Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 14

January 14

Category:Geography of Merthyr Tydfil

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:57, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories need to be corrected to reflect the fact they contain articles relating to Merthyr Tydfil County Borough rather than isolated to the main town of Merthyr Tydfil. The Merthyr Tydfil category seems to be an anomally in the Wales category tree, where the town and the county are currently confused. NB I'm not nominating the entire category tree, some categories do relate directly to the town, while others need to be upmerged per WP:SMALLCAT. Sionk (talk) 23:09, 14 January 2016 (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:Dutch football organisations

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:38, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. Tim! (talk) 20:14, 14 January 2016 (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.

V-12 Navy College Training Program

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: Does not require a CfD. Consensus appears to be to go ahead with the nominator's plan. No admin action required.. SQLQuery me! 00:35, 4 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose splitting Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program to Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program and Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program alumni
Nominator's rationale: This category contains three different things. First, it contains articles about or related to the V-12 Navy College Training Program like the topic article, the list V-12 Colleges and universities by state and related historical articles like 1943 Purdue Boilermakers football team. These should be retained in the category. Second, it contains articles about V-12 program alumni like Frank N. Mitchell and Dade Moeller. These should be put in a sub-category Category:V-12 Navy College Training Program alumni. Third, it contains every college and university that hosted the V-12 program. These should be removed from the category unless for some unusual reason it's WP:DEFINING for that particular school. For most of these colleges and universities I don't think it is. The content is covered in the list article V-12 Colleges and universities by state.--Jahaza (talk) 15:32, 14 January 2016 (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 units and formations in West Yorkshire

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. – Fayenatic London 15:18, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To conform to Category:Military units and formations in the East Riding of Yorkshire and Category:Military units and formations in the North Riding of Yorkshire. The new title better reflects the content. Military units are not formed by present-day county, but were historically formed by historic county. Mhockey (talk) 11:49, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: you will need to move Category:Military history of West Yorkshire to Category:Military history of the West Riding of Yorkshire also for consistency. I note that there are other categories that will need to be looked at:
Category:Hill forts in West Yorkshire
Category:Castles in West Yorkshire
Category:History of West Yorkshire
and that opens a can of worms. Then,
Category:Hill forts in North Yorkshire
Category:Castles in North Yorkshire
Category:History of North Yorkshire
is another. Hamish59 (talk) 22:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment what about things categorised as South Yorkshire such as Category:Hill forts in South Yorkshire Keith D (talk) 13:29, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment err, was no South Riding. Hamish59 (talk) 08:32, 17 January 2016 (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.

Heer (1956–present)

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. (non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:28, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: German Army has been the established English-language name of the ground forces of Germany for the past 20 years. The categories should reflect that usage.ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2016 (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.

Heer (1956–present)

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.(non-admin closure) sst✈ 14:33, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: German Army has been the established English-language name of the ground forces of Germany for the past 20 years. The categories should reflect that usage. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:28, 14 January 2016 (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:Recipients of The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918

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) sst✈ 14:42, 22 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Recipients of The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The Honour Cross of the World War 1914/1918 was awarded to any German soldierserving in World War I, or their dependants resp. It is not a decoration or order but more a campaign ribbon. There were more than 8 million awards. While the subject itself is noteworthy, the category simply mirrors Category:German military personnel of World War II. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:10, 14 January 2016 (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:U-boats involved in international incidents

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is a sub-category of Category:U-boats only. Any German or Austrian submarine in either WWI or WWII that sank an enemy ship is technically involved in an international incident. There might be merit in a category for incidents involving U-boats, but this category is certainly not helping. ÄDA - DÄP VA (talk) 10:02, 14 January 2016 (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:Organizations by country and subject

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 action; categories are not tagged. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion#Scope. – Fayenatic London 15:24, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I have been doing a lot of work on the categorisation of organisations. I've found Category:Organizations by country and subject very unhelpful. There is no discernible distinction between the categories that end up there - typically about half a dozen for most countries - and those placed in Organisations in the country. For anyone looking for particular kinds of organisations in a country it is an unnecessary complication.Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification @Rathfelder: You're proposing deleting both categories, correct? RevelationDirect (talk) 13:13, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
yes I think so. Rathfelder (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

--Lquilter (talk) 15:17, 15 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Companies by city and industry exemplifies the problem. Out of many thousands of companies 5 are included in the subcategories here. How is a user supposed to know that there are such subcategories? The point of categorisation is to help users find articles. Except possibly in the case of the USA there are not so many articles about organisations that this is helpful. What is needed is to ensure that all the articles about organisations are included into a relevant country category, where appropriate, and a relevant subject category, where possible. This requires a system of categorisation which is sufficiently transparent. It's clear that this system is excessively complicated, not understood by those who write the articles and not working.

Category:Organizations based in Greece by subject isn't helpful if it arbitrarily separates out some kinds of organisations from others so that they are less visible. Category:Political organizations in Greece‎ appears there, but Category:Trade unions in Greece doesn't. Of course a few countries will end up with many categories, but this can be reduced by application of the hierarchical principle, so, for example, arts organisations are within the bigger category of cultural organisations, charities are within non-profit making organisations etc.

Rathfelder (talk) 19:58, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • The question how a user is supposed to know that there are such subcategories isn't relevant for container categories. Users need not to know them because there are no articles in them, container categories are merely accidentally found by users as they scroll up or down through the category tree. The more important question is whether "by subject" is clear enough. Personally I think it is and I see a clear commonality here with the tree of Category:History by country and topic, where the topics within history are politics, economy, social, cultural etc. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all back to their country parent. This is not a helpful split. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 17 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In the case of US cats, it has never been clear whether some of them are meant to refer to the specific city (New York City) or to the Metro-Area of that city.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 23 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think there should be guidance on when and why to break it down by sub-national unit more generally. --Lquilter (talk) 19:01, 25 January 2016 (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:Professional associations by profession

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. Note that the category hadn't been tagged. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:12, 25 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A similar problem to that above. The categories which are put there show no logical distinction from those placed in Category:Professional associations. Rathfelder (talk) 09:37, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have spent all week working on the category professional organisations, and have got it down to manageable proportions by putting all the organisations into their appropriate countries, and making more categories to go into category:Professional associations by country‎. But I think the categories which at present appear in category:Professional associations by profession‎ would be more easily found in Category:Professional associationsRathfelder (talk) 20:18, 16 January 2016 (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:Landless Chippewas

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, without prejudice to the creation of a new category like Category:Landless tribes containing a set of tribes. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:15, 1 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting Category:Landless Chippewas
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OVERLAPCAT and WP:SUBJECTIVECAT
The "Landless Chippewas" refers to a period from around 1879 to 1916 when Ojibwe Native Americans (aka Chippewa Indians) were present in Montana but the Rocky Boy Indian Reservation had yet to be established for them. I'm telling you this because there is no main article and both of the two articles in the category are already in Category:Ojibwe in Montana. (Alternatively, if kept, we should rename it to Category:Landless Ojibwe to reflect the preferred naming.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note:The creator was banned but I added this discussion to WikiProject Indigenous peoples of North America and I'll ping those from an earlier discussion: @Vanjagenije, Ivanvector, and Jcc:. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose and populate, but consider upmerge to new category. The main Chippewa tribe that is "landless" today is the . Little Shell Chippewa. I suppose we could use a Category:Landless Tribes or something like that; the problem of "landless" Indians is actually bigger than just the Chippewa people, and sometimes grounds for tribal termination, I think it was an issue for some branches of other groups, but would have to research. I added the Little Shell article to the group, and a quick search on "Landless tribes" pulled up 2-3 non-Chippewa/Ojibwa groups in the east, probably won't be tough to populate an upmerged category. Montanabw(talk) 01:39, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Montanabw: I think this topic is definitely worth an article. Once that happens, it will be easier to know what to call any possible category and what to include within it. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:12, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many tribes don't have reservations. What constitutes a landless tribe? A tribe with no land in trust? A tribe with no fee simple title? What would constitute a "tribe" in this instance? Canadian? US? What about other countries? Continents: Africa, Asia? In the US, federal, state, or unrecognized? It seems very subjective, very messy, and not particularly encyclopedic. Yuchitown (talk) 22:43, 14 January 2016 (UTC)Yuchitown[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:Ricardo Arjona

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:33, 10 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The album and song subcategories, along with the eponymous article (as opposed to this category) are enough for navigation. This practice is discouraged at this level per WP:OCEPON when individual works have specific options to go into. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:52, 14 January 2016 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_January_14&oldid=1138409795"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 January 14, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.