< February 12 February 14 >

February 13

[edit]

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]
or
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]
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. – Fayenatic London 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]
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:Nigerian inventors (people)

[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, since the category is meanwhile empty (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:20, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate of Category:Nigerian inventors —swpbT 20:06, 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.

Category:Dr Stefano Shamaldin Ćulibrk

[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. – Fayenatic London 15:34, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT —swpbT 20:04, 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.

Category:People from the Pacific Northwest

[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: keep as container category. – Fayenatic London 16:32, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary overcategorization of biographies already split into subcategories. TM 12:39, 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]
@Namiba: The same scope issue arises with the other subcats of Category:Pacific Northwest, such as Category:History of the Pacific Northwest, Category:Geography of the Pacific Northwest and Category:Culture of the Pacific Northwest. Unless you propose to delete the whole of Category:Pacific Northwest, then we need to do what we do in any other situation where judgemnet is required: have a discussion, and try to form a consensus which provides a stable solution for Wikipedia but acknowledges the wider debate. There are many parallels. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:20, 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]
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.

Category:Global finance

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Similarity. Shyamsunder (talk) 10:40, 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.

Category:German-Russian culture in Nebraska

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:26, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: or merge it. Or something. Just make it go away.
It's just a restaurant chain with a logo, plus an empty head article: German-Russians in Nebraska. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:57, 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 19:47, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging Category:Geography of the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia to Category:Kingdom of Galicia–Volhynia
  • Propose merging Category:Cities and towns of Ukraine built in the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia‎ to Category:Cities and towns built in the Kingdom of Galicia-Volhynia‎
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]
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.
The result of the discussion was: Merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, there is only subcat in this container category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:09, 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.

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 result of the discussion was: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT. One item, and little potential for growth. There is no Category:Storage buildings. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 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.

Category:Military personnel from Baltimore

[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. – Fayenatic London 12:13, 24 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Also including Category:Military personnel from Salt Lake City, Category:Military personnel from Charleston, South Carolina, Category:Military personnel from Portland, Oregon, Category:Military personnel from Minneapolis
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]
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]
  • 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]
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:Music of Australia

[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 to Category:Australian music. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 07:19, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: duplicates function of Category:Australian music, we need only one. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:09, 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.

Category:Telecommunications Education

[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: too narrow a category, used only to highlight one article. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:04, 13 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]
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.
More