< October 1 October 3 >

October 2

Category:Companies by city in the Netherlands

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]
  • It is not a forum of discussion in the sense that you seem to think. The WP:CFD main page says in the Scope section: CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not expect to get more support with a wider nomination, because the opposing arguments are not country-specific. Especially User:Peterkingiron has a good point in keeping this category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither are the opposing arguments topic-specific. Category:Categories by city in the Netherlands includes quite a few topics, some present in more cities than others. I expect we could find companies based in Nijmegen say if we tried. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • They are categorized by city rather than in cities and only the biggest cities with a sufficient number of articles about companies based there will pop up. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • So why would anybody be interested in articles categorised in such an arbitrary fashion?Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 9 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

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

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 merge allows to go from Category:Soundtracks to Category: 20th-century soundtracks and Category: 21st-century soundtracks immediately, so navigation is improved. It saves an extra category layer, after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 5 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

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

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.
More