- 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
Category:State agencies of Thailand and no consensus on
Category:Government agencies of Thailand, although the latter has already been deleted as per
WP:C1. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
05:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:State agencies of Thailand to Category:Government agencies of Thailand
- Nominator's rationale: Comply with the heirarchy Rathfelder ( talk) 20:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. On the surface this seems to make sense. Before going too far down this road, however, please see the related discussion at Template talk:Government of Thailand#Agencies. And even more importantly, please study the article, State agencies of Thailand. The argument made is that not all state agencies in Thailand are government agencies. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 20:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and delete Category:Government agencies of Thailand—which was just created—instead. (I've removed Crown Property Bureau from the cat, as it's legally a private entity.) As explained in the above linked article, state agencies is the technically correct term here. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 02:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and delete, as per Paul 012's note, above. DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 21:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we have to make a choice between the two. There isn't anything against having Category:Government agencies of Thailand as a child category of Category:State agencies of Thailand. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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- The result of the discussion was: withdrawn. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To fit the hierarchy. "Agencies" presumably is intended to exclude non governmental agencies.
Rathfelder (
talk)
16:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I support the creation of a new Category:Environmental organisations in Thailand, I oppose accomplishing this by simply renaming Category:Environmental agencies in Thailand for that purpose. The presumption is incorrect: while all environmental agencies are indeed environmental organizations, not all environmental organizations are environmental agencies. 'Agencies' refers to government agencies only; environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) would fit in the proposed new category, but not the present category. (One article currently is miscategorized here. Other articles could be added to the proposed new category.) Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 20:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: If the new category is created (whether by renaming or as a separate category), organizations—with a z—should be preferred, to match Category:Organizations based in Thailand. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 02:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 11:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to withdraw my suggestion. I hadn't realised there was a hierarchy of Environmental agencies. But I would point out there are only 9 of them, while almost every country now has Environmental organisations. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: relisted
here. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Electric power transmission systems by continent to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure by continent
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Asia to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in Asia
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Europe to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in Europe
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Oceania to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in Oceania
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in North America to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in North America
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in South America to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in South America
- Nominator's rationale: The definition of "systems" is rather obscure, and tends to compartmentalize individual parts of an infrastructure that actually belong to a single national or even continental system. While I already created a catch-all parent level Category:Electric power transmission by continent, this should mostly be about infrastructure, and the proposed names are better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country. PanchoS ( talk) 13:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: relisted
here. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Electric power transmission systems by country to Category:Electric power transmission by country
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Australia to Category:Electric power transmission in Australia
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Canada to Category:Electric power transmission in Canada
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Chile to Category:Electric power transmission in Chile
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Germany to Category:Electric power transmission in Germany
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in New Zealand to Category:Electric power transmission in New Zealand
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in the United States to Category:Electric power transmission in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: I can't figure out why we would restrict these to transmission "systems" if the subcategories anyway contain their operators, along with incidents etc., and as long as the natural parent
Category:Electric power transmission by country doesn't exist. We're thereby artificially excluding regulatory bodies, laws concerning electrical power transmission etc. We should have per-country categories for the whole topic first, before possibly subdividing by actual "systems" or other subtopics.
Alternatively, we can rename all to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure by country (better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country, as per precedent Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in India) and create the above proposed category scheme Category:Electric power transmission by country as an additional catch-all level. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: merge to
Category:Retail markets in India.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Retail markets in Thrissur to Category:Retail markets in India
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: upmerge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Small category with only 2 entries. Upmerge with Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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. At the moment, consensus is that this term is ambiguous enough that it does not provide useful categorization. In other words, the inclusion criteria are so unclear that it's difficult to even evaluate whether this category is defining. If you believe this category should be recreated, please start a CfD discussion with specific inclusion criteria as part of your rationale for recreating. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, while the concept Protoscience exists, it is not a defining characteristic of this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- I suspect there is a case for a category such as this to house Alchemy, Natural Philosophy, and a few more subjects, but the present contents do not seem to be relevant to the name. I mean things that were considered science in their time, but have long been overtaken by more recent discoveries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Our article on the term Protoscience seems to provide two different definitions. One is "the earliest eras of the history of science, when the scientific method was embryonic." Which seems to overlap with history of science. The other definition involves theoretic science with limited basis on empirical evidence. This definition includes some modern and emerging fields of science that have yet to be fully established. Dimadick ( talk) 00:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- So what is your suggestion? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I honestly do not know which definition should define the category. I am insufficiently familiar with the subject. Dimadick ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This category's present content is not a sufficient argument for deletion. There are numerous examples of protosciences in just about every discipline, and it's interesting as a reader to comprehensively navigate them. — C M B J 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ CMBJ: Could you give a few examples of articles that do have "Protoscience" as a defining characteristic? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The article on protoscience presents conflicting definitions of the term, a term without a clear-cut agreed upon definition cannot be used to form the basis of a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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: merge as per nom. Consensus is that this only has potential for growth if the concept proves successful. There is no proof that it will be successful at this time, so
WP:CRYSTAL applies. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
06:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Decentralized autonomous organizations to Category:Business
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently there is only an eponymous article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE—Today, there is the eponymous article ( Decentralized autonomous organization), as well as two other DAOs that have been added to the category. Moreover, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply, as the category is clearly not "Small with no potential for growth". To support that claim, look at the major media sources covering the formation of The DAO (organization), say, the New York Times, Fortune, or The Economist sources referenced in that article.
- In short, this is a category likely to have ten or twenty notable DAOs (meeting
WP:GNG) in the next six months to a year; it is simply not a category with "no potential for growth."
N2e (
talk)
14:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL, the fact that well-know media discuss a certain new initiative is not a predictor of the success of it. (It does make the article notable, obviously, but that's not the issue here.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hear your argument, but I don't think that's quite right. It's not so much having to do with the success of it at all. All the decentralized autonomous orgs could fail. The point is that the category does not meet WP:SMALLCAT with "no potential for growth." There already are more than two DAOs. Soon there will be hundreds, as one of the mechanisms of that one with the big crowdfund is that "splits" forming a new DAO is simple, and baked into the code. Some of those splits, and other new DAOs being formed, will likely be notable. So, clearly, this is not a "no potential for growth" situation. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to the success of these organizations but rather to the success of the concept as a whole. If the concept is going to be unsuccessful, there surely won't be any new notable articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete. No objection to re-creation if there ever becomes a handful of articles to place in it. Right now, there is not much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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: relisted here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 01:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Cat contains 1 article and 2 redirects. Even if there were more entries, I don't really see the utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals". Upmerge to Category:Geography journals. Randykitty ( talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. did you try googling for "cartography journals"? it'd have readily provided an abundance of such publications, thus demonstrating the potential for growth of this category. the fact that you see no utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals" only shows how much you know about the subject. not only is cartography a notable topic on its own, but it's also not entirely contained within geography, re: navigation, surveying, geodesy, etc. your proposal is equivalent to deleting a medical specialty journal category. fgnievinski ( talk) 08:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: as I said, even if there exist more journals, I don't see any need to split this category off. Cartography belongs in geography. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support while there are many cartographic associations of which many have their own journal, the journals themselves are apparently not notable, given the large amount of redirects in this category. The two articles Terrae Incognitae (journal) and Imago Mundi may be upmerged, probably also to Category:Cartography. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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: rename. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
14:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Court systems by country to Category:Judiciaries by country
- Nominator's rationale: Somehow, we went a full decade with two separate categories existing alongside each other for Category:Court systems and Category:Judiciaries, even though for all intents and purposes a court system and a judiciary are the same thing and a considerable number of articles were simultaneously filed in both trees. Per a recent CFD discussion, accordingly, the two were merged to "Judiciaries", so this subcategory should now be renamed to match. Bearcat ( talk) 02:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question could you please provide the link to the recent discussion?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Marcocapelle, the recent discussion may refer to the one I started here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support, but note that this nomination overlaps yesterday's nomination of Category:Judicial system by country. Effectively both nominations seek to merge a category tree to Category:Judiciaries by country, which however is slightly ambiguous. In the narrower sense, it refers to the body of judges, which is slightly narrower in scope than "court system" as Peterkingiron correctly stated in a 2013 nomination. In a broader sense, judiciary is used as a synonym of "Judicial system", being larger in scope than the others. In the end, while this one here is a no-brainer, we need to settle with one of the definitions of "judiciary" at the other discussion, and act accordingly. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Per my comment in the other discussion, those terms seem synonymous and I support this since our main article is judiciary and court system redirects there. If someone strongly feels court system or judicial system would be better, then we probably should have a WP:RM on the main article first. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The judiciary consists of the judges. I would however support merging
Category:Court systems by country and
Category:Judicial systems by country and all cognate categories in the trees. I have no strong view as to which should be the target.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- "The Judiciary consists of the judges". Citation needed for that claim, please. This is not what our article on judiciary states. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I disagree that the term "judiciary" consists only of judges. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Already listified at
Television Hall of Fame. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
14:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Television Hall of Fame inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- The top American TV honor is the Emmy Award which is definitely defining. The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences now has a different American TV Hall of Fame and, prior to that, a president of that organization left and founded this American TV Hall of Fame. The category has 150 biography articles which generally do mention the award in a long list of other awards but it doesn't seem defining. The recipients of the award are already listed and better grouped here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Notified Mr. Brain as the category creator and this discussion has been included in the American television task force. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (listify if necesary) -- Seems to be a NN award. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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. The recipients are already available in list form at
Tchernichovsky Prize, so no need to listify. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
14:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Tchernichovsky Prize recipients
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- Tel Aviv has a municipal award for translation, the Tchernichovsky Prize. If it was given to the city's top academic linguists and professional translators it might be defining but, with 3 exceptions ( 1, 2, 3), it is given to literary figures who aren't known primarily for their translations. The articles typically do mention the award, but in a list section with other awards. A large majority of these articles are also in Category:Israel Prize in literature recipients, the country's top literary award. I created a list of winners here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Notified Davshul as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Translation studies. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Listify (if necessary) then delete as we always do for NN awards. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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/upmerge all as per nom. There was a strong numerical preference for upmerging these country categories and strong rationales based on policies/guidelines were provided as well. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 01:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Is this undercoverage or overly fine-grained categorization? Maybe both, but still, while there might be several fireworks festivals in every country (or not – we don't know), it seems unlikely we'd get these per-country categories sufficiently filled soon. So merge up for now without prejudice for recreation in the future, if much more articles exist. PanchoS ( talk) 12:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Creator response: I can see PanchoS' logic in wanting to merge itty bitty country cats with the continent parents. My main argument against it would be that it would make the category less compatible with the country/continent-dependent structure of the larger festival tree. Also, in a few cases the fireworks festival cats are useful on the finegrained country level, especially in Asia, where the fireworks festivals can be ancient and historically notable - when I was trying to clean up the sloppier country pages, fireworks festivals were consistently being left without a home, or being clumped in with broader "cultural festivals," and this seems to have fixed the problem. I was hoping the country tree could be expanded significantly with large public [[ New Year celebrations at some point. So perhaps a chance for the tree experiencing a growth spurt, if I (or someone) goes through and sifts through the folk traditions to find the ones like Chinese New Year that have large fireworks shows as a significant part of the entertainment. Earflaps ( talk) 12:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is not desirable to intersect all per-topic subcategorization levels with all per-location subcategorization levels. In the end, this will always lead to an artificially blown up tree of underpopulated categories. While much of your recent categorization efforts was really helpful – thanks for your contributions at this point! – in a number of your recent category creations you went to far in intersecting everything with everything. I'm afraid I have to nominate quite a few more of them, while trying to preserve the essence of your efforts rather than wielding the axe. --
PanchoS (
talk)
13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome, thanks for the thanks :) I definitely understand the logic that not all categories should be dissected by location - I've avoided touching most festival topics for that reason, especially the small ones (I prefer all pages in a category on one page, myself). A few festival types, though, I consistently needed to have a home for, on almost every single country festival cats I encountered - "sports festivals," "food festivals," "arts festivals," and "religious festivals" needed fuller trees the most glaringly, as top-level, vaguely defined parent categories with a whole bunch of children, I guess. "Fireworks festival" was one of the few where I kept encountering them, but couldn't think of any sensible parent category, beyond "festivals" itself. I wouldn't object if there was a move to get rid of the fireworks country tree and move fireworks festivals as a child of "cultural festivals" (like how you can always move a "documentary film festival" to the right spot in "film festivals by country," even without the doc festivals organized by location)- just doesn't seem optimal, I guess. Earflaps ( talk) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is not desirable to intersect all per-topic subcategorization levels with all per-location subcategorization levels. In the end, this will always lead to an artificially blown up tree of underpopulated categories. While much of your recent categorization efforts was really helpful – thanks for your contributions at this point! – in a number of your recent category creations you went to far in intersecting everything with everything. I'm afraid I have to nominate quite a few more of them, while trying to preserve the essence of your efforts rather than wielding the axe. --
PanchoS (
talk)
13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. I wouldn't myself create a Foos-in-country category structure if there are only currently 1-2 articles for each country, but if someone has created such a structure I see little point in deleting it - especially in a case like this where (unlike some historical categories) we may get more articles and hence recreate the categories again. Categories like this have benefits (e.g. an article in the FF-in-China category is automatically in the FF-in-Asia category). DexDor (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't nominate a category scheme for deletion if its underpopulation is primarily due to undercoverage. But while – as I said in the nomination – it is possible that several fireworks festivals exist in a number of countries, it isn't sure or even likely. We don't even have an article describing what a Fireworks festival is, but clearly it has to be a festival focussing on fireworks, not just culminating in one, as most festivals do. I therefore doubt, Category:Independence Day (United States) festivals can be counted as "fireworks festivals" but still I decided to keep the subcategories Category:Canadian fireworks festivals and Category:Fireworks festivals in the United States for now. Note that we also have Category:Fireworks shows. This is a blatant case of WP:NARROWCAT, and yes, it is harmful to have several of these. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- The nom seeks to eliminate a lot of small categories. The question is whether the categories are going to get better populated. If they are, we should keep them for now. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Double merge per nomination, a very sensible proposal which will not lose any useful information. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Double merge, too little content for this topic to keep country categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist of an unresolved discussion which has been zombieing for three full months at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Procedural relist of an unresolved discussion which has been zombieing for three full months at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure whether there's a consensus here for the categories that were proposed for deletion — and since the discussion is still open almost four months later and discussions that old rarely if ever attract new input, I suspect one isn't going to emerge here. Accordingly, I'm going to close this and submit it for relisting on a more contemporary date. However, since the Canadian category was proposed for renaming rather than outright deletion, and the proposed naming format was consistent with the appropriate naming convention for its siblings on both sides of the parentage tree, I went ahead with that. Bearcat ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for 2+ entries. I understand that small categories are problematic, but they are nonetheless useful. Category:Fireworks festivals in South Korea does answer the question "what are the main ff in SK?". If we delete it, where else to find this type of an answer? As long as there are 2+ entities, I think they are valid. For 1 entry categories like Category:Fireworks festivals in Mexico, I am not so sure there are needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete don't need to break these up by country. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Really per WP:NARROWCAT. A country-by-country breakdown leads to a whole set of underpopulated categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep category was created 5 days ago and now has
fivesix articles within it.-- TM 02:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Only 1 of those 6 articles ( Paul André Albert) mention the town of 2,000 people. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed that oversight. 5 of the six represented that town in the Maine Legislature. One was Senate Majority Leader and another was a state judge.--
TM
13:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: OK, as long as they're actually from Van Buren or resided there. (Representing Van Buren isn't itself defining since the Governor and President also represent it.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It clearly indicates in both the articles and in the source that their residence was in Van Buren, Maine.-- TM 11:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: OK, as long as they're actually from Van Buren or resided there. (Representing Van Buren isn't itself defining since the Governor and President also represent it.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep For Now I think some of the current contents of this category are vulnerable to an AfD nomination for running afoul of WP:NPOL. But, so long as they are here and there's over 5 of them, the category serves a navigational purpose. No objection to deleting later if the article count dwindles. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:NPOL, all members of a state legislature are inherently notable.--
TM
11:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: that's not what
WP:NPOL says. If a person was a member of state legislature, there is a type of presumption that they are notable, but it is a presumption that can be rebutted through lack of coverage in reliable sources per the usual notability considerations. As the guideline states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that the articles in question are weakly sourced right now — they all served in the 1970s, which is a period when our articles about politicians do have a tendency to be more weakly sourced because a lot of Wikipedians are willing to take the easy way out, and base an article solely on whatever one or two sources they can locate on a two-minute Google search, rather than actually doing research to locate genuinely solid sourcing that satisfies
WP:GNG. But GNG doesn't actually require that the article is already in a GA state — it requires only that RS coverage exists. And because state politics are a thing that media covers, there simply isn't a US state legislator, past or present, for whom the proper sourcing is entirely unlocatable.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- What you have written is true, and I agree on the specifics of U.S. state legislators. I was worried more about the development of a general perception that the
WP:NPOL guidelines create a definitive rule that all articles that satisfy it are "inheretly notable", rather than what the guideline actually says.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ Bearcat: You might be surprised how "local" state legislators are in many small states. State Reps for Main in the 1970s would have had about 6,600 residents in their districts (151/992K). For back benchers in one-party areas, the local coverage can be sparse. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- What you have written is true, and I agree on the specifics of U.S. state legislators. I was worried more about the development of a general perception that the
WP:NPOL guidelines create a definitive rule that all articles that satisfy it are "inheretly notable", rather than what the guideline actually says.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that the articles in question are weakly sourced right now — they all served in the 1970s, which is a period when our articles about politicians do have a tendency to be more weakly sourced because a lot of Wikipedians are willing to take the easy way out, and base an article solely on whatever one or two sources they can locate on a two-minute Google search, rather than actually doing research to locate genuinely solid sourcing that satisfies
WP:GNG. But GNG doesn't actually require that the article is already in a GA state — it requires only that RS coverage exists. And because state politics are a thing that media covers, there simply isn't a US state legislator, past or present, for whom the proper sourcing is entirely unlocatable.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: that's not what
WP:NPOL says. If a person was a member of state legislature, there is a type of presumption that they are notable, but it is a presumption that can be rebutted through lack of coverage in reliable sources per the usual notability considerations. As the guideline states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: keep
Category:State agencies of Thailand and no consensus on
Category:Government agencies of Thailand, although the latter has already been deleted as per
WP:C1. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
05:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:State agencies of Thailand to Category:Government agencies of Thailand
- Nominator's rationale: Comply with the heirarchy Rathfelder ( talk) 20:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment. On the surface this seems to make sense. Before going too far down this road, however, please see the related discussion at Template talk:Government of Thailand#Agencies. And even more importantly, please study the article, State agencies of Thailand. The argument made is that not all state agencies in Thailand are government agencies. Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 20:47, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and delete Category:Government agencies of Thailand—which was just created—instead. (I've removed Crown Property Bureau from the cat, as it's legally a private entity.) As explained in the above linked article, state agencies is the technically correct term here. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 02:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep and delete, as per Paul 012's note, above. DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 21:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think we have to make a choice between the two. There isn't anything against having Category:Government agencies of Thailand as a child category of Category:State agencies of Thailand. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:43, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: withdrawn. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:02, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: To fit the hierarchy. "Agencies" presumably is intended to exclude non governmental agencies.
Rathfelder (
talk)
16:12, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. While I support the creation of a new Category:Environmental organisations in Thailand, I oppose accomplishing this by simply renaming Category:Environmental agencies in Thailand for that purpose. The presumption is incorrect: while all environmental agencies are indeed environmental organizations, not all environmental organizations are environmental agencies. 'Agencies' refers to government agencies only; environmental non-governmental organizations (eNGOs) would fit in the proposed new category, but not the present category. (One article currently is miscategorized here. Other articles could be added to the proposed new category.) Thanks, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 20:29, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: If the new category is created (whether by renaming or as a separate category), organizations—with a z—should be preferred, to match Category:Organizations based in Thailand. -- Paul_012 ( talk) 02:37, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. Kind regards, DA Sonnenfeld ( talk) 11:48, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Happy to withdraw my suggestion. I hadn't realised there was a hierarchy of Environmental agencies. But I would point out there are only 9 of them, while almost every country now has Environmental organisations. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:32, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: relisted
here. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Electric power transmission systems by continent to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure by continent
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Asia to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in Asia
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Europe to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in Europe
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Oceania to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in Oceania
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in North America to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in North America
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in South America to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in South America
- Nominator's rationale: The definition of "systems" is rather obscure, and tends to compartmentalize individual parts of an infrastructure that actually belong to a single national or even continental system. While I already created a catch-all parent level Category:Electric power transmission by continent, this should mostly be about infrastructure, and the proposed names are better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country. PanchoS ( talk) 13:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: relisted
here. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
05:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming:
- Category:Electric power transmission systems by country to Category:Electric power transmission by country
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Australia to Category:Electric power transmission in Australia
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Canada to Category:Electric power transmission in Canada
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Chile to Category:Electric power transmission in Chile
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in Germany to Category:Electric power transmission in Germany
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in New Zealand to Category:Electric power transmission in New Zealand
- Category:Electric power transmission systems in the United States to Category:Electric power transmission in the United States
- Nominator's rationale: I can't figure out why we would restrict these to transmission "systems" if the subcategories anyway contain their operators, along with incidents etc., and as long as the natural parent
Category:Electric power transmission by country doesn't exist. We're thereby artificially excluding regulatory bodies, laws concerning electrical power transmission etc. We should have per-country categories for the whole topic first, before possibly subdividing by actual "systems" or other subtopics.
Alternatively, we can rename all to Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure by country (better in line with its other parent Category:Electric power infrastructure by country, as per precedent Category:Electric power transmission infrastructure in India) and create the above proposed category scheme Category:Electric power transmission by country as an additional catch-all level. -- PanchoS ( talk) 13:39, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: merge to
Category:Retail markets in India.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:06, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Retail markets in Thrissur to Category:Retail markets in India
- Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:38, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: upmerge. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:10, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Small category with only 2 entries. Upmerge with Category:Wildlife sanctuaries in Kerala. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 10:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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. At the moment, consensus is that this term is ambiguous enough that it does not provide useful categorization. In other words, the inclusion criteria are so unclear that it's difficult to even evaluate whether this category is defining. If you believe this category should be recreated, please start a CfD discussion with specific inclusion criteria as part of your rationale for recreating. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 05:58, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, while the concept Protoscience exists, it is not a defining characteristic of this category. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:52, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- I suspect there is a case for a category such as this to house Alchemy, Natural Philosophy, and a few more subjects, but the present contents do not seem to be relevant to the name. I mean things that were considered science in their time, but have long been overtaken by more recent discoveries. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:33, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Our article on the term Protoscience seems to provide two different definitions. One is "the earliest eras of the history of science, when the scientific method was embryonic." Which seems to overlap with history of science. The other definition involves theoretic science with limited basis on empirical evidence. This definition includes some modern and emerging fields of science that have yet to be fully established. Dimadick ( talk) 00:55, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- So what is your suggestion? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:03, 25 May 2016 (UTC)
- I honestly do not know which definition should define the category. I am insufficiently familiar with the subject. Dimadick ( talk) 20:52, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep - This category's present content is not a sufficient argument for deletion. There are numerous examples of protosciences in just about every discipline, and it's interesting as a reader to comprehensively navigate them. — C M B J 10:53, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ CMBJ: Could you give a few examples of articles that do have "Protoscience" as a defining characteristic? Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:12, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete The article on protoscience presents conflicting definitions of the term, a term without a clear-cut agreed upon definition cannot be used to form the basis of a category. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 20:14, 5 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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: merge as per nom. Consensus is that this only has potential for growth if the concept proves successful. There is no proof that it will be successful at this time, so
WP:CRYSTAL applies. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
06:01, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Decentralized autonomous organizations to Category:Business
- Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, currently there is only an eponymous article. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:51, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- OPPOSE—Today, there is the eponymous article ( Decentralized autonomous organization), as well as two other DAOs that have been added to the category. Moreover, WP:SMALLCAT does not apply, as the category is clearly not "Small with no potential for growth". To support that claim, look at the major media sources covering the formation of The DAO (organization), say, the New York Times, Fortune, or The Economist sources referenced in that article.
- In short, this is a category likely to have ten or twenty notable DAOs (meeting
WP:GNG) in the next six months to a year; it is simply not a category with "no potential for growth."
N2e (
talk)
14:24, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- This seems to be a case of WP:CRYSTAL, the fact that well-know media discuss a certain new initiative is not a predictor of the success of it. (It does make the article notable, obviously, but that's not the issue here.) Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:23, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- I hear your argument, but I don't think that's quite right. It's not so much having to do with the success of it at all. All the decentralized autonomous orgs could fail. The point is that the category does not meet WP:SMALLCAT with "no potential for growth." There already are more than two DAOs. Soon there will be hundreds, as one of the mechanisms of that one with the big crowdfund is that "splits" forming a new DAO is simple, and baked into the code. Some of those splits, and other new DAOs being formed, will likely be notable. So, clearly, this is not a "no potential for growth" situation. Cheers. N2e ( talk) 17:54, 2 June 2016 (UTC)
- I wasn't referring to the success of these organizations but rather to the success of the concept as a whole. If the concept is going to be unsuccessful, there surely won't be any new notable articles. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:10, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- delete. No objection to re-creation if there ever becomes a handful of articles to place in it. Right now, there is not much. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:54, 7 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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: relisted here. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 01:55, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Cat contains 1 article and 2 redirects. Even if there were more entries, I don't really see the utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals". Upmerge to Category:Geography journals. Randykitty ( talk) 04:58, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. did you try googling for "cartography journals"? it'd have readily provided an abundance of such publications, thus demonstrating the potential for growth of this category. the fact that you see no utility of separating "cartography journals" from "geography journals" only shows how much you know about the subject. not only is cartography a notable topic on its own, but it's also not entirely contained within geography, re: navigation, surveying, geodesy, etc. your proposal is equivalent to deleting a medical specialty journal category. fgnievinski ( talk) 08:28, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: as I said, even if there exist more journals, I don't see any need to split this category off. Cartography belongs in geography. -- Randykitty ( talk) 08:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support while there are many cartographic associations of which many have their own journal, the journals themselves are apparently not notable, given the large amount of redirects in this category. The two articles Terrae Incognitae (journal) and Imago Mundi may be upmerged, probably also to Category:Cartography. Marcocapelle ( talk) 08:17, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
- 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: rename. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
14:21, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Court systems by country to Category:Judiciaries by country
- Nominator's rationale: Somehow, we went a full decade with two separate categories existing alongside each other for Category:Court systems and Category:Judiciaries, even though for all intents and purposes a court system and a judiciary are the same thing and a considerable number of articles were simultaneously filed in both trees. Per a recent CFD discussion, accordingly, the two were merged to "Judiciaries", so this subcategory should now be renamed to match. Bearcat ( talk) 02:11, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Question could you please provide the link to the recent discussion?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:57, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- User:Marcocapelle, the recent discussion may refer to the one I started here. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support, but note that this nomination overlaps yesterday's nomination of Category:Judicial system by country. Effectively both nominations seek to merge a category tree to Category:Judiciaries by country, which however is slightly ambiguous. In the narrower sense, it refers to the body of judges, which is slightly narrower in scope than "court system" as Peterkingiron correctly stated in a 2013 nomination. In a broader sense, judiciary is used as a synonym of "Judicial system", being larger in scope than the others. In the end, while this one here is a no-brainer, we need to settle with one of the definitions of "judiciary" at the other discussion, and act accordingly. -- PanchoS ( talk) 14:55, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support. Per my comment in the other discussion, those terms seem synonymous and I support this since our main article is judiciary and court system redirects there. If someone strongly feels court system or judicial system would be better, then we probably should have a WP:RM on the main article first. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:07, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose -- The judiciary consists of the judges. I would however support merging
Category:Court systems by country and
Category:Judicial systems by country and all cognate categories in the trees. I have no strong view as to which should be the target.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
15:37, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- "The Judiciary consists of the judges". Citation needed for that claim, please. This is not what our article on judiciary states. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:45, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support per nom. I disagree that the term "judiciary" consists only of judges. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 14:03, 28 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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. Already listified at
Television Hall of Fame. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
14:53, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Television Hall of Fame inductees
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- The top American TV honor is the Emmy Award which is definitely defining. The Academy of Television Arts & Sciences now has a different American TV Hall of Fame and, prior to that, a president of that organization left and founded this American TV Hall of Fame. The category has 150 biography articles which generally do mention the award in a long list of other awards but it doesn't seem defining. The recipients of the award are already listed and better grouped here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Notified Mr. Brain as the category creator and this discussion has been included in the American television task force. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:42, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete (listify if necesary) -- Seems to be a NN award. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:39, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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. The recipients are already available in list form at
Tchernichovsky Prize, so no need to listify. (
non-admin closure) ~
Rob
Talk
14:40, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Propose Deleting Category:Tchernichovsky Prize recipients
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCAWARD ( WP:NONDEFINING)
- Tel Aviv has a municipal award for translation, the Tchernichovsky Prize. If it was given to the city's top academic linguists and professional translators it might be defining but, with 3 exceptions ( 1, 2, 3), it is given to literary figures who aren't known primarily for their translations. The articles typically do mention the award, but in a list section with other awards. A large majority of these articles are also in Category:Israel Prize in literature recipients, the country's top literary award. I created a list of winners here. - RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Note: Notified Davshul as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Translation studies. – RevelationDirect ( talk) 01:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Listify (if necessary) then delete as we always do for NN awards. Peterkingiron ( talk) 15:40, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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/upmerge all as per nom. There was a strong numerical preference for upmerging these country categories and strong rationales based on policies/guidelines were provided as well. ( non-admin closure) ~ Rob Talk 01:08, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Is this undercoverage or overly fine-grained categorization? Maybe both, but still, while there might be several fireworks festivals in every country (or not – we don't know), it seems unlikely we'd get these per-country categories sufficiently filled soon. So merge up for now without prejudice for recreation in the future, if much more articles exist. PanchoS ( talk) 12:07, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Creator response: I can see PanchoS' logic in wanting to merge itty bitty country cats with the continent parents. My main argument against it would be that it would make the category less compatible with the country/continent-dependent structure of the larger festival tree. Also, in a few cases the fireworks festival cats are useful on the finegrained country level, especially in Asia, where the fireworks festivals can be ancient and historically notable - when I was trying to clean up the sloppier country pages, fireworks festivals were consistently being left without a home, or being clumped in with broader "cultural festivals," and this seems to have fixed the problem. I was hoping the country tree could be expanded significantly with large public [[ New Year celebrations at some point. So perhaps a chance for the tree experiencing a growth spurt, if I (or someone) goes through and sifts through the folk traditions to find the ones like Chinese New Year that have large fireworks shows as a significant part of the entertainment. Earflaps ( talk) 12:40, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is not desirable to intersect all per-topic subcategorization levels with all per-location subcategorization levels. In the end, this will always lead to an artificially blown up tree of underpopulated categories. While much of your recent categorization efforts was really helpful – thanks for your contributions at this point! – in a number of your recent category creations you went to far in intersecting everything with everything. I'm afraid I have to nominate quite a few more of them, while trying to preserve the essence of your efforts rather than wielding the axe. --
PanchoS (
talk)
13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're welcome, thanks for the thanks :) I definitely understand the logic that not all categories should be dissected by location - I've avoided touching most festival topics for that reason, especially the small ones (I prefer all pages in a category on one page, myself). A few festival types, though, I consistently needed to have a home for, on almost every single country festival cats I encountered - "sports festivals," "food festivals," "arts festivals," and "religious festivals" needed fuller trees the most glaringly, as top-level, vaguely defined parent categories with a whole bunch of children, I guess. "Fireworks festival" was one of the few where I kept encountering them, but couldn't think of any sensible parent category, beyond "festivals" itself. I wouldn't object if there was a move to get rid of the fireworks country tree and move fireworks festivals as a child of "cultural festivals" (like how you can always move a "documentary film festival" to the right spot in "film festivals by country," even without the doc festivals organized by location)- just doesn't seem optimal, I guess. Earflaps ( talk) 15:52, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- It is not desirable to intersect all per-topic subcategorization levels with all per-location subcategorization levels. In the end, this will always lead to an artificially blown up tree of underpopulated categories. While much of your recent categorization efforts was really helpful – thanks for your contributions at this point! – in a number of your recent category creations you went to far in intersecting everything with everything. I'm afraid I have to nominate quite a few more of them, while trying to preserve the essence of your efforts rather than wielding the axe. --
PanchoS (
talk)
13:26, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose. I wouldn't myself create a Foos-in-country category structure if there are only currently 1-2 articles for each country, but if someone has created such a structure I see little point in deleting it - especially in a case like this where (unlike some historical categories) we may get more articles and hence recreate the categories again. Categories like this have benefits (e.g. an article in the FF-in-China category is automatically in the FF-in-Asia category). DexDor (talk) 22:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- I wouldn't nominate a category scheme for deletion if its underpopulation is primarily due to undercoverage. But while – as I said in the nomination – it is possible that several fireworks festivals exist in a number of countries, it isn't sure or even likely. We don't even have an article describing what a Fireworks festival is, but clearly it has to be a festival focussing on fireworks, not just culminating in one, as most festivals do. I therefore doubt, Category:Independence Day (United States) festivals can be counted as "fireworks festivals" but still I decided to keep the subcategories Category:Canadian fireworks festivals and Category:Fireworks festivals in the United States for now. Note that we also have Category:Fireworks shows. This is a blatant case of WP:NARROWCAT, and yes, it is harmful to have several of these. -- PanchoS ( talk) 22:44, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
- Comment -- The nom seeks to eliminate a lot of small categories. The question is whether the categories are going to get better populated. If they are, we should keep them for now. Peterkingiron ( talk) 11:48, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
- Double merge per nomination, a very sensible proposal which will not lose any useful information. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:58, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
- Double merge, too little content for this topic to keep country categories. Marcocapelle ( talk) 09:03, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Procedural relist of an unresolved discussion which has been zombieing for three full months at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Relisting comment: Procedural relist of an unresolved discussion which has been zombieing for three full months at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bearcat ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I'm not sure whether there's a consensus here for the categories that were proposed for deletion — and since the discussion is still open almost four months later and discussions that old rarely if ever attract new input, I suspect one isn't going to emerge here. Accordingly, I'm going to close this and submit it for relisting on a more contemporary date. However, since the Canadian category was proposed for renaming rather than outright deletion, and the proposed naming format was consistent with the appropriate naming convention for its siblings on both sides of the parentage tree, I went ahead with that. Bearcat ( talk) 00:50, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep for 2+ entries. I understand that small categories are problematic, but they are nonetheless useful. Category:Fireworks festivals in South Korea does answer the question "what are the main ff in SK?". If we delete it, where else to find this type of an answer? As long as there are 2+ entities, I think they are valid. For 1 entry categories like Category:Fireworks festivals in Mexico, I am not so sure there are needed.-- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:10, 22 May 2016 (UTC)
- Delete don't need to break these up by country. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 20:55, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Support Really per WP:NARROWCAT. A country-by-country breakdown leads to a whole set of underpopulated categories. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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: keep. Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:16, 29 May 2016 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Small community with just 2 entries ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:01, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Speedy keep category was created 5 days ago and now has
fivesix articles within it.-- TM 02:31, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Comment Only 1 of those 6 articles ( Paul André Albert) mention the town of 2,000 people. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:44, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- Fixed that oversight. 5 of the six represented that town in the Maine Legislature. One was Senate Majority Leader and another was a state judge.--
TM
13:13, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: OK, as long as they're actually from Van Buren or resided there. (Representing Van Buren isn't itself defining since the Governor and President also represent it.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- It clearly indicates in both the articles and in the source that their residence was in Van Buren, Maine.-- TM 11:57, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: OK, as long as they're actually from Van Buren or resided there. (Representing Van Buren isn't itself defining since the Governor and President also represent it.)
RevelationDirect (
talk)
03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Keep For Now I think some of the current contents of this category are vulnerable to an AfD nomination for running afoul of WP:NPOL. But, so long as they are here and there's over 5 of them, the category serves a navigational purpose. No objection to deleting later if the article count dwindles. RevelationDirect ( talk) 03:16, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- Per
WP:NPOL, all members of a state legislature are inherently notable.--
TM
11:58, 23 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: that's not what
WP:NPOL says. If a person was a member of state legislature, there is a type of presumption that they are notable, but it is a presumption that can be rebutted through lack of coverage in reliable sources per the usual notability considerations. As the guideline states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that the articles in question are weakly sourced right now — they all served in the 1970s, which is a period when our articles about politicians do have a tendency to be more weakly sourced because a lot of Wikipedians are willing to take the easy way out, and base an article solely on whatever one or two sources they can locate on a two-minute Google search, rather than actually doing research to locate genuinely solid sourcing that satisfies
WP:GNG. But GNG doesn't actually require that the article is already in a GA state — it requires only that RS coverage exists. And because state politics are a thing that media covers, there simply isn't a US state legislator, past or present, for whom the proper sourcing is entirely unlocatable.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- What you have written is true, and I agree on the specifics of U.S. state legislators. I was worried more about the development of a general perception that the
WP:NPOL guidelines create a definitive rule that all articles that satisfy it are "inheretly notable", rather than what the guideline actually says.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @ Bearcat: You might be surprised how "local" state legislators are in many small states. State Reps for Main in the 1970s would have had about 6,600 residents in their districts (151/992K). For back benchers in one-party areas, the local coverage can be sparse. RevelationDirect ( talk) 10:32, 27 May 2016 (UTC)
- What you have written is true, and I agree on the specifics of U.S. state legislators. I was worried more about the development of a general perception that the
WP:NPOL guidelines create a definitive rule that all articles that satisfy it are "inheretly notable", rather than what the guideline actually says.
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
04:31, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- It's true that the articles in question are weakly sourced right now — they all served in the 1970s, which is a period when our articles about politicians do have a tendency to be more weakly sourced because a lot of Wikipedians are willing to take the easy way out, and base an article solely on whatever one or two sources they can locate on a two-minute Google search, rather than actually doing research to locate genuinely solid sourcing that satisfies
WP:GNG. But GNG doesn't actually require that the article is already in a GA state — it requires only that RS coverage exists. And because state politics are a thing that media covers, there simply isn't a US state legislator, past or present, for whom the proper sourcing is entirely unlocatable.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:26, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
- @
Namiba: that's not what
WP:NPOL says. If a person was a member of state legislature, there is a type of presumption that they are notable, but it is a presumption that can be rebutted through lack of coverage in reliable sources per the usual notability considerations. As the guideline states: "Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included."
Good Ol’factory
(talk)
01:30, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- 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.