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.
Nominator's rationale: There’s not very many films *about* buses, there’s quite a few where a bus or buses play a significant part.
JonathanDP81 (
talk)
23:26, 9 June 2023 (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:PSOTY
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCEPON. With only what amounts to articles on two albums and a discography page, this lacks the content necessary for an eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:10, 9 June 2023 (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.
Expatriates 2
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.
Oppose. These mergers to multiple targets create a maintenance nightmare, and the sheer scale of this nomination makes it impossible to believe that the nominator has done a thorough
WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill
WP:SMALLCAT, which is for "Small with no potential for growth": categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. These cats are indeed part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, and in our age of globalisation, they do have potential for growth. This is not like the oft-cited case of
Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, which is a small set with no growth potential. Anyone who has ever worked on
Special:WantedCategories will know that many professional sports (esp soccer and basketball) now have a global transfer market, and that en.wp has extensive coverage of the huge and growing number of sporting expatriates. This isn't just people from developing nations as expats in
G7 countries; there is also a lot of movement between other nations. Also, why do these proposed merges not group the target categories by continent? e.g. instead of the proposed
Category:Afghan expatriates in Israel to
Category:Afghan expatriates and
Category:Expatriates in Israel ... why not do e.g. instead of the proposed
Category:Afghan expatriates in Israel to
Category:Afghan expatriates in Asia and
Category:Asian expatriates in Israel?
Those by-continent groupings would be more useful than the proposed global categories, which lump in migrants from Asia with from Africa, Europe, Oceania, South America and North America. I would still oppose the merges, but using by-continent targets would be significantly less destructive than this proposal to simply demolish a large chunk of our human migration categories. The by-continent data is already there in the current category titles, and re-creating it later would be a lot of avoidable work.--
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If Dante were alive he would no doubt create a 10th concentric circle of hell where one is condemned to argue interminably with BHG.
Oculi (
talk)
14:34, 20 June 2023 (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:Santa Clara University School of Business alumni
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:Railway stations in Great Britain without public access
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.
Comment I'm wondering if this is a cohesive rail station grouping: one that was mothballed, another that stops at a private company headquarters, 2 that are transfer point between 2 railroads, another is a dropoff for a car shuttle, 1 with an
unclear purpose. I wouldn't find this category helpful for navigation, but certainly we should merge if kept. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
13:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
delete In the DC Metro there is one station which really does have no public access: it is the station they take the money to, after hours. (I'm not sure they still use it.) From the sample I've read of these, they all do have public access: it's just that there is something "odd" about that access. I just don't see this as a coherent grouping, and it tends to trivia.
Mangoe (
talk)
01:50, 19 June 2023 (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:1662 establishments in Croatia
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one thing. As always, "YYYY establishments in Country" categories do not automatically need to exist the moment there's one thing established in that country in that year with a Wikipedia article -- it aids navigation not a whit to obsessively filter everything down to microcategories of one, so below about five articles per year things should just be catted by century.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television shows set in Kingston upon Hull
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.
Nominator's rationale: Two single-entry
WP:SMALLCATs, both created solely to overcategorize the same television show. As always, every place does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one show to file in it -- there would need to be at least five shows set in Kingston upon Hull before a dedicated category was warranted, and below that they should just stay in the Yorkshire parent. Navigation of the pedia is not aided in any way by obsessively sorting everything down into highly localized microcategories of one.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Bearcat Where does it say this guideline about a minimum of five shows?
When I first created some categories 16 months ago, a lot of them were deleted because they had nothing in them...
Mainly because I had only just created them.
No-one said anything about them having to have a minimum of five entries, which I could easily get.
So I created some of them one at a time, and made sure each one contained at least entry.
Also, let me guess...
You're either, not British, or you're over the age of 47yo?
Which a quick look at your profile suggests, you're clearly not British, you're a Canadian, as
Yorkshire does not exist officially as anything, and has never really existed as anything.
WP:SMALLCAT, which I already linked to in my nomination statement, is where it says that categories need to have more than one article before they become justified. And it doesn't matter who does or doesn't live where, either, because there's absolutely no rule that the United Kingdom gets any special exemptions from having to follow SMALLCAT the same way as any other country does.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Bearcat there should be a rule, as people who don't understand UK geography like you, start nominating things to be deleted, partly because you think the
East Riding of Yorkshire shouldn't exist.
Recently on a different site, I was updating some Americans places in the middle of a desert, which were also part of a national park, and wasn't sure whether I should add the counties to their addresses or not. I decided against adding the counties to their addresses, as I'm not really sure what an American county is, plus most locations in the USA only ever seem to use just states, not counties then states.
Also
Kingston upon Hull should definitely exist, along with many more missing categories about things in the UK's cities, mainly because Hull is 1 of the 76 cities of the UK. It's not like it's a small town, with nothing going on, it's a medium sized city, and former UK Capital of Culture, with lots going on.
I mainly try to focus on Yorkshire cities and towns, mainly on a different site, however I slowly build them up on here every now and again, as shown by some of my recent fiction, books, and writer additions this week.
Danstarr69 (
talk)
13:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia content is not served by being microfiltered all the way down to microcategories of just one article each. Whether a category "should" exist or not, there have to be five articles in it, not just one, before it's actually allowed to exist, because a bunch of one-article categories does not facilitate navigating the encyclopedia. So there's a minimum number of articles that "X in Kingston upon Hull" has to contain before it's allowed to exist separately from "X in Yorkshire" — not because anybody fails to understand geography, but because navigation of Wikipedia's category system is not facilitated by one-article categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You thought because it contained a compass point, it must be a made-up place like,
West London which I see people use a lot when talking about tourist attractions, when what they're actually talking about are places in the 8.29 square mile
City of Westminster 1 of the 76 cities in the UK, because they don't realise that
Greater London is not a city, never has been a city, and never will be a city.
Danstarr69 (
talk)
14:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought absolutely nothing of the sort, and know far more about UK geography than you imagine I do. But places do not automatically get their own dedicate "X in [Place]" categories just because they exist, they get such categories only when there are at least five things to be filed in them. "This place exists" is not an exemption from
WP:SMALLCAT; there have to be five things in the category before a category for them is justified, and one thing is not enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Bearcat you keep going on about this minimum of five entries, yet
Wikipedia:SMALLCAT says nothing of the sort. It says:
"Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members."
It's extremely unlikely that the category will never grow. There's at least 5 productions I know of which have been filming in Hull over the last 12 months, some of which will possibly be set in Hull too.
People from Hull, will know of more productions set in Hull, than I do.
Anybody can simply claim that any category has the potential to eventually grow large enough, so nothing would ever be subject to the SMALLCAT yardstick at all if all you had to do to exempt it from SMALLCAT was claim that it was theoretically possible that the category could become larger someday. A prospect of expansion has to be imminent, as in "there's an active project underway right now to get this undercovered topic filled in, so the category will be over the size minimum within a few hours at most", and just "anything's possible eventually" doesn't cut it at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat The minimum of five entries which doesn't exist, except in your head.
As I said,
Kingston upon Hull is a city with lots going on. It will definitely increase...
It's the only city in the
East Riding of Yorkshire, which is why the East Riding of Yorkshire is largely ignored compared to North, West and South Yorkshire.
Nothing exists "only in my head". The minimum of five articles is a standard rule of Wikipedia categories, not a thing i made up myself to be difficult. And again, the standard is not "it's a city with lots going on, so this category could potentially pass the size bar someday" — it requires an immediate prospect of expansion now, not "anything could be possible someday".
Bearcat (
talk)
15:58, 9 June 2023 (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:Ecophenomenologists
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:Ecophilosophers
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.
Cycle manufacturers
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.
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:National anthem compositions by key
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.
Nominator's rationale: This and its subcategories ought to be deleted because as a rule it's not a defining characteristic of these songs. For example, looking in
Category:National anthem compositions in F-sharp major, I've already removed one entry because of the two performances of '
L'Abidjanaise', neither was in this key, and I could find no substantiation that the music was published in this key; it was also listed in a different key category. One of the other category members was also categorized in multiple keys and the third, while performed in this key by the Navy band, could just as well have been notated in the enharmonic key of G flat major, and again there's no documentation of the key.
There are a few anthems that are almost invariably played (if not sung) in a particular key because the compass of the tune doesn't give a mixed group of singers a lot of options. On the other hand the Episcopal Hymnal 1982 uses the tune for '
God Save the King' on facing pages in two different keys. When doing multiple verses it's common enough to move up a key on the last verse. Again, as above, finding documentation that an anthem was originally composed in a specific key is difficult to impossible, and sheet music from the present showing it in one key does not preclude performance or even other sheet music in another. My guess is that all categorization here is
WP:OR, but in any case I don't see that the supposed key of these pieces matters.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, not withstanding
Marcocapelle's comment which should be dealt with. Nobody knows the key a song was composed in save the composer, if a particular recording of a song/anthem is known and referenced, that is different.--
Richhoncho (
talk)
00:02, 10 June 2023 (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:Green thinkers
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.
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.
Nominator's rationale: There’s not very many films *about* buses, there’s quite a few where a bus or buses play a significant part.
JonathanDP81 (
talk)
23:26, 9 June 2023 (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:PSOTY
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:OCEPON. With only what amounts to articles on two albums and a discography page, this lacks the content necessary for an eponymous category. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:10, 9 June 2023 (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.
Expatriates 2
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.
Oppose. These mergers to multiple targets create a maintenance nightmare, and the sheer scale of this nomination makes it impossible to believe that the nominator has done a thorough
WP:BEFORE to ensure that these categories all fulfill
WP:SMALLCAT, which is for "Small with no potential for growth": categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme. These cats are indeed part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, and in our age of globalisation, they do have potential for growth. This is not like the oft-cited case of
Husbands of Elizabeth Taylor, which is a small set with no growth potential. Anyone who has ever worked on
Special:WantedCategories will know that many professional sports (esp soccer and basketball) now have a global transfer market, and that en.wp has extensive coverage of the huge and growing number of sporting expatriates. This isn't just people from developing nations as expats in
G7 countries; there is also a lot of movement between other nations. Also, why do these proposed merges not group the target categories by continent? e.g. instead of the proposed
Category:Afghan expatriates in Israel to
Category:Afghan expatriates and
Category:Expatriates in Israel ... why not do e.g. instead of the proposed
Category:Afghan expatriates in Israel to
Category:Afghan expatriates in Asia and
Category:Asian expatriates in Israel?
Those by-continent groupings would be more useful than the proposed global categories, which lump in migrants from Asia with from Africa, Europe, Oceania, South America and North America. I would still oppose the merges, but using by-continent targets would be significantly less destructive than this proposal to simply demolish a large chunk of our human migration categories. The by-continent data is already there in the current category titles, and re-creating it later would be a lot of avoidable work.--
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
14:59, 18 June 2023 (UTC)reply
If Dante were alive he would no doubt create a 10th concentric circle of hell where one is condemned to argue interminably with BHG.
Oculi (
talk)
14:34, 20 June 2023 (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:Santa Clara University School of Business alumni
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:Railway stations in Great Britain without public access
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.
Comment I'm wondering if this is a cohesive rail station grouping: one that was mothballed, another that stops at a private company headquarters, 2 that are transfer point between 2 railroads, another is a dropoff for a car shuttle, 1 with an
unclear purpose. I wouldn't find this category helpful for navigation, but certainly we should merge if kept. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
13:08, 10 June 2023 (UTC)reply
delete In the DC Metro there is one station which really does have no public access: it is the station they take the money to, after hours. (I'm not sure they still use it.) From the sample I've read of these, they all do have public access: it's just that there is something "odd" about that access. I just don't see this as a coherent grouping, and it tends to trivia.
Mangoe (
talk)
01:50, 19 June 2023 (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:1662 establishments in Croatia
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.
Nominator's rationale:WP:SMALLCAT for just one thing. As always, "YYYY establishments in Country" categories do not automatically need to exist the moment there's one thing established in that country in that year with a Wikipedia article -- it aids navigation not a whit to obsessively filter everything down to microcategories of one, so below about five articles per year things should just be catted by century.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:28, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Television shows set in Kingston upon Hull
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.
Nominator's rationale: Two single-entry
WP:SMALLCATs, both created solely to overcategorize the same television show. As always, every place does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one show to file in it -- there would need to be at least five shows set in Kingston upon Hull before a dedicated category was warranted, and below that they should just stay in the Yorkshire parent. Navigation of the pedia is not aided in any way by obsessively sorting everything down into highly localized microcategories of one.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:03, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Bearcat Where does it say this guideline about a minimum of five shows?
When I first created some categories 16 months ago, a lot of them were deleted because they had nothing in them...
Mainly because I had only just created them.
No-one said anything about them having to have a minimum of five entries, which I could easily get.
So I created some of them one at a time, and made sure each one contained at least entry.
Also, let me guess...
You're either, not British, or you're over the age of 47yo?
Which a quick look at your profile suggests, you're clearly not British, you're a Canadian, as
Yorkshire does not exist officially as anything, and has never really existed as anything.
WP:SMALLCAT, which I already linked to in my nomination statement, is where it says that categories need to have more than one article before they become justified. And it doesn't matter who does or doesn't live where, either, because there's absolutely no rule that the United Kingdom gets any special exemptions from having to follow SMALLCAT the same way as any other country does.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:11, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Bearcat there should be a rule, as people who don't understand UK geography like you, start nominating things to be deleted, partly because you think the
East Riding of Yorkshire shouldn't exist.
Recently on a different site, I was updating some Americans places in the middle of a desert, which were also part of a national park, and wasn't sure whether I should add the counties to their addresses or not. I decided against adding the counties to their addresses, as I'm not really sure what an American county is, plus most locations in the USA only ever seem to use just states, not counties then states.
Also
Kingston upon Hull should definitely exist, along with many more missing categories about things in the UK's cities, mainly because Hull is 1 of the 76 cities of the UK. It's not like it's a small town, with nothing going on, it's a medium sized city, and former UK Capital of Culture, with lots going on.
I mainly try to focus on Yorkshire cities and towns, mainly on a different site, however I slowly build them up on here every now and again, as shown by some of my recent fiction, books, and writer additions this week.
Danstarr69 (
talk)
13:46, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Wikipedia content is not served by being microfiltered all the way down to microcategories of just one article each. Whether a category "should" exist or not, there have to be five articles in it, not just one, before it's actually allowed to exist, because a bunch of one-article categories does not facilitate navigating the encyclopedia. So there's a minimum number of articles that "X in Kingston upon Hull" has to contain before it's allowed to exist separately from "X in Yorkshire" — not because anybody fails to understand geography, but because navigation of Wikipedia's category system is not facilitated by one-article categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:50, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
You thought because it contained a compass point, it must be a made-up place like,
West London which I see people use a lot when talking about tourist attractions, when what they're actually talking about are places in the 8.29 square mile
City of Westminster 1 of the 76 cities in the UK, because they don't realise that
Greater London is not a city, never has been a city, and never will be a city.
Danstarr69 (
talk)
14:10, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
I thought absolutely nothing of the sort, and know far more about UK geography than you imagine I do. But places do not automatically get their own dedicate "X in [Place]" categories just because they exist, they get such categories only when there are at least five things to be filed in them. "This place exists" is not an exemption from
WP:SMALLCAT; there have to be five things in the category before a category for them is justified, and one thing is not enough.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:06, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Bearcat you keep going on about this minimum of five entries, yet
Wikipedia:SMALLCAT says nothing of the sort. It says:
"Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members."
It's extremely unlikely that the category will never grow. There's at least 5 productions I know of which have been filming in Hull over the last 12 months, some of which will possibly be set in Hull too.
People from Hull, will know of more productions set in Hull, than I do.
Anybody can simply claim that any category has the potential to eventually grow large enough, so nothing would ever be subject to the SMALLCAT yardstick at all if all you had to do to exempt it from SMALLCAT was claim that it was theoretically possible that the category could become larger someday. A prospect of expansion has to be imminent, as in "there's an active project underway right now to get this undercovered topic filled in, so the category will be over the size minimum within a few hours at most", and just "anything's possible eventually" doesn't cut it at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
15:42, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat The minimum of five entries which doesn't exist, except in your head.
As I said,
Kingston upon Hull is a city with lots going on. It will definitely increase...
It's the only city in the
East Riding of Yorkshire, which is why the East Riding of Yorkshire is largely ignored compared to North, West and South Yorkshire.
Nothing exists "only in my head". The minimum of five articles is a standard rule of Wikipedia categories, not a thing i made up myself to be difficult. And again, the standard is not "it's a city with lots going on, so this category could potentially pass the size bar someday" — it requires an immediate prospect of expansion now, not "anything could be possible someday".
Bearcat (
talk)
15:58, 9 June 2023 (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:Ecophenomenologists
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:Ecophilosophers
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.
Cycle manufacturers
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.
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:National anthem compositions by key
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.
Nominator's rationale: This and its subcategories ought to be deleted because as a rule it's not a defining characteristic of these songs. For example, looking in
Category:National anthem compositions in F-sharp major, I've already removed one entry because of the two performances of '
L'Abidjanaise', neither was in this key, and I could find no substantiation that the music was published in this key; it was also listed in a different key category. One of the other category members was also categorized in multiple keys and the third, while performed in this key by the Navy band, could just as well have been notated in the enharmonic key of G flat major, and again there's no documentation of the key.
There are a few anthems that are almost invariably played (if not sung) in a particular key because the compass of the tune doesn't give a mixed group of singers a lot of options. On the other hand the Episcopal Hymnal 1982 uses the tune for '
God Save the King' on facing pages in two different keys. When doing multiple verses it's common enough to move up a key on the last verse. Again, as above, finding documentation that an anthem was originally composed in a specific key is difficult to impossible, and sheet music from the present showing it in one key does not preclude performance or even other sheet music in another. My guess is that all categorization here is
WP:OR, but in any case I don't see that the supposed key of these pieces matters.
Mangoe (
talk)
04:19, 9 June 2023 (UTC)reply
Support per nom, not withstanding
Marcocapelle's comment which should be dealt with. Nobody knows the key a song was composed in save the composer, if a particular recording of a song/anthem is known and referenced, that is different.--
Richhoncho (
talk)
00:02, 10 June 2023 (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:Green thinkers
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.