Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 September 23

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/delete as nominated. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:10, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: These small, too-specific categories have little chance to grow. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 23:58, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: For the sake of readability, I'll summarize this. The container categories are nominated for deletion; these do not have any films in them. The categories with films in them are all nominated for merging into Category:Films set in New York. The end result would be that every film in these small subcategories ends up in the top category. I did not nominate the Westchester category, as it has the entire Amityville Horror series in it, and that's a pretty large film series. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 00:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom Most of these categories are empty or nearly empty. Dimadick (talk) 04:39, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh, sorry, Amityville Horror is set in Suffolk, not Westchester. To clarify, Westchester is safe; it is not tagged. Suffolk is tagged for merging, as there's already a subcat for the Amityville Horror films from the top category. So, Category:Films set in New York would have five subcats: Films set in Westchester County, Films set in New York City, Amityville Horror films, Batman films, and Superman films. Everything else would be emptied into the top category as I said above. I'm sorry for the confusion. Also, I tweaked the nomination to fix two errors: I accidentally nominated an empty category for merging (it's now listed for deletion), and I forgot to include in the nomination a category that had already been tagged. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 16:15, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. We don't need to comprehensively subcategorize Category:Films set in New York down to the individual county, even if that mostly results in WP:SMALLCAT violations — while New York City obviously qualifies for its own subcategory and the Westchester County subcategory is large enough to warrant being retained (although it too has a couple of further town subcats that are too small to warrant retention and should be upmerged as well), we don't need a comprehensive set for every county or town in the entire state that has ever had just one or two films set in it. That does not assist navigation. Bearcat (talk) 22:58, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all per nom. I too noticed a few more subcats deep in the tree that should also be upmerged. (Films usually feature action not specific to exactly one small area so I doubt if "Babylon Town, Suffolk County, New York" is defining.) Oculi (talk) 10:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge it will help get rid of these WP:SMALLCAT problems. MarnetteD|Talk 03:53, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• weak merge, my concern is that there pretty clear distinction between films set in Upstate NY vs. NYC vs. Long Island etc. Hopefully this is reflected in the categorization schemes.--Prisencolin (talk) 21:41, 29 September 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.

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 and merge contents to Category:Monuments and memorials in Kosovo

• Propose deleting Category:Medieval Monuments in Kosovo (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, since the concept, a Heritage Site, includes only four sites, listed in the main article.

• Keep: "Medieval Monuments in Kosovo" as a term doesn't refer only to Heritage Sites. It includes every monument built in Kosovo during the Middle Ages. Ktrimi991 (talk) 15:22, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge to Category:Monuments and memorials in Kosovo, as there is no larger scheme for Category:Medieval monuments. Oculi (talk) 17:45, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• REname to Category:Medieval buildings and structures in Kosovo. The content relates to churches with a World Heritage inscription (and in danger), or perhaps Category:World Heritage sites in Kosovo. These are "monuments" in the same sense as "ancient monuments" in UK, not in a similar sense to war memorials. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:24, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Oculi. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Upmerge per Oculi. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:10, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a category for Medieval Monuments in Kosovo. Tim! (talk) 19:47, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Not every article needs to have its own category. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:19, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Per Oculi. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:42, 2 October 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.

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:Films set in New York. I left a redirect (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 14:04, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Films set in New York (state) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Redundant to Category:Films set in New York. Alternatively, the other could be merged into this one, which would be a lot more work. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 22:50, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom The parent article on the state is simply named New York. For consistency reasons categories based on it should be named "x in New York" Dimadick (talk) 04:41, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Oculi (talk) 17:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Ugh. What appears to have happened here is that because of the ongoing cleanup project taking place on links to New York to sort out those where the state is the desired topic from those that were meant to point to New York City, {{United States topic}} was edited to push the link format from "New York" to "New York (state)" to get them out of the way of the links that actually had to be sorted — but that resulted in the template on all of the other "Films set in (State)" categories redlinking New York because the template was now looking for this name instead of the existing one. So obviously that's why this got created. Merge per nom, but keep this in place as a categoryredirect so that this doesn't happen again while the cleanup project is forcing link modification like this. Bearcat (talk) 23:05, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment from creator agree that there should not be two separate NY State categories. Only created this one because I saw a hold in a template. For the ease of template links, it might be worth merging the other category into this one. Juno (talk) 00:00, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. MarnetteD|Talk 03:54, 27 September 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.

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) 04:01, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Actors who portrayed Tarzan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT#Performers by role or composition. Redrose64 (talk) 19:59, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 08:38, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:PERFCAT --Rob Sinden (talk) 08:03, 26 September 2016‎ (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. MarnetteD|Talk 03:56, 27 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:11, 27 September 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.

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) 04:08, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Play School presenters into Category:BBC television presenters

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT:"This also includes categorization by performance—even for permanent or recurring roles—in any specific radio, television, film, or theatrical production". Play School is a specific television production. Rob Sinden (talk) 13:50, 23 September 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.

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. It can be renominated and a reason provided why the category is not useful. As noted, it should not be emptied before nomination. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Lists of MNAs elected in Pakistani general elections (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Empty. not really useful. Saqib (talk) 12:12, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• I have no opinion on whether this should be deleted, or kept and renamed — however, I need to note that this is empty solely because the nominator emptied it out of process immediately before nominating it for deletion as "empty". That's not acceptable; CFD must come to a consensus that the category is not useful and deletable before the category can be emptied. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 26 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Restore and keep – the nom should explain why List of members of the 14th National Assembly of Pakistan say should not be categorised in Category:Lists of MNAs elected in Pakistani general elections. Oculi (talk) 21:12, 26 September 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.

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: restructure according to the proposal PII. Disclosure: I am closing this discussion despite the fact that I participated in it, as (i) it is not a regular CFD process to change an existing category, (ii) nobody else has closed it despite a week of inactivity, and (iii) it ended with consensus. – Fayenatic London 10:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose discussion about recategorizing Category:Contents

Now that the discussion has ended in a conclusion, I propose:

• Propose recatgorizing Category:Contents according to PII. CN1 (talk) 17:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There were proposed hierarchies: PI and PII. As I made PI and was the only advocate for it, I will join the others opinions and vote for PII now. PII makes more sense than I first thought. CN1 (talk)

Category:Fundamental topic classification(s) = Category:Fundamental categories

PI                                              PII
Category:Contents                               Category:Contents
    Category:Featured content                       Category:Featured content
    Category:Wikipedia administration               Category:Wikipedia administration   
        Category:Help                                   Category:Help
    Category:Topic classification                   Category:Articles
        Category:Fundamental topic classification       Category:Main topic classifications
        Category:Geography                                  Category:Geography
        Category:Health                                     Category:Health
        ...                                                 ... 
    Category:Contents by type                           Category:Fundamental topic classifications
        Category:Image galleries                    Category:Wikipedia drafts
        Category:Portals                            Category:Wikipedia navigation
        Category:Wikipedia drafts                       Category:Wikipedia indexes
        Category:Wikipedia categories                   Category:Wikipedia outlines
        Category:Articles                               Category:Lists
            Category:Topic classification                   Category:Wikipedia glossaries
            Category:Wikipedia indexes                  Category:Portals
            Category:Wikipedia outlines                 Category:Wikipedia categories
            Category:Wikipedia glossaries               Category:Image galleries
            Category:Lists

Nominator's rationale: Not a change to solve a problem, but to categorize the elements at the root of the category system in a way, which would allow even unexperienced users to easily find what they look for. I don't have numbers about how many are really using Category:Contents for search, but I think the proposal would help those users. The arrangement into 1.media, 2.topics, 3.types of elements feels intuitive and logical. CN1 (talk) 09:27, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Update 21:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC) Description of PI and PII:

PII is more like the existing structure, where everythinig is on the same "level"; apart from Category:Wikipedia navigation, almost everthing stays the same. PI builds a more structured hierarchy.

PI wants to categorize Category:Contents by topic of content and by type of content, so this happens in the first tier. PII's goal is to categorize primarily by application: Articles are seen as the main element of the enzyclopedia, the knowledge is in them, so they are on tier one. Another application in Wikipedia is good navigation, which is the other big tier one category in Category:Contents in PII. As I support PI, I will say that the function of lists, outlines, glossaries, indexes etc are NOT primarily for navigation.

PI wants to categorize by logical sorting keys, PII by application.

I hope this text helps to form an opinion and choose. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeName1 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

CN1 (talk) 21:17, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for this comparison. I certainly think indexes and outlines, like categories and nav boxes, are mainly for navigation. This is less clear for lists and glossaries; on further reflection I'm proposing to move glossaries down into lists. – Fayenatic London 07:20, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support – seems a reasonable idea. Most of the above could be done without a cfd, but there are 2 renames (Category:Main topic classifications to Category:Classical topics and Category:Fundamental categories to Category:Fundamental topics) for which the subject categories should be tagged. Oculi (talk) 21:15, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just wanted to see the immediate reactions. If the reactions are positive, the categories can be rearranged and the two renames done later separately. CN1 (talk) 02:25, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• It's an excellent idea to seek views beforehand. If only more editors would do it ... Oculi (talk) 09:34, 24 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have a bad feeling about the absence of comments to this proposal. Can you tell me your doubts at least? CN1 (talk) 12:19, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I've never been so high up in the category tree so I'm pretty neutral here. Presumably that applies to most people. The only question I have upfront is, for every of the new categories to be created, is there sufficient content to populate the new category? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on how active you are in the category system I can not imagine how you manage to resist looking at it's "peak". I completely rearranged the proposal, so there is no category with a low number of subcategories. CN1 (talk) 17:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for rearranging, it's now also becoming clearer what you're trying to achieve. It may not be very intuitive to have Category:Wikipedia elements as a subcat of Category:Wikipedia administration, I'd rather expect to see these two categories as siblings. Another thought that springs to mind (which refers both to the current and to the proposed structure), I would expect Glossaries, Lists, Outlines and Timelines to be subcats of Articles instead of siblings. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:30, 8 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Both points are included now. My original train of thought for intending to put portals, categories, articles as subcat of Category:Wikipedia administration was this: These categories are bad to use for the search of a specific topic and I thought they are used more for maintenance and overview - hence administration. Your point still makes more sense, because they should be reached immedialty from Category:Contents as their common theme is "Contents by type". CN1 (talk) 13:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Now I started CFDs to rename the two topic categories [here]. CN1 (talk) 14:06, 9 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: CN1, you can't use a redirect as part of the hierarchy. To rescue the above structure, I suggest moving Category:Main topics and Category:Fundamental topics down into Category:Articles. I would also move Category:Articles up one level into Category:Contents. – Fayenatic London 10:32, 11 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Update Removed the redirect. Put Category:Fundamental categories as subcategory to Category:Main topic classifications by renaming both in a way which should avoid this hierarchy to feel artificial. Renamed Category:Wikipedia elements to Category:Contents by type. I don't know why Category:Articles should not be a sibling of the other Wikipedia elements, they are just another type of content. CN1 (talk) 12:34, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • CN1, the trouble with this proposed structure is that it creates a loop: Category:Topic classification (=Category:Main topic classifications) → Category:Contents by type → Category:Articles → Category:Topic classification. IMHO articles are not "just another type of content", but the fundamental type of content, and the reason for the existence of the other types. Hence, to have Articles in Contents not only avoids a loop, but makes sense to me anyway. How about something like Category:Wikipedia navigation that would contain Categories, Portals, Indexes, Outlines, Glossaries, Lists and Navigational boxes? – Fayenatic London 12:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK I fix that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.218.130.206 (talk) 14:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • If we put Drafts in Contents alongside Articles, and put Image galleries also into Wikipedia navigation, then we won't need the layer Contents by type. – Fayenatic London 16:55, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Fayenatic london: I made your hierarchy as you described. Just have patience with me because I can not see the loop you are talking about. You say that in my structure there is a link from "main topic classification" to "Contents by type". But how can that be if "Contents by type" is not subcategory to "main topic classification"? CN1 (talk) 19:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sorry, my mistake, there was no loop. In your proposal there are two ways down from Contents into Topic classification, but the first one does not enclose the second one (as I mistakenly thought). – Fayenatic London 22:00, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I have revised my proposal to keep the fundamental topics alongside the main topics, as these are alternative ways into the hierarchies of articles. I support renaming the "fundamental" one, to Category:Fundamental topic classifications (more consistent with Category:Main topic classifications). Apart from that, I see that the only change which my proposal would make to the existing structure is to introduce a level called "Wikipedia navigation". – Fayenatic London 22:05, 12 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• I like PII better, but here Wikipedia drafts and Wikipedia navigation should probably be moved under Category:Contents because presumably there can only be one top category, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 17:50, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, definitely. I have changed it accordingly. I would not rename the Main topics category. As for the presentation in this CFD, I'm not sure that this side-by-side presentation is helpful; it requires a wide browser window, which may not be possible e.g. when using a tablet. – Fayenatic London 21:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I chose the horizontal positioning because it benefits the compare-process extremely well. CN1 (talk) 00:11, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• New info to proposal @Fayenatic london: I added a description to your and my drafts, trying to understand and describe their nature and differences. I like PI better, but if I can not convince more people, I'd prefer your solution to the status quo. CN1 (talk) 21:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I just came across Wikipedia:Encyclopedic genre, which may suggest other categories to be added. – Fayenatic London 08:09, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Fayenatic london: @Marcocapelle: I give up PI now. I needed some time to "get" the logic behind PII but I like you solution better now. The only reason I didn't delete PI is for archive reasons. I hope PII will be implemented. Thanks for your involvement. CN1 (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• The renaming is separately listed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_October_9#Category:Main topic classifications and Category:Fundamental categories, and no particular approval is needed here to split to a new sub-cat. @Oculi: any comments on the alternative/revised proposal? – Fayenatic London 21:15, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I will not do the changes unless this CFD is officially closed. CN1 (talk) 11:56, 17 October 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.

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) 14:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Pakistani terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Non-conventional category, with implicit issues of WP:LABEL. Besides, we don't have a category structure on Wikipedia classifying 'terrorists' by nationality. Mar4d (talk) 07:47, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: I agree with nom's rationale. This is a category based on nationalistic slur and should not be allowed to stand. Sheriff | ☎ 911 | 10:09, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: very non-conventional as there doesn't exist any similar categories for any other nationality. Why single out Pakistan?VR _talk 21:06, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – this has been deleted before. See cfd in 2010. Oculi (talk) 21:20, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as recreation of a previously deleted category. For WP:NPOV and WP:BLP reasons we have to be extremely careful about loaded descriptors like "terrorist". Bearcat (talk) 23:08, 24 September 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.

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:00, 3 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sage academic journals to Category:SAGE Publications academic journals

Nominator's rationale: Publisher's name is SAGE Publications, not "Sage" Randykitty (talk) 02:54, 23 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- If it is appropriate to categorise them by publisher at all (which I doubt). Peterkingiron (talk) 17:25, 25 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Support This could be a speedy rename too. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 13:02, 28 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy The article should blindly follow the main article. And this is confusing anyway, as a "sage" is an adjective. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:44, 2 October 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.