- 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. The one editor defending this category has not come up with a clear purpose & justification for it, distinct from container categories and fundamental categories. At present it contains a rather odd collection of just 48 categories, some of which are in sets e.g. films by parameter, but mostly unrelated; it will not be much of a loss, nor hard to reinstate if a different consensus emerges elsewhere or later. – Fayenatic London 19:57, 5 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator's rationale: I discussed the purpose of this page with the creator, but I've not been convinced that this is really different from Category:Container categories. As such it should be deleted. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:02, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Strong keep. The purpose of this category is to provide the resource which "container categories" was meant to be all along, but which it became too unwieldy to provide. Wikipedia needs one category where broad parent categories for topical areas can be assembled and reviewed, for editors who wish to utilize them. The criteria is simple; any category which is a broad top-level category and which is designed by definition for encompassing other categories within a particular criteria area. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:15, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem is, that is a very vague criteria, and it sounds like you don't like the fact that container categories has so many members. But that's sort of how things go - there are *lots* of container categories. We do have Category:Fundamental categories, which is perhaps close to what you want in terms of "top-level" categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:28, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- You may also look at Category:Main_topic_classifications, which might provide what you're looking for. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
the problem with container categories is that it contains numerous iterations of the same sub-categorization. so, for example, it contains about 60 individual categories for "anime by year," starting with "1933 anime," and then going up, almost year by year, all the way up to "1994 anime." As you reasonably note, that's how things go. so, by the same token, we now have "Parent categories," which is eminently more useful for the average user, since it would only have the single parent category which is for all such sub-categories for anime by year. --Sm8900 (talk) 16:36, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, you are claiming that it is perfectly okay for us to retain "container categories," which has the following contents (below), yet not retain "Parent categories," which is eminently more useful and readable for the average editor.
17th-century Asian people (7 C, 1 P) ► 17th-century European people (22 C, 1 P)
► 17th-century Jewish physicians (4 C)
► 17th-century men (1 C)
► 17th-century Ottoman people (4 C, 50 P)
► 17th-century people by nationality (56 C)
► 17th-century physicians (23 C, 4 P)
► 17th-century religious buildings (93 C, 6 P)
► 17th-century school buildings (1 C)
► 18th-century Asian people (8 C, 9 P)
► 18th-century British medical doctors (3 C)
► 18th-century Croatian people (8 P)
► 18th-century European people (20 C, 7 P)
► 18th-century Jewish physicians (6 C)
► 18th-century men (1 C)
► 18th-century Ottoman people (4 C, 71 P)
► 18th-century people by nationality (66 C)
► 18th-century physicians (29 C, 5 P)
► 18th-century religious buildings (103 C, 7 P)
► 18th-century school buildings (27 C)
--Sm8900 (talk) 16:54, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Container categories has over 4000 categories. You have identified a few that didn't have the "container category" tag added to them, but this has now been resolved. I would estimate that there are probably several thousand more that are self-evidently container categories, but which don't have the tag added - it's really neither here nor there, and if you'd like to go and add the container category tag to thousands of more categories please be my guest. The problem is, you haven't come up with a clear metric by which Category:Parent categories should be populated - either it will end up almost the same as Category:Container categories (perhaps with certain duplicates removed), or it will end up the same as Category:Main topic classifications. I don't see a middle ground where this notion of "parent" cat is useful. Take a look at this page: [1] and quickly tell me, which ones are "parent" cats, and which ones aren't? Your terminology doesn't make sense... All cats are parents of other cats, and some cats are the highest level parents, and for those, we already have categories to hold them. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:06, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- the truth is that you and I are the same type of person, arguing over the same type of idea, only from different angles. you are saying that it is okay for us to retain "container categories," with its overly expansive approach to categorization, and you are also saying it is good for us to retain the strict hierarchicalization inherent in "Main topic classifications." The problem is that you are trying to argue for both positions at once. I am simply trying to insert an other element between the two, one which will be eminently useful for average editors, and for the benefit of the project as a whole. it adds a little bit of the subjectivity inherent in the hierarchy below it, but keeps it consolidated. it will be good for the project. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:11, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- to answer your question, from the page which you cited, THIS is a parent category: ► Olympic competitors by country (220 C)
- while THESE are not:
► Olympic competitors for Afghanistan (6 C)
► Olympic competitors for Albania (7 C)
► Olympic competitors for Algeria (19 C)
► Olympic competitors for American Samoa (5 C)
► Olympic competitors for Andorra (8 C)
► Olympic competitors for Angola (8 C)
► Olympic competitors for Antigua and Barbuda (3 C)
► Olympic competitors for Argentina (36 C)
► Olympic competitors for Armenia (17 C)
► Olympic competitors for Aruba (5 C)
► Olympic competitors for Australasia (8 C)
► Olympic competitors for Australia (47 C)
► Olympic competitors for Austria (40 C)
► Olympic competitors for Azerbaijan (16 C)
► Olympic competitors for Bahrain (6 C)
► Olympic competitors for Bangladesh (5 C)
► Olympic competitors for Barbados (6 C)
► Olympic competitors for Belarus (31 C)
► Olympic competitors for Belgium (34 C)
► Olympic competitors for Belize (4 C)
► Olympic competitors for Benin (5 C)
► Olympic competitors for Bermuda (10 C)
► Olympic competitors for Bhutan (2 C)
► Olympic competitors for Bohemia (7 C)
► Olympic competitors for Bolivia (9 C)
► Olympic competitors for Bosnia and Herzegovina (9 C)
► Olympic competitors for Botswana (4 C)
► Olympic competitors for Brazil (33 C)
- --Sm8900 (talk) 17:16, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, so what about Category:Sports_competitors_by_competition_and_nationality? Is that also a "parent"? what about Category:Sportspeople_by_nationality or Category:People_by_occupation_and_nationality or Category:People_by_nationality or Category:Categories_by_nationality. You can just keep going up the tree, and it's "parents" all the way, until you hit the fundamental categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:22, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Ok, that's a fair question. as you said, you are comfortable with the repetition which is inherent with "Container categories." so yes, we would still have some of the same repetitiveness which now occurs in "Container categories." we would simply avoid some of the unwieldiness which comes from having dozens of iterations of the same subcategorization.
- In the cases which you cited, yes, one might expect to see some parallel items within the "Parent categories," such as "People by nationality," "People by occupation," "Sportspeople by club or team," "Sportspeople by position," "Sportspeople by sport," etc etc. but it would be no different than the type of expansiveness and obvious repetition which is currently found in the category "Container categories." We would simply be utilizing certain criteria, which it would make it more useful for the average editor. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:38, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Right - so you'd like it to be just like Container categories, but without any of the repetition? The way container categories is populated is through placement of a template. Are you suggesting we create a new template, or modify the existing one, to populate "Parent categories" accordingly? Again, I don't think this is workable, and having a bit of replication in that category is fine, which is not for users in any case but for editors and admins, it is a hidden category. I think your suggestion is to create a mostly duplicate category that would have many thousands of entries, but without things like Category:Olympic competitors for Estonia - perhaps Category:Categories by parameter is what you want instead? --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:59, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- i do hear your point. I understand your suggestion on that. however, no, "Categories by parameter" is not quite what I had in mind. i see numerous benefits to a category which can group all parent categories together, much like "Container categories" currently does, even for those which may be within other categories. As for how to do it, I wasn't thinking of a template, but more like conventionally adding items manually to the category. the key here is those cats which are top-level for a notable topical area. so, "Sportspeople by position" is an excellent example, being the top-level category for that topical area, with no parallel whatsoever above it. there are benefits to grouping all such categories together, which would not be not attainable if we keep only a strictly top-level category which shows only the 8 or 9 umbrella categories at the very top. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:35, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete It's very unlikely that editors will understand the nuances of the distinction between container categories and parent categories. The category creator has not provided a convincing argument as to why this extra complication to the WP category structure is necessary. I suggest if he/she has ideas like this in the future they raise them at categorization talk, village pump etc to get consensus first. DexDor (talk) 19:56, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- hmmm. well, if we had to choose between the two, what do you feel would be a reason to keep the category "container categories"? in my opinion, actually "parent categories" would be the one we should keep. "container categories" seems kind of unnecessary, and too expansive right now. --Sm8900 (talk) 19:58, 5 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
- I think that this discussion is inadequately canvassed - there is a constant problem on wp en of people adding parent cats with child cats on article category space - which makes a mess of things (showing the inadequate understanding of most editors of category trees and relationships), and the 'parent' or 'container' needs to be clearly identified - I think it is important to resolve the above - so that (a) it is very clear there is not a need to bank up parent and child cats in one article, and where possible to (b) clearly identify container categories. How it might be resolved, I am not sure from the above conversation - it needs to be done as wp en is littered with over-categorisation, and multiple pile ups of combined parent and child categories on articles. sats 08:33, 8 July 2013 (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.