Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 7



Food and drink festivals by country

 * 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 as suggested in nom. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 02:04, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:






 * Nominator's rationale: This should be the last followup nomination to Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1, see also the closely related nomination below. While I'm otherwise no big fan of "x and y" categories, unless unavoidable, I'm arguing that it would be the right thing to do here, as:
 * There are at least two definitions of "food" around, the one including beverages, the other excluding them. While we could settle for one or the other definition, category descriptions often aren't effective in enforcing one of two equally viable definitions.
 * Production and consumption of food and drinks are culturally, agriculturally and economically closely intertwined, and have always been. Cheese is made from milk, wine and juice from fruit, beer from crop. While there are all kinds of festivals that are centered on a specific agricultural or culinary product, often with some ties to regional tradition, from this point of view, traditional wine, beer, seafood or pretzel festivals have much in common. There are also more general "Food and wine" or "Food and drink" festivals, some named as such.
 * In that recently closed CfD we renamed to  and the by-country and by-continent container categories as well, so this CfD's purpose is basically aimed at bringing the subcategories in line with the parent categories.
 * --PanchoS (talk) 22:19, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:30, 8 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.

Category: Criticism of the Bible

 * 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 action. I will merge the first comment below into the April 2 discussion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 08:29, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably should have two categories. One accepting the veracity of the Bible (New Testament and Old should be separated. I, for one, "accept" the Tanakh but not the New Testament) and one that does not.Sahansdal (talk) 21:24, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please go ahead and create and populate the two subcategories. Discussion here only takes place after creating, not before. In this case the diffusion between Old and New Testament seems pretty obvious to me. By the way, in the current categorization structure Tanakh is called Hebrew Bible, see Category:Hebrew Bible. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment Agree with Marcocapelle. You may also want to look at the discussion at Categories for discussion/Log/2016 April 2 and add your thoughts to that discussion. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:44, 8 April 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.

Food and drink companies by country

 * 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 of "Food companies" categories as proposed. Keep "beverage companies" categories. Strength of arguments is on the side of renaming given the renaming of all of the other categories in this tree. The broader consensus has been that this is not "new nomenclature". (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 03:47, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging:
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →


 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →
 * and →


 * Propose renaming:



While I initially preferred the "Food and beverage companies" scheme, as this seems to be the more common term in the industry, I'm accepting the outcome of the recent Cfd. While I'm otherwise no big fan of "x and y" categories, unless unavoidable, I'm arguing that it would be the right thing to do here, as: At the same time, the larger "Beverage companies by country" categories are already subdivided into more specific industries which, unlike beverage companies, are really defining for the listed companies, see for example: Beer and breweries, Coffee houses, or Wineries within. So it's not like merging food and drinks would produce huge unsorted categories. Rather, this would be an opportunity to go further in categorizing companies by the business they are really in: dairy, fruit, coffee, meat, beer, vegetables, convenience food, upstream products, gastronomy, retail shops, F&B logistics, etc.
 * Nominator's rationale: This is a another followup nomination to Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1, see also the closely related nomination below.
 * There are at least two definitions of "food" around, the one including beverages, the other excluding them. While we could settle for one or the other definition, category descriptions often aren't effective in enforcing one of two equally viable definitions.
 * Production of food and of drinks is culturally, agriculturally and economically closely intertwined, and has always been, for some good examples see the dairy and fruit industries. While there have always been specialists in one or the other area of F&B production (such as alcoholic drinks, soft drinks, coffee, dairy products), few of them specialize on "all kinds of drinks" (but no food) or the other way around. There are at least as many cases, where companies produce certain consumer products of both kinds, are in the business of producing upstream products for both food and beverages, or services related to both food and beverages, including gastronomy.
 * More specifically, most subcategories of these "Food companies by country" categories apply to both food and drink, see for example Agriculture companies, Dairy products companies, Food brands, Food retailers and Restaurants in.
 * --PanchoS (talk) 19:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Oppose Present categorisation working well and is line with as commonly understood in industry and by people. Let us in wikipedia not create different and new nomenclature.Shyamsunder (talk) 23:29, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support renaming food companies categories per nom, but keep beverages companies categories as child categories, because in a number of countries they are not subdivided any further. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If your suggestion means alt renaming the categories I nominated for merge, while endorsing the other renames, I'd be absolutely fine with that compromise. --PanchoS (talk) 02:39, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, exactly, rename instead of merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 28 April 2016 (UTC)
 * 👍 --PanchoS (talk) 09:13, 28 April 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.

Category:Wakandans

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:27, 13 May 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wakandans


 * Nominator's rationale: ultimately trivial category Killer Moff (talk) 15:47, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting latverians


 * Nominator's rationale: Ultimately trivial category. Killer Moff (talk) 15:46, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I have combined two similar noms. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Not sure -- My rule is "one franchise - one category". However, there seem to be so many Marvel franchises that I am not sure it is appropriate to combine them all.  A common outcome has been  that all the articles on characters are merged into a single one on the book or periodical.  When there is little left, the category can be deleted.  In this case, each category has a population.  We therefore need to merge somewhere.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete, we deleted superhero and supervillain team categories may moons ago and these have the same feel. They should be dealt with in the relevant articles - for the first one Wakanda (comics) and, and for the second: Latveria. Also if we are nominating those two, we should probably also include Category: Genoshans. Emperor (talk) 03:55, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete per precedent -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Keep These are subcategories of Category:Fictional ethnic groups and seem reasonably populated. Dimadick (talk) 06:28, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd argue that it should be in that Category either. Firstly, I believe they are nationalities, rather than ethnicities, but can be corrected on that point. Secondly, I'd think that the category should cover the group, rather than individuals within it, and as such, perhaps should be listed in the entries on Wakanda and Latveria. Killer Moff (talk) 10:41, 25 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Keep These go under Category:Fictional characters by nationality or ethnicity. I don't think there is a consistent reason to exclude the fictional characters covered by this schema from that larger schema. True, at present they are the only people from fictional countries so categorized, but I could imagine other such cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:39, 8 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.

Food and drink companies by year of establishment

 * 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) ~ RobTalk 03:21, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming:




 * Nominator's rationale: This is a followup nomination to Categories for discussion/Log/2016 February 1. It comes close to qualifying for WP:C2C, but while the precedent has been set in the previous CfD, it is not yet "overwhelmingly used within the tree". While I initially preferred the "Food and beverage companies" scheme, as this seems to be the more common term in the industry, I'm accepting the outcome of the recent Cfd. While I'm otherwise no big fan of "x and y" categories, unless unavoidable, I'm arguing that it would be the right thing to do here, as:
 * There are at least two definitions of "food" around, the one including beverages, the other excluding them. While we could settle for one or the other definition, category descriptions often aren't effective in enforcing one of two equally viable definitions.
 * Production of food and of drinks is culturally, agriculturally and economically closely intertwined, and has always been, see for example dairy and fruit industries. While there have always been specialists in one or the other area of F&B production, few of them specialize on "all kinds of drinks" (but no food) or the other way around. There are at least as many cases, where companies produce certain consumer products of both kinds, are in the business of producing upstream products for both food and beverages, or services related to both food and beverages, including gastronomy.
 * We had quite a few separate categories for food companies resp. beverage companies per year of (dis)establishment, without a parent category holding the two. Almost all of these categories were very small, and most of the remaining ones are just as small, while for most years there's no category at all. Clearly, none of these constitute a WP:SMALLCAT by definition, but we should aim on having a robust set of categories first. Further subdivision may become an issue, as soon as we have approximately 10x as many articles on F&B companies as we currently do. This probably won't be the case within the next 10 years.
 * --PanchoS (talk) 15:15, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Comment this discussion should be closed together with the similar nomination on this same page. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:35, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 8 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.

Category:Humboldt Mountains

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Humboldt Mountains to Category:Humboldt Mountains (Antarctica)
 * Nominator's rationale: I recently moved the key article of this to the new title, after the creation of Humboldt Mountains (New Zealand). Category should probably be dabbed in the same way. Grutness...wha?  14:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Support To match the main article. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:46, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Rename to match parent article -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:42, 12 April 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.

Category:Commercial Banks of Nepal

 * 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; merge contents to . Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:24, 29 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting commercial banks of nepal


 * Nominator's rationale: More or less a duplicate of parent, other countries don't break out the commercial banks Le Deluge (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge to, in case it is not a complete duplicate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge per previous comments. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 25 April 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.

Category:Shiite-Sunni discord

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:06, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Shiite-Sunni discord to Category:Shia–Sunni sectarian violence
 * Nominator's rationale: Categories seem to be covering the same general topic. Of course, "discord" could be things short of violence, but every article in the nominated category involves violence, not just a lesser form of discord. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge - any non-violent ones like the subcat can go in the more general Le Deluge (talk) 10:18, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Support merge -- Lenticel ( talk ) 00:41, 12 April 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.

Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail

 * 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 using Option 2. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:48, 3 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail to
 * OPTION 1 Category:Railway stations served by Northern or
 * OPTION 2 Category:Railway stations served by Northern (train operating company)
 * Nominator's rationale: I have moved this from the speedy section; please read the speedy discussion (copied below) for background. One user has proposed renaming this to Category:Railway stations served by Northern. Another has countered that it should be Category:Railway stations served by Northern (train operating company). The relevant article is currently at Northern (train operating company). I have moved all of the articles back to the original category pending this discussion. I am neutral. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 7 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Category:Railway stations served by Northern Rail to Category:Railway stations served by Northern - C2D in line with operator change on 1 April 2016 from Northern Rail (Serco-Abellio) to Northern (train operating company) 7ten (talk) 02:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This is ambiguous. I suggest to match the parent article, Northern (train operating company). -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:23, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is not ambiguous. It has the phrase "railway stations" in the title and a link to Northern (train operating company) on the category page. There is no need to further complicate or lengthen the title. Category:Railway stations served by Northern is perfect as proposed.  Rcsprinter123    (interface)  19:41, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It's ambiguous because it could easily refer to any of these. I should mention that has been pre-emptively recategorising pages from  to . -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The link on the page is sufficient.  Rcsprinter123    (reason)  20:00, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

As convincingly pointed out, categorizing stations by train operating companies makes no sense, as there are stations served by half a dozen or even more TOCs, which is even be the case in Germany, where rail liberalisation has started later and has been less disruptive to state-run operator Deutsche Bahn. We should rather categorize by the operator of the station. Unsure about how this connects to as I don't know whether station operators actually own many of those stations. --PanchoS (talk) 16:14, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Weak preference for option 1, as it is clearly unambiguous in combination with "railway stations". However I wonder if we should categorize railway stations by railway operator at all. Railway operators offer train services, not stations. Stations stopped at are merely a consequence of train services being offered. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * One of the involved editors argued that it was not unambiguous given these names. The broader point is a good one, but probably one that needs a broader discussion given the extensive nature of this scheme. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I was going to say, station by operator may not make sense in a country with a unified transport system, but the UK has a mix of stations run by TOCs, stations (typically big city termini) which are run centrally with up to half a dozen TOCs using them, and some smaller stations run by one TOC but used by another TOC. So it probably is a sensible hierarchy to have, in the UK at least. I know WP:WikiProject Trains is pretty active, so I'd suggest asking them? Le Deluge (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 - Even without looking at Northern Railway my gut feel was that "Northern" on its own was too generally applicable to make a good name. So C2D seems a sensible place to go. Le Deluge (talk) 10:32, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 per Le Deluge. There are numerous uses of "Northern" in railway company names. I also agree that a broader discussion on whether this category scheme is appropriate is needed (though perhaps "stations originally used by X company" makes some sense). Grutness...wha?  14:26, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We have a separate category tree for the company that first opened the station, at the (somewhat misnamed) . -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Former operator in the literal sense could get really messy - the trains in my bit of the UK have had something like 9 operators... And in the UK at least, many of the pre-1926 operators are not very familiar. Le Deluge (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete or: refactor, purge and rename to . Same would hold for almost all other categories in, with the notable exception of.
 * One of the features of the UK privatised rail network is that the operation of trains is almost completely divorced from the provision of the infrastructure that the trains run on. The vast majority of the stations and lines are owned by Network Rail, who also manage about twenty of the largest stations; most of the stations are managed (but not owned) by one of the TOCs. The TOCs run the trains, but the only trains run by Network Rail are those carrying out engineering work. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks! If the vast majority of stations is owned by Network Rail, but – apart from those 20 large ones – managed by one or the other TOC, then categorizing stations by the managing company would work fine, so IMHO that's only supporting my alternative proposal. --PanchoS (talk) 19:23, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There's only a few stations served by a lot of TOCs, mostly the Network Rail termini. However there's quite a few cases where eg an intercity and "local" operator share a station. From a consumer point of view it's perhaps not very interesting who runs the station, but it is useful who serves it, as eg some tickets will work on one operator but not the other. I'd emphasise again, that with an active WP:TRAINS community I wouldn't like to see significant change on the served/managed etc front without a lot of input from them. Let's just keep this discussion to the Northern thing, and then if WP:TRAINS want to change the operated/managed thing at a later date, let's keep it separate.Le Deluge (talk) 21:11, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'm okay with it either way, 1 or 2. --PanchoS (talk) 01:00, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 2 to remove ambiguity as I stated at WP:CFD/S at 19:23, 6 April 2016. -- Red rose64 (talk) 19:10, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Option 1: No disambiguation required, as there are currently no other similarly named categories. 7ten (talk) 06:43, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Reply Northern Railway gives an indication of the potential for other categories. And this isn't one of those disambiguations where there is one "obvious" meaning but you have to go through the formality of a disambiguation for the article because some obscure Indian goddess and village in Guatemala happen to have the same name, but they're not remotely involved in operating railways so a "stations" category is unambiguous. This case is not like that, for the majority of English speaker a "station served by Northern" means something other than the British company, and so we should disambiguate.Le Deluge (talk) 16:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Delete these are becoming "current" categories, because these stations have been run by numerous organizations over their existence and none remain categorized - the rename here is merely another example. Also railway stations being "served" by a railroad is not properly formulated; if it is merely served by this and other railroad companies, it's trivial, like airports by carrier; if it is run by or owned by the company then the title should reflect that connection not merely "served" by. Presumably the stations are also "served by" various newsagents, power companies, sewerage companies, water companies, bus companies, taxi companies, uber, lyft, all of which are trivial connections. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:48, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delete is not one of the options on offer. If this category were to be deleted, that would make Northern (train operating company) the only British TOC without a corresponding "Railway stations served by" category, which means that either we'd need to recreate it to remove the inconsistency, or delete all the others. But none of the others have been nominated here. -- Red rose64 (talk) 22:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's generally OK for users to propose options that were not initially made in the nomination. But deletion could have its drawbacks if done here in isolation, as you've noted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:07, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This category is being discussed; it's not a foregone conclusion that it be kept as the nominator has opened the forum but in no more way controls the way the discussion goes - if the consensus is to delete, the nominator has no special power to veto that. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a third non-deletion option: per the precedent set at Categories for discussion/Log/2014 September 14 (outcome: rename to Category:Greater Anglia franchise railway stations, noting that there is a desire from an editor that other similar subcats be considered; closing admin: ). In this case, the name of the franchise is Northern (created 17 October 2004); the franchisee is Arriva; and they trade as Northern. The franchise is stable long-term, but the other two are not constant - the franchisee changed very recently, and the trading name can be whatever the franchisee chooses. So the third option is: rename to . -- Red rose64 (talk) 11:42, 14 April 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.