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 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Proposed merger Category:Die Wende & Category:German reunification

Nominator's rational: Both are about pretty much the same thing and they both contain all the same articles. Charles Essie (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose merger. The two topics overlap to some degree, but are distinct. Die Wende is about the process in the GDR, whereas German reunification is about developments in the relations between the two Germanies, and eventual unity.
  e.g. Category:Die Wende Should include topics such as Alexanderplatz demonstration and Monday demonstrations in East Germany, neither of which should be in Category:German reunification; but Fall of the inner German border should be in both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose merger I think that two categories have to be more than "pretty much the same thing" to warrant merging them (and effectively deleting Category:Die Wende). Given BHG's statements, it sounds like there is a distinction between the two. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:46, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• I guess there is a distinction between the two, but they're both part of the same revolution, the thing is they're so inter-connected that I don't think they warrent separate categories. Charles Essie (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge Die Wende literally means the turnaround (or such like) according to the article, and prefers to the change in DDR, when it joined (West) Germany. The two may refer to different ideas, but they are both aspects of the same major change. We only need one category Category:German reunification (which is English). I have never heard the German term used in English. It may be useful to keep the other as a category redirect, but I note that its main article has a multiple issues tag: possibly it needs to be merged too. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:30, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The events of 1990 such as Alexanderplatz demonstration and Monday demonstrations in East Germany are not part of German reunfication. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 1 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• But they helped lead to German reunification. Charles Essie (talk) 16:44, 2 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• And World War I led to World War II.
  There os some overlap between the two concepts, but the fact that A led B is not the same as A=B. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:16, 20 March 2014 (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) 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Largest cities by population (Global) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Unclear inclusion criteria; currently lists 18 cities, so why not the 19th? Then why not the 20th, etc. McGeddon (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a-no inclusion criteria. b-this is the type of thing better covered by a list, especially since it changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Hey there, McGeddon. I am currently creating the Global Metropolises category & the Largest Cities by Population (Globally) category. I'm not desperately attached to keeping both categories, but I do think there is a subtle distinction. At this point, my plan is to add the 100 largest cities to each category but I think that as other's contribute to the categories they may grow to contain different datasets/cities and certainly people will find each caytegory for different reasons, from different searches on the search engine. I was inspired to create these categories because I was frustrated by how regionally atomized information was on the cities category page, and it seems to labor intensive to me to constantly edit and update pages like the "World's largest cities, since the same cities are usually going to appear on the list, but they are constantly changing ranks with each other. Does that make sense? Why do you want to delete the Global Metropolises category?
  Support/Include/Do Not Delete Sorry it's a bit unclear if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "oppose" or if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "support." I've discussed my arguments for inclusion in detail on the talk pages (see below). Basically I am frustrated by the regional atomization of city information as it is currently categorized on Wikipedia. I do not propose dismantling the current regional organization, I just think there should also be categories that are global in scope. I think a better option than deleting the categories at this point would be to create criteria for inclusion. Perhaps only cities with more than 1 million people should be included? What do you think should be the criteria?ThomasMikael (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - lack of inclusion criteria and redundant category. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support/Include/Do Not Delete(per WP:NOTVOTE) I've added inclusion critera to both pages. "Criteria for inclusion: cities must have a population above 1 million to be included in this category."ThomasMikael (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full discussion from both points of view is quoted below:

Making the cutoff is arbitrary which we discourage. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY, because it inevitably stops at xth-largest, and it is arbitrary to choose any value of x over x+1 or x-1.
  Fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, because the definition of a city's population depends on a choice of census boundaries or local govt boundaries, either of which may or may not encompass the city's full extent.
  These categories are unstable, because censuses are held at different intervals in difft countries, and as cities grow or expand their rankings change. This sort of data is much better handled in a list, which can explain all the different factors in each case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete we don't do "biggest", "largest", etc categories, nor do we have arbitrary cut-offs. If there was some grouping of "The United Nations Top 10 cities in the world" that was truly defining for these cities, you might have something, but I don't think such a thing exists. Category:Lists of cities by population is what you want, there are plenty of lists there, and more could be added if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Could be a list (then the arbitrary cutoff would be just that — arbitrary.) Should not be a category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. What's especially odd about this category is that while its name suggests that it should only contain the one city which is the largest by population in any given country, in actual effect it's been added to almost any city with a population over one million even if that puts several cities per country into it. And I've even caught one case where instead of a city, the category had actually been added to an entire state of the United States. So in addition to the concerns about arbitrariness above, the category's name doesn't even correctly match its contents. We have plenty of lists that already cover this criterion quite well; we don't need a category for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• I would support a change to "Cities of over X million" , but "largest" is just vague and the cut off of 1 million as being "largest" is arbitrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- The best way to deal with largest items is in a list, which can provide details of population and thus rank them in order. "Cities with a population over 1 million" would be a valid category, as would "Cities of over 10 million people" as its subcategory. However a list does the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2014 (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) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Global metropolises (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category:Global cities was CfD'd a long time ago - the global city article provides a full six different ways to categorise them with no one system being canonical. McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete No standard, agreed upon method of defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/Include/Do Not Delete Sorry it's a bit unclear if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "oppose" or if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "support." I've discussed my arguments for inclusion in detail on the talk pages (see below). Basically I am frustrated by the regional atomization of city information as it is currently categorized on Wikipedia. I do not propose dismantling the current regional organization, I just think there should also be categories that are global in scope. I think a better option than deleting the categories at this point would be to create criteria for inclusion. Perhaps only cities with more than 1 million people should be included? What do you think should be the criteria?ThomasMikael (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - per above. Subtropical-man talk
  (en-2) 18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support/Include/Do Not Delete I've added inclusion critera to both pages. "Criteria for inclusion: cities must have a population above 1 million to be included in this category."— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMikael (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 February 2014‎

(Striking out that bold and second WP:NOTVOTE, for clarity.) This personal definition seems unrelated to the concept of a global city ("a city generally considered to be an important node in the global economic system"). --McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Full discussion from both points of view is quoted below:

• Delete per WP:OC. Subjective criteria and arbitrary cutoff. This sort of heavily-qualified material belongs in lists, not categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:23, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete while I sympathize with your efforts, there isn't an agreed upon definition of "Global metropolis" and as such we can't categorize accordingly, as such categorization would be subjective, and someone would always be coming along to say "Hey, my city X is *also* a global metroplis". It's rather easy and indisputable to say 'City x is in country Y' ,but saying "City X is DEFINITELY one of the top 10 cities on the globe", well, based on what? This cat isn't workable. delete--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:15, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; please consider WP:CSD#G4. Just because it has a different name, doesn't mean it's a different category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:00, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Arbitrary inclusion criteria; G4 as recreation of a deleted category without a good reason why the circumstances might have changed. Bearcat (talk) 19:28, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• delete completely arbitrary -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:31, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- Too vague. See comments on Largest cities (next item above). Peterkingiron (talk) 18:40, 26 February 2014 (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. There may still be some that need to be removed from Category:Audio engineering schools. I erred on the side of caution, so feel free to purge further. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Audio engineering schools in Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Audio engineering schools in France
• Propose deleting Category:Audio engineering schools in Italy
• Propose deleting Category:Audio engineering schools in the United Kingdom
• Propose deleting Category:Audio engineering schools in the United States

Nominator's rationale: There are some fields of education for which there are many institutions dedicated just (or mainly) to that field (e.g. agriculture or nursing). Audio engineering does not appear to be such a field; many universities/colleges may (currently) offer a course in that subject, but that's not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of an institution like University of Strasbourg or Texas State University.

There are a very small number (e.g. Ontario Institute of Audio Recording Technology, Salford Acoustics and Recording Workshop – RECW) which should be upmerged to the parent category which should be also be purged. The UK category was recently CFDed; I intend to withdraw that CFD in favour of this one. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Colleges and universities that offer a wide variety of programs should not be categorized as subject-specific schools in every single subject in which they happen to offer a program — that would just lead to extreme category bloat as each article gets progressively added to "subject schools" for every subject in which they offer a program. If we have a separate article about that specific program (which we often don't), then that article certainly belongs in the category, but the general overview article about the whole school does not. (For comparison's sake, Category:Journalism schools does not contain the main article about every college or university that happens to have a journalism program — it only contains articles that are specifically about the journalism programs themselves, as well as the relatively few institutions which exist solely as journalism schools.) And once the inappropriate articles are purged, the remaining ones that are specifically "audio engineering schools" won't be high enough in number to warrant subcategorization by country and should thus be upmerged into the parent. Bearcat (talk) 18:14, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge all to Category:Audio engineering schools, and purge any article which is not specifically about audio engineering. Bearcat's cogent explanation of the clutter that will result from trying to categorise universities by every course they offer is a exactly right. Most universities offer courses in dozens or even hundreds of subjects, and this sor of categorisation should be nipped in the bud. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge I think having a Category:Audio engineering schools is inline with how post-high school educational institutions are organized. This, of course, would be for specific schools, not programs within a school. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 00:51, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all but parent (Possibly after listifying) -- This is being misused so that it is a performacne category for univserities that have an audio engineering course. Keep parent for schools that teach nothing else; I expect there are a few. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:44, 26 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If this was like law schools or medical schools where we had aritcles on the instutitions themselves (such as J. Reuben Clark Law School), it would work. However since these are institutions that grant this among other degrees (it is not clear there are even institutions that only grant this degree), we should not have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:00, 28 February 2014 (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.