Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 October 2



Category:Companies by city in the Netherlands

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


 * The result of the discussion was: keep. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:27, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting companies by city in the netherlands


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary intermediate layer. The three city subcategories are each in the category of the relevant province. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep - essential component of Category:Companies by country and city. Oculi (talk) 22:44, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * keep Part of an established category scheme. Hmains (talk) 03:15, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Are any of these intermediate categories Category:Organisations by country and city useful? I dont mean "organizations based in a city", I mean distinguishing between organisations categorised as being in a city and those not in a city. Rathfelder (talk) 08:41, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * There is a host of such categories: Category:Topics by country and city. I don't see them as being intermediate; it's the province which is intermediate. Oculi (talk) 21:24, 3 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Keep Strictly the argument is a valid but if looking for a company with a Rotterdam HQ, it is not helpful to have to know which province Rotterdam is in. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I'm not suggesting abolishing the categories of companies in cities. They are useful.  Its the subcategory which separates companies which are in cities from those which aren't which doesn't seem helpful.  Category:Companies based in Rotterdam sits happily in Category:Companies based in South Holland, both of which are useful.  But why would anyone fine Category:Companies by city in the Netherlands useful? Rathfelder (talk) 07:27, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why would anyone pick on one country within Category:Companies by country and city for deletion, rather than a batch nomination of them all? And why deletion – if you're "not suggesting abolishing categories of companies in cities", shouldn't those national categories be merged to Category:Companies by city rather than removed from that hierarchy, which is what your nomination would do? – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I didnt realise there was a full hierarchy. If there is agreement that these intermediate categories are not useful I'm happy to nominate all 51 for deletion.   I dont see any need to merge these categories to Category:Companies by city.  They are already in it.  Whether it is a useful category in its own right is a different question.  Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * For example Category:Companies based in Amsterdam is in Category:Companies by city in the Netherlands but not directly in Category:Companies by city so if there is consensus not to keep the category, a merge would certainly be necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:31, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * you didn't realise because you didn't look. Before you nominate a category in future, PLEASE look at its parents, and explore around them to see what it is part of. If you still think it should be deleted, at least you will be able to make a well-informed nomination. In some cases it will help you to see the need to nominate for merging rather than deletion. – Fayenatic  L ondon 07:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Merging is not an issue in this case. all the entries are already in the relevant categories.  That is why it's superfluous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * (i) Wrong – deletion would remove the contents from Category:Companies by city, despite your assertion to the contrary, as Marcocapelle has demonstrated above. (ii) IIRC you have made many other nominations for deletion where you had only bothered to look at one parent category, but your nominations would have disrupted other parent hierarchies where merger rather than deletion would be required. If you utterly insist on refusing to learn this, it may be necessary to consider sanctions against you, such as a ban from working on categories. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I thought this was a place for discussing categories. Why I am threatened with sanctions because I want to discuss them?  If you don't like my suggestions they will be rejected.  But I dont see why I need to spend hours constructing an immense list of categories that would be affected before I can raise an issue for discussion.  Your position effectively means that all existing category heirarchies, no matter how misguided, cannot be discussed.Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * It is not a forum of discussion in the sense that you seem to think. The WP:CFD main page says in the Scope section: CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Rename – This category should be renamed Category:Companies in the Netherlands by city . Senator2029 “Talk” 10:50, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment to Perhaps you mean "Companies of the Netherlands by city"? Within Category:Companies by country and city, Argentina and Mexico have that form, whereas all the others match the nominated category. However, the suggestion has the merit of matching other hierarchies such as Category:Companies of the Netherlands by industry & Category:Companies of the Netherlands by year of establishment. – Fayenatic  L ondon 15:59, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * All the similar categories are "Companies by city in Foo". Its not helped by the fact that American use of the term City seems to include what in England would be called villages. Rathfelder (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Would this issue benefit from a wider ranging discussion? I accept that there is nothing terribly special about the Netherlands category? Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Do not expect to get more support with a wider nomination, because the opposing arguments are not country-specific. Especially User:Peterkingiron has a good point in keeping this category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Neither are the opposing arguments topic-specific. Category:Categories by city in the Netherlands includes quite a few topics, some present in more cities than others. I expect we could find companies based in Nijmegen say if we tried. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 6 October 2018 (UTC)


 * That isnt the point. I'm perfectly happy with categories of organisations in particular cities. But I dont see why anyone wants to distinguish between companies classified as being in Dutch cities as opposed those classified as not being in cities. Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * They are categorized by city rather than in cities and only the biggest cities with a sufficient number of articles about companies based there will pop up. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * So why would anybody be interested in articles categorised in such an arbitrary fashion?Rathfelder (talk) 19:22, 9 October 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:People from Sainte-Edwidge-de-Clifton, Quebec

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:24, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:People from Sainte-Edwidge-de-Clifton, Quebec to Category:People from Estrie
 * Propose merging Category:People from Coaticook Regional County Municipality to Category:People from Estrie
 * Nominator's rationale: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for one person from a small town, and a parent category for its MRC (which is not the level at which we standardize categorization of people from Quebec) with no other content. As always, every town does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one person from that town with an article -- we wait until there's a reasonable number of articles already available to be filed in it, and otherwise we just categorize them at the higher county or region level in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:14, 3 October 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:Soundtracks by century

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:23, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting soundtracks by century


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary as soundtracks have only been around for two centuries. Also, everything in here is a by decade category anyway. ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.  Lugnuts  Fire Walk with Me 08:12, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Delete -- I agree. We get far too many non-sensical century categories.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep Part of established category tree for Category:Product introductions by century. And decades articles should always be grouped by centuries, anyway. Dimadick (talk) 16:52, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Why should decades always be grouped by century? Should centuries always be grouped by millennium? ―Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:28, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment Categories are navigation tools, and several of them serve as bridges allowing readers to locate relevant articles through the century tree. Category:20th century is parent ti multiple subcategories on the people, events, and works of the century. In most cases, there are not enough articles to populate millennium category trees. Dimadick (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * '''Keep
 * I added Category: 20th-century soundtracks and Category: 21st-century soundtracks Kristijh (talk) 20:40, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Merge to Category:Soundtracks. Editors should be able to navigate to subcategories like Category: 20th-century soundtracks via the tree of Category:Soundtracks and via the tree of Category:Products introduced in the 20th century and that is achieved with this merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Keep - perfectly standard subcat scheme. Navigation is not improved by removing signposts. Oculi (talk) 09:54, 5 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The merge allows to go from Category:Soundtracks to Category: 20th-century soundtracks and Category: 21st-century soundtracks immediately, so navigation is improved. It saves an extra category layer, after all. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:43, 5 October 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.

Foo in media

 * 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. Timrollpickering 18:20, 9 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Giants in film to Category:Films about giants
 * Propose renaming Category:Giants in fiction to Category:Fiction about giants
 * Propose renaming Category:Monsters in fiction to Category:Fiction about monsters
 * Propose renaming Category:Creatures in fiction to Category:Fiction about creatures
 * Propose renaming Category:Animal communication in fiction to Category:Fiction about animal communication
 * Propose renaming Category:Cruelty to animals in fiction to Category:Fiction about animal cruelty
 * Propose renaming Category:Cryptids in fiction to Category:Fiction about cryptids
 * Propose renaming Category:Urban legends in fiction to Category:Fiction about urban legends
 * Propose renaming Category:Paranormal in fiction to Category:Fiction about the paranormal
 * Propose renaming Category:Spirit possession in fiction to Category:Fiction about spirit possession
 * Propose renaming Category:Exorcism in fiction to Category:Fiction about exorcism
 * Propose renaming Category:Religion in fiction to Category:Fiction about religion
 * Propose renaming Category:Afterlife in fiction to Category:Fiction about the afterlife
 * Propose renaming Category:Society in fiction to Category:Fiction about society
 * Propose renaming Category:Social media in fiction to Category:Fiction about social media
 * Propose renaming Category:Whales in fiction to Category:Fiction about whales
 * Propose renaming Category:Werewolves in fiction to Category:Fiction about werewolves
 * Propose renaming Category:Werewolves in comics to Category:Comics about werewolves
 * Propose renaming Category:Parasites in fiction to Category:Fiction about parasites
 * Propose renaming Category:Mermaids in fiction to Category:Fiction about mermaids
 * Propose renaming Category:Mermaids in film to Category:Films about mermaids
 * Propose renaming Category:Insects in fiction to Category:Fiction about insects
 * Propose renaming Category:Beekeeping in fiction to Category:Fiction about beekeeping
 * Propose renaming Category:Dolphins in fiction to Category:Fiction about dolphins
 * Propose renaming Category:Witchcraft in fiction to Category:Fiction about witchcraft
 * Propose renaming Category:Regicide in fiction to Category:Fiction about regicide
 * Propose renaming Category:Assassinations in fiction to Category:Fiction about assassinations
 * Propose renaming Category:Murder in fiction to Category:Fiction about murder
 * Propose renaming Category:Witchcraft in film to Category:Films about witchcraft
 * Nominator's rationale: As per Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 18, better to make it clear that categories of this nature are to be applied when a subject is the primary focus of a work of fiction, not an incidental element. DonIago (talk) 14:29, 2 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Really, there's many, many more of these kinds of categories that could be added here. If other editors wish to add similar categories, I have no objection. DonIago (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Delete trivia; the suggested targets suffer the same problems of most "about" categories; how much about the subject must the film (or whatever) be? and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom Clearer scope. And once again I find Carlossuarez46's argument nonsensical. Don't you ever get tired of this drivel about "trivia"?Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)
 * I will say some of the categories may qualify for deletion under WP:SMALLCAT...but bluntly, this request was time-consuming enough to put together without getting into that. If editors want to break out the categories for deletion, they can be my guest. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 3 October 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:Bridge-tunnels

 * 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) 02:20, 10 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Bridge-tunnels to Category:Bridge–tunnels
 * Propose renaming Category:Bridge-tunnels in Asia to Category:Bridge–tunnels in Asia
 * Propose renaming Category:Bridge-tunnels in Europe to Category:Bridge–tunnels in Europe
 * Propose renaming Category:Bridge-tunnels in North America to Category:Bridge–tunnels in North America
 * Nominator's rationale: The en dash signifying the symmetric relationship between bridge and tunnel is used in article space; is there a reason not to do similarly in category space? Same for sub-categories... Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)


 * it would save work later if you would tag the sub-categories and list them here. Thanks in advance – Fayenatic  L ondon 16:01, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * OK, listed the 3 here; will tag them next... Dicklyon (talk) 18:36, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Well, I made a pretty good hash of that; got it right finally, I think, but don't know if I created side-effects in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Support per its article Bridge–tunnel which appears to have been stable since 2017. Oculi (talk) 09:50, 2 October 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.