< April 26 April 28 >

April 27

Category:Political alliances in Colombia

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. MER-C 11:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per Category:Political party alliances and every other category by country. Charles Essie (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2015 (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:Politicians with military background

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. MER-C 05:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what "with military background" means (would having a dad in the army or doing 2 years national service be enough?), but assuming it means people who served in the military with some distinction there are still thousands of people who could be in to this category - Ashdown, Bush, Churchill, JFK are a few that immediately spring to my mind, but many (perhaps most) UK/US politicians of the 1950s could be eligible. Categories of the form "Fooers with ... background" could become a huge category tree "Diplomats with military background", "Politicians who were formerly lawyers" etc. Whilst there may be nothing inherently wrong with such categories (and I recognise that there are currently several other Politicians by occupation categories) I think the effort that would be needed to make this particular category anywhere near complete would not be the best use of editor time. Also, in the longer term category intersection may provide a better way for editors/readers to select people who have achieved notability in 2 separate fields. DexDor (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Renaming:In its creation I meant Politicians with a career in the armed forces (not just military service); this is why it is a subcategory of Category:Military personnel. It seemed to me that Category:Politicians by occupation needed more subcategories than the two already existing.SoSivr (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
correction: the category in question was the fourth (not the third) (direct) subcategory of Category:Politicians by occupation.SoSivr (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (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:Disabled sportspeople

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: split to Category:Sportspeople with disabilities and Category:People who compete in parasports. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the logic of the parent, Category:People with disabilities, this category title should be rephrased to emphasise foremost that these are people per people-first language. SFB 21:10, 27 April 2015 (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:High schools by county in Oregon

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. MER-C 11:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other similar categories. DexDor (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2015 (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:Human gene

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. MER-C 11:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of the latter. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:23, 27 April 2015 (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:Gene

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. MER-C 11:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Genes, which, unlike this category, is named correctly. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:07, 27 April 2015 (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.

Counties of the United States

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 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

long list of "Foobars in the United States by county" categories

Rationalle: Counties are subdevisions of states, not of the US, and typically don't have independant notability from the state. These categories are non-defining. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's a 3-level hierarchy (country-state-county) and there's no need to navigate directly between the top and bottom levels (e.g. jumping straight from country level to county level without going via the state level). It's not made particularly clear in the nomination so I suggest you take a look at the category structure (maybe even draw a bit out on paper). DexDor (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic, we could eliminate most of Category:Subdivisions of the United States and Category:Cities in the United States. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not "most" of the content of those categories, but some subcats (example) are included in this nom. DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: could you clarify whether you support deleting all of the nominated categories (e.g. even Category:Counties of the United States). DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Upon second look, I support the retention of the first two (i.e. main counties category and counties by state category) as these are useful venues for searching the geographical locations. It is the division of other things by county that I do not support. SFB 15:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that deleting in-country-by-county categories should make no difference to the number of category tags on any articles. It would, however, delete a part of the category structure that (IMO) performs no useful purpose (and hence is an unnecessary complication in wp infrastructure). It would also remove an inconsistency - compare, for example, Category:Schools_in_Alabama_by_county (4 parents) with a similar Canadian category (3 parents). DexDor (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor:, these categories do serve a useful purpose, which is exactly the purpose described on the tin: they group the groups of material categorised by county. For a reader interested in examining the USA at county level, these categories provide an entry point to all such categories. For editors, they group together similar categories to assist maintenance and development of the category tree. If the Canadian categories lack a similar pathway, then it should be added ... unless the hierarchy of Canadian political geography is different, in which case your comparison is invalid.
As RevelationDirect pointed out below, you are making he mistake of view in the category system as a tree, rather than as a direct relational model. You want to rip out one set of navigational pathways, with no user benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categorization describes it as a tree and hierarchy. In as much as it can be compared with a database then Hierarchical database model may be a better fit.
Imagine a situation where there are so few churches in a particular state (Foo State) that by-county subcats are not created (this may be unlikely in the case of the US, but it could occur for a country with fewer articles and/or more complicated political geography such as a state that doesn't contain counties). I.e. Barfoo Church (in Barfoo County) would be categorized in "Churches in Foo State" and "B&Ss in Barfoo County" (as there's no "Churches in Barfoo County" category). A reader who is interested in churches in Barfoo County could navigate down from "Churches in <country>" to "Churches in <country> by county" (the type of category proposed for deletion here), but they wouldn't find the articles they are looking for by going down that route. We normally try to avoid such dead-ends in categorization; if you keep navigating down into an appropriate subcat you should end up at the articles you seek. If the <country>-by-county categories didn't exist then the reader couldn't be misled in that way; they would instead go down to the "Churches in Foo State" category and find the articles. Note: even if the reader doesn't know which state Barfoo County is in the <country>-by-county categories wouldn't help them because all the subcats are for specific states. DexDor (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very persuasive argument, DexDor. By the same logic we could remove the container categories for foo-by-US-state, because not all foo will have a categ for each state. And we could also apply it to foo-by-country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - The dead-end scenario I've described above doesn't occur for "normal" categorization (in which as one navigates down the category tree the units being referred to become smaller - e.g. country->state->county or century->decade->year). The categories proposed for deletion here are an extra form of categorization that sits alongside the normal category structure (if you haven't done so already I recommend drawing it out on paper). No-one in this discussion has provided a use case for how such categories would be useful to readers looking for articles on a particular topic. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're talking about a different change to the categorization structure to what's proposed in this CFD. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what this CFD is proposing; it would not increase the number of articles (directly) in any category. The "Foo in STATE by county" categories are sufficiently categorized by 3 parents (as per equivalent Canadian categories) - a 4th parent is unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many equivalent Canadian categories are there? I only can find the one for Ontario. (Which in a way illustrates the difference here - many of these categories have subcategories for all 50 states, and it's convenient to organize them in one place.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few (some examples) and its not just Canada (example). The category structure should be for finding pages (it doesn't exist just for the sake of its own existence). DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To navigate from a category about (for example) houses in one county to the category for houses in a different county you have to "zig zag up and down" - with or without the categories that are proposed for deletion here. The categories under discussion provide a shortcut up to the country level (bypassing the state level) which does reduce the number of mouse clicks for some navigation, but at the expense of some extra complexity in the category structure. Imagine if there was a 4 or 5-level categorization scheme (e.g. continent-country-state-county-town) - you could have such "shortcut categories" (e.g. to go directly from the "Foos in <town>" category up to the "Foos in <continent> by town" category and down to the "Foos in <town2>" category), but consider how many different shortcut categories would be needed. DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If these "shortcut categories" created clutter on the bottom of actual article pages, I would completely agree with you. But, since these are are container categories, we're not adding any complexity to the articles to gain these navigational paths. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
clutter on the bottom of actual article pages does not form part of the argument to delete these categories (that's a strawman argument). No-one has provided an example of how the extra navigational paths could be of use to anyone (they provide an alternative, but as shown in my example below they don't help and can hinder). DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of how these particular categories (the ones proposed for deletion) would "help readers find related articles"? DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the complexities of Canadian administration, but I think the above can be summarised as that (unlike in the U.S.) different parts of Canada use different administrative structures (or different nomenclature). Similarly, in Europe different countries do things differently so if we had Foos-of-Europe-by-county categories (with subcats such as Foos-of-the-UK-by-county, Foos-of-France-by-departement) then editors could object that English counties and French departements are not exactly equivalent. In other words, a large-small-medium (e.g. country-county-state) categorization structure can only possibly work in cases (like the US) where the same administrative structure/nomemclature is used across the whole area. Thus, if we have country-county-state categorization for the US (in addition to the normal country-state-county categorization) then that's inconsistent with Canada/Europe etc (note: that's not the main reason why IMO these categories should be deleted). DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, it's quite correct that these categories don't contribute to clutter on articles, but category clutter on articles does not form any part of the argument for deleting these categories (i.e. it's a straw man argument). They do add complexity to the category structure. The category system is more of a hierarchy than a relational web; category links have a direction (X is a child of Y). For a practical example of how these categories impede navigation see my airports example below. DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD does not propose to delete "the structure of organization by county across the United States" (although it isn't well explained in the nomination). Nor does this CFD propose to "dump" things into state-level category structures (no merging is proposed/needed). DexDor (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
He (I'll assume it's a he) can take the normal route: to Category:Airports in the United States by state, Category:Airports in Maine and Category:Airports in Aroostook County, Maine. Or he can take the alternative route: to Category:Airports in the United States by county, Category:Airports in Maine by county and Category:Airports in Aroostook County, Maine
The alternative route hasn't saved any mouse clicks (and is a less logical route). I would !vote "weak delete" (to remove unnecessary complexity from the category structure) just from the above analysis, but there's more -
If he lived in Brevard County and took the alternative route he would go to Category:Airports in the United States by county, but then find no Florida subcategory (in fact, there's currently only subcategories for 5 of the states so there's about a 90% chance that a reader getting to this point has hit a dead end). He'd have to go back up the category structure and then down the normal route to get to Category:Airports in Brevard County, Florida. Afaik, nowhere else in wp categorization are there dead ends like that.
In short, the alternative route isn't a shortcut and can be a dead end (as well as adding unnecessary complexity to the category structure). DexDor (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2015 (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:Religion navigational boxes

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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was proposed at the Speedy page, where a full discussion was requested. The contents do cover beliefs that are not all "religions". – Fayenatic London 10:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
Well, the template categories are named slightly differently than the article categories, and "Religion and belief" is more inclusive for the templates, since there are some in there that are related to beliefs and not necessarily religion. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI-the Contents/Categories are actually Portal:Contents/Religion and belief systems, but the categories for articles are separated into both "Religion" and "Belief", when maybe they should be under "Religion and belief systems". Funandtrvl (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nonetheless, this is more suitable for full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main article categories are almost all different than the template categories. The template categories follow Portal:Contents/Categories. The article categories follow that, however, they have tended to split the categories into two. For example, instead of "Religion and belief", they use "Religion" and "Belief". This is probably due to the # of articles that WP has. I don't see a problem with handling the template categories a little differently than the article categories, and in a way that follows the Content categories more closely. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Funandtrvl. The template categories do not need to slavishly follow the article categs, and in this case the slight divergence allows us to group related templates together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (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:Historic Hotels of Europe members

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. MER-C 05:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a hotel (example) is a member of a "umbrella organisation established to promote like-minded independent hotel associations throughout Europe" (from Historic Hotels of Europe) is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2015 (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:National Magazine Award for reporting winner

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. MER-C 13:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING. See WP:OC#AWARD. These people should be (and those I've checked are) in Category:American journalists (or subcats). For info: there is a list at National Magazine Award for reporting. DexDor (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2015 (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:Louis Aragon

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 to Category:Works by Louis Aragon. The Novels sub-cat has five members now, so seems worth keeping as part of the Novels hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With one article and no parents this category performs no useful purpose. It might work if renamed to something like "Novels by Louis Aragon" and given appropriate parent categories. DexDor (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2015 (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 the Banks Peninsula

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. MER-C 13:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Local usage. When used as the object of a sentence, its always simply "Banks Peninsula", never "The Banks Peninsula". The key article Banks Peninsula uses the article-less form throughout, as do its references. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The category name should fit common use. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2015 (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.
More