to the works cat-- not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Downmerge to the works cat seems reasonable. Oculi (talk) 16:55, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No need for parent for one subcategory of actual content (which is already serving as a more natural parent). StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:39, 28 February 2019 (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.
Keep - 3 subcats are enough. I probably agree with Woodensuperman about the articles. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutralThe two subcats can be connected with hatnotes which takes 1 click for navigation. The category (at least with the current contents) serves no other purpose other than connecting the two subcats with 3 clicks and doesn't overcome WP:OCEPON. Tried to find more direct articles (house, statue, lawsuit, etc) and found none. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There were 3 subcats until the creation of Category:Works by W. C. Fields by the nominator, post-nomination. I've no idea whether the 2 subcats justify a 'works' subcat. Oculi (talk) 17:29, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thank you for the background. I agree that we need either the Works or eponymous category but not both.. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:04, 3 March 2019 (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.
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.
Keep - this has 4 subcats. No problem whatever. Oculi (talk) 16:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteNeutral The Songs and Albums subcats are already also under the Works subcategory though so I only see 2 subcats that should be there. (The filmography article also belongs under Works.) RevelationDirect (talk) 17:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The 'works' subcategory was created today by the nominator. Musician categories do not generally have a 'works' subcat: see Category:Works by musician where the musician has generally also written a book or directed a film. Oculi (talk) 21:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oculi and delete the 'works by' subcategory. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:59, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep enough there. Johnbod (talk) 16:23, 9 March 2019 (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.
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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CFDS C2D (which nominator should consider in future). GiantSnowman 13:45, 4 March 2019 (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.
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:44, 4 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:CFDS C2D (which nominator should consider in future). GiantSnowman 13:45, 4 March 2019 (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.
