< March 14 March 16 >

March 15

Category:Places related to the history of the Georgia Salzburgers

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 18:48, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Places related to the history of the Georgia Salzburgers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: delete, with one exception Ebenezer, Georgia this is not a defining characteristic of the articles of this category. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:54, 15 March 2021 (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:Television stations in the Tampa Bay Area

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 - jc37 09:22, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with main article's name Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:06, 15 March 2021 (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:Protestant ecclesiastical decorations

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 Category:Protestant ecclesiastical decorations to Category:Ecclesiastical decorations - jc37 09:17, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:53, 15 March 2021 (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.

Utsul people

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:00, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:Utsul people
  • Propose deleting Category:People of Utsul descent‎
  • Propose deleting Category:Malaysian people of Utsul descent‎
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, this is a very tiny ethnic group, the three categories together only contain the main article and one biography, which already link to each other directly. Obviously by this nomination the main article will stay in Category:Ethnic groups in China and other categories, it is not that Utsul people completely disappear by this action. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:30, 15 March 2021 (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.

Famicom Tantei Club

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 23 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT, was two seperate articles until a merge happened. (Oinkers42) (talk) 15:59, 15 March 2021 (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.

1983 establishments in India by state and union territory

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: withdrawn. – Fayenatic London 20:49, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
These are container categories that serve several purposes:
  1. They reduce category clutter on the parent "YYYY establishments in India" pages. See e.g. Category:2011 establishments in India. There are 31-by-state subcats, which take up a whole screenful if they directly included in the Category:2011 establishments in India. But placing them in a subcat allows the list to expanded or collapsed with a single click.
  2. Keeping them in subcats allows direct access to the whole set through Category:Establishments in India by year and state or union territory. This simplifies navigation for readers looking for the by-state categories
  3. Keeping them in subcats allows much more effective analysis by tools such as WP:PETSCAN, because it allows the search to be built to easily distinguish between article which are in the by-sate categories and those which aren't. This is crucially important in identifying the thousands of Indian articles which are inadequately categorised by year. That's the work I have been doing intensively for the last few days, and removing these container categories will sabotage that categorisation effort.
It is frustrating to see this all inconsidered attempt to disrupt categorisation, and I hope that those who have supported it will reconsider. Pinging @Marcocapelle. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:13, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • In principle, 33 subcategories is not significantly more clutter than 31 categories. But, as mentioned before, this only works when companies and, in the 2011 case, television debuts also, are kept apart by an alternative sort key. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I think you misunderstand the situation. It is not a choice between 33 subcats and 31 subcats. The effect of this nom would be that Category:2011 establishments in India would jump from 3 subcats to 33, which means a whole screenful of subcats.
Note also that the TV subcats (e.eg. Category:2011 Indian television series debuts are created by ((Year nationality television series debuts or endings category)), which is used on over 4,500 pages. How do you propose to change its sort key without adding a lot of complexity somewhere? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please can you explain what would be gained by that merger, and the associated effort of adjusting other sort keys, to offset the damaging effects which I set out above? So far as I can see, there is zero gain. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The choice is between 31 in the subcategory or 33 in the main category. But not being able to change the sort key is a big practical hurdle. Thanks for bringing that up. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:51, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@John Pack Lambert wanted to merge the whole set, but was too lazy to list and tag them all, which is what should have been done. I as creator of the set got no notification of this discussion, which is a basic courtesy that should have been extended to the creator of the whole set. Today I spotted CFD tags on the other categories, e.g. Category:1955 establishments in India by state or union territory (diff) ... but because JPL botched the tagging, the link doesn't lead to this discussion. I assumed that the actual nomination was yet to be created, so I checked again several times today, and only finally stumbled on this discussion because I happened to follow the link from Category:1983 establishments in India by state or union territory, which is the only one the 73 categories to be correctly tagged. I am here only because I got lucky on a 1.4% chance.
The result is that as the creator of the categories, actively watching them, I became aware of this CFD more than twothree days after it opened. That's highly disruptive, and while I AGF that JPL was not actively trying to game the system, anyone who really was trying to game it has here an example of a very effective technique.
Note too that when JPL did finally list the other categories, he chose not to use the conventional formatting, in which the categories are all listed at the top.
JPL has been participating at CFD for years, and cannot plead lack of awareness as a defence for this sort of mess. The community is entitled to expect much better conduct from such an experienced editor.
I would prefer that this CFD be procedurally closed as a trainwreck, with the option of an immediate re-nomination if anyone wants to do the job properly. But otherwise, please:
  1. Fix the tags on all the categories
  2. List all the nominated categories properly, at the top of this discussion section
  3. Start the 7-day clock only when both of the above tasks have been completed.
--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • No, John Pack Lambert, it is NOT a personal attack. See WP:NPA.
      It is a list of procedural problems, and a criticism of your conduct, not of your character. If you don't want your conduct to be criticised, then please conduct yourself better ... and no, 140 edits is neither a huge amount nor a defence for the disruption caused by you botching every aspect of this nomination. This didn't need 140 edits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:03, 18 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Here's why: Category:1983 establishments in the United States contains 4 subcats-by-topic, as well as 52 subcats-by-state. It's very hard to find the by-topic cats, because 3 of the 4 are jumbled in with the by-state cats. The US category would benefit a lot from a container subcat for the states.
JPL, did you not study the category enough to spot that problem with your example? Or did you see it and choose not to disclose it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 18 March 2021 (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.

1940 and 1941 establishments in Bihar

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. – Fayenatic London 20:45, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This kaleidoscope is a very poor basis for categorisation. It would involve the creation of tens of thousands of small categories, and bewilder editors who tried to populate them, unavoidably creating lots of errors as editors struggled to grasp this fluid historical geography.
As John Pack Lambert rightly notes, most of the pre-independence "YYYY establishments in India" are not currently big enough to justify sub-categorisation. If that changes, it would be much more helpful to subcat by broad topic areas, such a the educational establishments which form a bug chunk of the set. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:16, 18 March 2021 (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:Non-larid gulls

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 April 2#Category:Non-larid gulls

1917 establishments in Bihar

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. – Fayenatic London 20:44, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This kaleidoscope is a very poor basis for categorisation. It would involve the creation of tens of thousands of small categories, and bewilder editors who tried to populate them, unavoidably creating lots of errors as editors struggled to grasp this fluid historical geography.
As John Pack Lambert rightly notes, most of the pre-independence "YYYY establishments in India" are not currently big enough to justify sub-categorisation. If that changes, it would be much more helpful to subcat by broad topic areas, such a the educational establishments which form a big chunk of the set. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:17, 18 March 2021 (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.

1786 establishments in Bihar

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. I don't think anyone will object to me doing this on the grounds of WP:INVOLVED. – Fayenatic London 20:47, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This kaleidoscope is a very poor basis for categorisation. It would involve the creation of tens of thousands of small categories, and bewilder editors who tried to populate them, unavoidably creating lots of errors as editors struggled to grasp this fluid historical geography.
As John Pack Lambert rightly notes, most of the pre-independence "YYYY establishments in India" are not currently big enough to justify sub-categorisation. If that changes, it would be much more helpful to subcat by broad topic areas, such a the educational establishments which form a big chunk of the set. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:18, 18 March 2021 (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:Recipients of the Order of the Black Star

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. – Fayenatic London 20:42, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Recipients of the Order of the Black Star
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Croix of the Order of the Black Star‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Commanders of the Order of the Black Star‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Officers of the Order of the Black Star‎
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Knights of the Order of the Black Star
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD approaching WP:TRIVIALCAT)
The Order of the Black Star was ostensibly a French award for the colony of Dahomey (now Benin). Of the 30 articles in this category, not a single one so much as mentions Dahomey (or Benin) outside of the award so maybe Michael Scott (golfer) played a round there but I'm having trouble figuring out specifically why any individual received the award. There are no Dahomean recipients in these categories and both the French recipients (like President Jacques Chirac and General Michel Arnaud) and foreign recipients (like Sultan Hamengkubuwono VIII and General John H. Hughes) tend to mention the award in passing with other honours. There wasn't a list so we created one right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2021 (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:Grand Order of King Petar Krešimir IV recipients

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. TheSandDoctor Talk 19:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose Deleting/Listifying Category:Grand Order of King Petar Krešimir IV recipients
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:NONDEFINING (WP:OCAWARD)
The Grand Order of King Petar Krešimir IV is a Croation award and "only highly ranked state officials, foreign officials, and senior military officials are eligible for this order." In other words, this award reflects the recipients' pre-exisinting notability and the articles treat it as non-defining: about half the category contents mention it in passing with other honours while about half don't mention it at all. There is already a list right here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:17, 15 March 2021 (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