Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 February 5



Category:Organizations based in the Republic of China

 * 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. : if you want to create dab cat, do so. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:25, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Organizations based in the Republic of China to Category:Organizations based in Taiwan
 * Nominator's rationale: Taiwan is, officially, the Republic of China, Rathfelder (talk) 23:48, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support, probably. We have Category:Republic of China, which contains Category:Taiwan and Category:Republic of China (1912–49); and Republic of China redirects to Taiwan. So support unless there are articles which should go in Category:Republic of China (1912–49). Oculi (talk) 21:34, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We decided several years ago that WP would call the polity Taiwan. RoC can also refer to the mainland Category:Republic of China (1912–49).  We should probably convert this to a dab-category (rather than a category-redirect) to prevent re-creation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:06, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename to conform to common use. In common usage this is called Taiwan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:08, 11 February 2018 (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:Research institutes in the Republic of China

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:26, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Research institutes in the Republic of China to Category:Research institutes in Taiwan‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Taiwan is, officially, the Republic of China, Rathfelder (talk) 23:47, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Support probably per above. If only Rathfelder would learn how to combine similar noms. Oculi (talk) 21:41, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We decided several years ago that WP would call the polity Taiwan. RoC can also refer to the mainland Category:Republic of China (1912–49).  We should probably convert this to a dab-category (rather than a category-redirect) to prevent re-creation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Where I am first to a multiple nomination, I combine them myself, by deleting the 2nd and subsequent headings and adapting the first. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename to conform to common use.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2018 (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:Medical and health organisations based in the Republic of China

 * 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, then rename to "organizations". And WP:TROUT for not combining the 3 nominations. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:33, 13 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Medical and health organisations based in the Republic of China to Category:Medical and health organisations based in Taiwan‎
 * Nominator's rationale: Taiwan is, officially, the Republic of China, Rathfelder (talk) 23:46, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Neither – whatever is decided, it should be 'organizations' per either local parent. Oculi (talk) 00:48, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support We decided several years ago that WP would call the polity Taiwan. RoC can also refer to the mainland Category:Republic of China (1912–49).  We should probably convert this to a dab-category (rather than a category-redirect) to prevent re-creation.  I suspect the American "z" spelling is appropriate in this case Category:Medical and health organizations based in Taiwan‎.  America had close relations with Taiwan until it recognised PRC as China.  Peterkingiron (talk) 22:13, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm quite happy with "organizations". Rathfelder (talk) 21:20, 10 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename Wikipedia uses common names, not official names.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:09, 11 February 2018 (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:Feature by medium

 * 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. Closing early per WP:IAR, because per the closure of WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 January 30, this category tree is now empty per ... and I see no point in keeping this discussion open. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:45, 6 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting feature by medium


 * Propose deleting feature


 * Nominator's rationale: The only subcategory here,, is up for deletion as redundant with . But even if for some unlikely reason it got kept, this still wouldn't be a useful parent for it: "feature" is an adjective, not a noun, in this context, as it describes a film's length and not the nature of its content. (Documentaries can be feature films too.) The defining link between parent category and child category  travels through the word film, not the word feature — there simply aren't any other types of "feature" media besides films, so there's no other potential content to salvage this with once "Feature films" is deleted. Bearcat (talk) 02:11, 5 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete – per nom. Not useful. Oculi (talk) 18:07, 5 February 2018 (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:Transportaton_buildings_and_structures_in_Anoka_County,_Minnesota

 * 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: moved to speedy. Bearcat (talk) 02:26, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The first word here should be "transportation." I hope I'm posting this in the right place. Speedy Criteria: C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes. Holdoffhunger (talk) 01:12, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Transportaton_buildings_and_structures_in_Anoka_County,_Minnesota
 * Actually you should post this at WP:CFR/S instead of here. We don't need to debate this for seven days; we can get it done within 48 hours if you take it there instead, because I can't foresee any potential objections to a straightforward spelling correction. I've listed it at Speedy for you, so I'll close this. Bearcat (talk) 02:23, 5 February 2018 (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:Professional audio 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 result of the discussion was: rename to Category:Manufacturers of professional audio equipment. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:22, 12 February 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Professional audio manufacturers to Category:Audio equipment manufacturers
 * Nominator's rationale: Newly created category, for no reason that I can see, unless there are large number sof notable amateur audio equipment manufacturers (which I somehow doubt). Suggest merging the contents back to Category:Audio equipment manufacturers. Sionk (talk) 21:36, 28 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete, don't merge. Delete because there's no such thing as "professional audio" that one can "manufacture".  Don't merge because it will create a mess... many of the articles are already in subcategories of Category:Audio equipment manufacturers. Also worth noting that the editor who created this category is still actively working on adding articles (and at least one sub-category) into this new category. &mdash;  Warren.  ‘ talk, 22:32, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - This category is associated with WP:PSP. The purpose is to distinguish Professional audio from consumer audio such as Home audio, High fidelity, Vehicle audio and the like. ~Kvng (talk) 22:41, 28 January 2018 (UTC)
 * can you let us know if your thinking is changed at all by my explanation of Pro audio. Original comments indicate a lack of context in making your respective assertions on ths. Please let me know if any additional background would be helpful. There were a couple hundred audio manufacturers in Category:Audio equipment manufacturers and I separated out the 69 Category:Professional audio manufacturers companies. It is rare for an audio manufacturer to serve both professional and consumer so I don't believe it is an ambiguous or controversial thing to categorize. ~Kvng (talk) 21:29, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, at least that explains the reasoning behind the creation of the category a bit better, though Professional audio and Professional audio store are both quite poor, unconvincing articles. If this category was kept it would, at the very least, need to be renamed Category:Manufacturers of professional audio equipment or similar. Sionk (talk) 22:41, 29 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Not sure you're quite grasping the issue here -- the concept of "professional audio" vs. "not professional" you're getting at is extremely subjective and will lead to disagreements as to whether a particular company, brand or product is considered "professional". Who gets decides what is "professional" and what is not? Sionk and Kvng? No, of course not. It's not like professional sports vs amateur sports which is clearly demarcated by whether one gets paid or not, which is easy enough to discover via sources. But the professional audio article itself fails to define what the term means using reliable sources. Why? Because the word "professional" is only, only a marketing term to justify a higher price bracket. That's it. Trying to categorize based on who uses the products, or how, is hopeless. Like, for instance, we can agree that Roland makes equipment that is used by people who are paid to make or perform music -- Rush, e.g., is famous for using Roland electronic drums and synths. But what about Line 6 or Squier? Surely their products have been used in paid settings as well, right? Right off the top of my head I happen to know that Buckethead has Line 6 DL4 in his current touring rig.
 * Do you really want to support the idea that Wikipedia should categorize product articles based on price or marketing strategy? I don't. Price and target market demo are not defining characteristics of the product itself. &mdash;  Warren.  ‘ talk, 01:41, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
 * The situation here is is not like professional vs. amateur sports. With the exception of conglomerates like Samsung (who also make ICs, phones, etc.), audio equipment manufacturers either produce consumer or professional products. I said above, this is not a difficult or controversial categorization. This is not based on price and market strategy, this is market and customers, commercial vs. consumer. Professional audio has its own trade shows (AES, Infocomm, NAB) separate from consumer audio (CES) and music equipment (NAMM). The music equipment manufacturers like Roland and Line 6 already have their own category, Category:Music equipment manufacturers so you'll have to come up with a better example of where there would be a problem. I agree that the Professional audio article needs a lot of work. Please don't use the condition of that as a basis for making a decision on this category. ~Kvng (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2018 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:51, 5 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep per Kvng. Sionk - this isn't about "{professional makers} of audio equipment", it's about "makers of {professional audio equipment}". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:20, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Suggestion: rename to Category:Manufacturers of professional audio equipment. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Support (if kept) Marcocapelle's rename, which deals with Andy Dingley's issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:15, 9 February 2018 (UTC)
 * The immediate question here is whether the category should be deleted. Assuming the naming can be resolved to your satisfaction, do you have a keep/delete opinion here? ~Kvng (talk) 15:39, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Same question for you. ~Kvng (talk) 15:42, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I have amended my previous response slightly. I do not know enough of the topic to vote, but there are a lot of manufacturers in the target.  Someone above said he had split out the professional equipment makers, becasue few make both professional and consumer equipment; if so, we probably need to move the others into Category:Manufacturers of consumer audio equipment, so that the present target becomes a container.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not so confident about identifying Category:Manufacturers of consumer audio equipment from what remains in Category:Audio equipment manufacturers. For instance, many of these companies manufacture products for audiophiles and aren't necessarily comfortable with these being identified as consumer products. ~Kvng (talk) 21:10, 11 February 2018 (UTC)
 * Most articles in this category are clearly describing the subjects as manufacturers of professional audio equipment, so unless there are debates about the article texts (which I haven't checked) there seems to be little risk of subjectivity. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:56, 11 February 2018 (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.