Category:Removed Confederate States of America monuments and memorials
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 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:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials
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 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:Artists by Japanese record label
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.
Keep. I created it because a similar category exists for South Korean labels. And the category actually helps navigation a lot because if you are into J-pop you get to browse only the categories related go Japan. Actually, the category has already helped me a lot. --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Products by company
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:reverse merge. Any issues with subcategories can be handled either as speedies (C2C, as applicable) or through another CfD. I feel there has been enough consideration of the overall tree here to make this merge as a start. Pinging
Marcocapelle as someone who would likely be interested in going through this tree. ~
Rob13Talk03:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
just noticing all the 'by manufacturer' sub categories and sub-sub categories. I wonder whether all these can be appropriately renamed to 'by company'
Hmains (
talk)
03:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Question - Many companies today own brands and develop prototypes under that name but contract outside firms (often in China, for example) for the actual manufacturing. How is this nuance currently handled (having the two categories) and how would merging the categories allow for distinguishing between companies that own and sell branded products, and the companies that manufacture them?--
John Cline (
talk)
09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It's a good question and I don't expect anyone has thought about this before. I'm guessing that products manufactured by another company than the companies that sells them are are not defined by the manufacturing company, so then it's perhaps not an issue.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse Merge (or Merge a Nominated) Although in theory, you could have manufacturers/distributors/retailers, in practice this is one category. I prefer by "company" but by "manufacturer" is better than leaving two categories.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
18:39, 26 January 2019 (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.
Places of worship by city (United States)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge all per nom. The argument that there is a realistic potential for growth was successfully refuted by RevelationDirect, who pointed out that it is tremendously unclear that there are sufficient notable non-Christian places of worship in these towns to justify these categories. No such places of worship were advanced as potential articles. No prejudice against future recreation if such articles come into being. ~
Rob13Talk03:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
OpposeWP:SMALLCAT does not apply. SMALLCAT is for categories "will never have more than a few members" and "does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth [...] may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Many of the recent nominations citing WP:SMALLCAT as a reason for deletion are invalid applications of that guideline. WP:SMALLCAT also makes it clear that if categories are part of a wider subcategorisation scheme (in this case, places of worship by city), then it does not apply. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Grutness (
talk •
contribs)
01:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Upmerge All While there may be more houses of worship, it's not at all clear they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. No objection to recreating if any get up to 5 or so articles. If this was by state/province, I would be one thing, but there are thousands upon thousands of municipalities
RevelationDirect (
talk)
18:41, 26 January 2019 (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.
Cathedrals in Germany
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.
Probably not, otherwise they wouldn't have merged with the Calvinists. In the neighbouring country in the Netherlands which I am more familiar with, the
Protestant Church in the Netherlands contains a lot of former Calvinist parishes that aren't truly Calvinist anymore nor have converted to Lutheranism. The borders between Calvinism and Lutheranism have simply evaporated. I suppose something similar happened in Germany.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose each of these categories contains a category which has a fair share of articles. The usage of these categories as container categories is useful and far from problematic. I never new that having more than 4 articles in a category and it was still considered
WP:SMALLCAT. The usage of
WP:SMALLCAT in the nomination is therefore erroneous.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
19:24, 31 January 2019 (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:Articles with short description
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There are many competing proposals here, with no clear consensus for any of them. If we were to rename, it would likely need to apply to the whole tree. A wider discussion is needed. ~
Rob13Talk03:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Articles with ITEM" isn't good English. If this were an ordinary template-transcluded category, I'd just edit the template to change the name of the transcluded category, speedy delete the existing category under G8, and create a new category at the correct name. However, this category currently has 5,570,647 articles, so it's not safe to do anything without a discussion.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename entire tree. It would be editorially irresponsible to willfully retain this category with such a plainly obvious grammatical inconsistency, especially when it belies our own best practice and
published naming conventions. The template's singular title is never retained (for any artful reason) when plurality is grammatically required. Consider, for example, that its use ({{Short description}}) is governed by
WikiProject Short descriptions and that the first descriptive sentence in each of these misnamed categories is that they are "pages with short descriptions". Consider, as well, the following examples (far from an exhaustive list):
Comment I really don't care whether there should be a renaming or not; after all, the meaning is clear. However, since most articles have only one short description, the logically correct title for a rename would be "Category:Articles with a short description". --
RexxS (
talk)
13:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, the renaming is merely a matter of changing the category name in
Template:Short description. That will create a fairly large queue as the servers update all of the transclusions. It's the sort of load that occurs when a parameter is added or removed in a template such as infobox person, so we should try to get it right first time if a rename is agreed on. --
RexxS (
talk)
21:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Marcocapelle, see the second sentence of my nomination statement; the servers indeed will have tons of work, but it's trivial for any human who has the user rights to edit the template.
Nyttend (
talk)
13:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Nyttend: So how bad is it when the servers have this amount of work? Can it affect reachability of Wikipedia, or can it substantially decrease the speed of other tasks being processed?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
See
Help:Job queue. In short, tasks like this one run when the server has some spare time. It will definitely take hours to implement (maybe days?), but this isn't something that will slow down the server, let alone crash it.
Nyttend (
talk)
15:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. First, both "articles with a short description" and "articles with short descriptions" are grammatically correct English, with the plural being preferred, contra
RexxS.
[1] I find switching to either of these more grammatical forms to be trivial, and agree with UnitedStatesian that can be interpreted as grammatical if we understand the "short description" to be a reference to the template.
Daask (
talk)
17:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Daask: Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment that switching to a more grammatical form is trivial, but the thread at Stack Exchange really doesn't contradict my argument: "... the distributive singular may also be used to focus on individual instances ... The singular is sometimes used to avoid ambiguity ... It is incumbent, therefore, on the maker of the message to anticipate when ... the message is inherently ambiguous ... the message needs to be phrased in such a way as to be clear to the recipient how many of the items are involved for each ...". I don't agree that the plural is preferred when the audience can't be expected to know from their prior experience whether an article will contain one or many templates; in such a case I believe the singular removes any ambiguity. YMMV --
RexxS (
talk)
17:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
They don't seem to be the same scenario, since there is (normally) only one short description for an article, yet there can be multiple redirects (and of multiple types). — AfroThundr (
u ·
t ·
c)23:07, 1 January 2019 (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:Romance suspense
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 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:Fictional pawnbrokers
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.
Delete We have one person for whom it is defining, and that is not enough to justify a category. The term "broker" is general English is never used alone for this profession, nor is this seen as a sub-cat of the broker profession, it is a distinct profession that just has a shared name with real estate brokers and other possible brokers, so the upmerge is not justified.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
07:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose merger; neutral on deletion -- A pawnbroker is the provider of a particular kind of finance. A broker is a dealer who is an intermediary (eg stockbroker). They are sufficiently different for merger to be inappropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:04, 9 January 2019 (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:Hospitals in Riga
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 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:Removed Confederate States of America monuments and memorials
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 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:Confederate States of America monuments and memorials
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 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:Artists by Japanese record label
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.
Keep. I created it because a similar category exists for South Korean labels. And the category actually helps navigation a lot because if you are into J-pop you get to browse only the categories related go Japan. Actually, the category has already helped me a lot. --
Moscow Connection (
talk)
22:54, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Products by company
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:reverse merge. Any issues with subcategories can be handled either as speedies (C2C, as applicable) or through another CfD. I feel there has been enough consideration of the overall tree here to make this merge as a start. Pinging
Marcocapelle as someone who would likely be interested in going through this tree. ~
Rob13Talk03:12, 23 February 2019 (UTC)reply
just noticing all the 'by manufacturer' sub categories and sub-sub categories. I wonder whether all these can be appropriately renamed to 'by company'
Hmains (
talk)
03:11, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Question - Many companies today own brands and develop prototypes under that name but contract outside firms (often in China, for example) for the actual manufacturing. How is this nuance currently handled (having the two categories) and how would merging the categories allow for distinguishing between companies that own and sell branded products, and the companies that manufacture them?--
John Cline (
talk)
09:52, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
It's a good question and I don't expect anyone has thought about this before. I'm guessing that products manufactured by another company than the companies that sells them are are not defined by the manufacturing company, so then it's perhaps not an issue.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:41, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Reverse Merge (or Merge a Nominated) Although in theory, you could have manufacturers/distributors/retailers, in practice this is one category. I prefer by "company" but by "manufacturer" is better than leaving two categories.
RevelationDirect (
talk)
18:39, 26 January 2019 (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.
Places of worship by city (United States)
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge all per nom. The argument that there is a realistic potential for growth was successfully refuted by RevelationDirect, who pointed out that it is tremendously unclear that there are sufficient notable non-Christian places of worship in these towns to justify these categories. No such places of worship were advanced as potential articles. No prejudice against future recreation if such articles come into being. ~
Rob13Talk03:10, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
OpposeWP:SMALLCAT does not apply. SMALLCAT is for categories "will never have more than a few members" and "does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth [...] may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time." Many of the recent nominations citing WP:SMALLCAT as a reason for deletion are invalid applications of that guideline. WP:SMALLCAT also makes it clear that if categories are part of a wider subcategorisation scheme (in this case, places of worship by city), then it does not apply. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Grutness (
talk •
contribs)
01:49, 19 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Upmerge All While there may be more houses of worship, it's not at all clear they are notable enough for a Wikipedia article. No objection to recreating if any get up to 5 or so articles. If this was by state/province, I would be one thing, but there are thousands upon thousands of municipalities
RevelationDirect (
talk)
18:41, 26 January 2019 (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.
Cathedrals in Germany
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.
Probably not, otherwise they wouldn't have merged with the Calvinists. In the neighbouring country in the Netherlands which I am more familiar with, the
Protestant Church in the Netherlands contains a lot of former Calvinist parishes that aren't truly Calvinist anymore nor have converted to Lutheranism. The borders between Calvinism and Lutheranism have simply evaporated. I suppose something similar happened in Germany.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
15:56, 4 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose each of these categories contains a category which has a fair share of articles. The usage of these categories as container categories is useful and far from problematic. I never new that having more than 4 articles in a category and it was still considered
WP:SMALLCAT. The usage of
WP:SMALLCAT in the nomination is therefore erroneous.
Inter&anthro (
talk)
19:24, 31 January 2019 (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:Articles with short description
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus. There are many competing proposals here, with no clear consensus for any of them. If we were to rename, it would likely need to apply to the whole tree. A wider discussion is needed. ~
Rob13Talk03:05, 24 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: "Articles with ITEM" isn't good English. If this were an ordinary template-transcluded category, I'd just edit the template to change the name of the transcluded category, speedy delete the existing category under G8, and create a new category at the correct name. However, this category currently has 5,570,647 articles, so it's not safe to do anything without a discussion.
Nyttend (
talk)
02:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Rename entire tree. It would be editorially irresponsible to willfully retain this category with such a plainly obvious grammatical inconsistency, especially when it belies our own best practice and
published naming conventions. The template's singular title is never retained (for any artful reason) when plurality is grammatically required. Consider, for example, that its use ({{Short description}}) is governed by
WikiProject Short descriptions and that the first descriptive sentence in each of these misnamed categories is that they are "pages with short descriptions". Consider, as well, the following examples (far from an exhaustive list):
Comment I really don't care whether there should be a renaming or not; after all, the meaning is clear. However, since most articles have only one short description, the logically correct title for a rename would be "Category:Articles with a short description". --
RexxS (
talk)
13:00, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
As far as I can tell, the renaming is merely a matter of changing the category name in
Template:Short description. That will create a fairly large queue as the servers update all of the transclusions. It's the sort of load that occurs when a parameter is added or removed in a template such as infobox person, so we should try to get it right first time if a rename is agreed on. --
RexxS (
talk)
21:17, 31 December 2018 (UTC)reply
Marcocapelle, see the second sentence of my nomination statement; the servers indeed will have tons of work, but it's trivial for any human who has the user rights to edit the template.
Nyttend (
talk)
13:02, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Nyttend: So how bad is it when the servers have this amount of work? Can it affect reachability of Wikipedia, or can it substantially decrease the speed of other tasks being processed?
Marcocapelle (
talk)
13:13, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
See
Help:Job queue. In short, tasks like this one run when the server has some spare time. It will definitely take hours to implement (maybe days?), but this isn't something that will slow down the server, let alone crash it.
Nyttend (
talk)
15:57, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Keep. First, both "articles with a short description" and "articles with short descriptions" are grammatically correct English, with the plural being preferred, contra
RexxS.
[1] I find switching to either of these more grammatical forms to be trivial, and agree with UnitedStatesian that can be interpreted as grammatical if we understand the "short description" to be a reference to the template.
Daask (
talk)
17:25, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Daask: Not that I'm disagreeing with the sentiment that switching to a more grammatical form is trivial, but the thread at Stack Exchange really doesn't contradict my argument: "... the distributive singular may also be used to focus on individual instances ... The singular is sometimes used to avoid ambiguity ... It is incumbent, therefore, on the maker of the message to anticipate when ... the message is inherently ambiguous ... the message needs to be phrased in such a way as to be clear to the recipient how many of the items are involved for each ...". I don't agree that the plural is preferred when the audience can't be expected to know from their prior experience whether an article will contain one or many templates; in such a case I believe the singular removes any ambiguity. YMMV --
RexxS (
talk)
17:47, 1 January 2019 (UTC)reply
They don't seem to be the same scenario, since there is (normally) only one short description for an article, yet there can be multiple redirects (and of multiple types). — AfroThundr (
u ·
t ·
c)23:07, 1 January 2019 (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:Romance suspense
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 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:Fictional pawnbrokers
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.
Delete We have one person for whom it is defining, and that is not enough to justify a category. The term "broker" is general English is never used alone for this profession, nor is this seen as a sub-cat of the broker profession, it is a distinct profession that just has a shared name with real estate brokers and other possible brokers, so the upmerge is not justified.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
07:38, 5 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose merger; neutral on deletion -- A pawnbroker is the provider of a particular kind of finance. A broker is a dealer who is an intermediary (eg stockbroker). They are sufficiently different for merger to be inappropriate.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
23:04, 9 January 2019 (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:Hospitals in Riga
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 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.