Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 2

< Wikipedia:Categories for discussion | Log
< October 1 October 3 >

October 2

edit

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.
The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
  • @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. – Fayenatic London 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. – Fayenatic London 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]
  • 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]
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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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:Soundtracks by century

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. 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]
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.

Foo in media

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: Rename. Timrollpickering 18:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 18#Foo in films --> Films about foo, better to make it clear that categories of this nature are to be applied when a subject is the primary focus of a work of fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 2 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]
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.

Category:Bridge-tunnels

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: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
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]
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/2018_October_2&oldid=1073191821"