Cannabis Ruderalis

thcscience_admin
< June 7 June 9 >

June 8[edit]

Category:Artistic Presentation[edit]

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: speedy delete WP:G7. – Fayenatic London 21:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has been created with no parents (so it's unclear how it is intended to fit into the Wikipedia categorization scheme) and (currently) contains just one article. If kept it needs (as a minimum) to be renamed to correct capitalization and to be parented. For info: The edit summary on it's creation (Good faith creation of cat for User:Toddy Shelfugus - blank page) is intriguing. DexDor (talk) 22:31, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: I created this category in an attempt to help an editor who was having some issues and was starting to become a little disruptive and repeatedly trying to create a category page in mainspace (if I remember correctly) - so I left them a message after creating this category to try to get them to at least focus their efforts in the right namespace. I believe, seeing as that didn't work, the category should be deleted -- samtar talk or stalk 06:13, 9 June 2016 (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:Presidents of organizations[edit]

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 and rename to Category:Leaders of organizations. Most editors agreed with merging, and unanswered concerns about whether it's possible to differentiate between leaders and decision-makers were raised. Renaming the resulting category received almost universal support. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:13, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Presidents of organizations is currently subcat to Category:Members of organizations and Category:Presidents. There is no article nor redirect for president of organization. The article on President is about "the leader of a country or a division or part of a country", and outside of a lead disammbig-like mention that "The title "president" is sometimes used by extension for leaders of other groups, including corporate entities." it does not discuss such usage. Category:Presidents is subcat to several political subcategories, as well as Category:Management occupations. Now, Category:Chairmen is subcat only to Category:People by occupation and Category:Members of organizations (I have just added it to Category:Management occupations). The article on Chairmen notes that "The chairman is the highest officer of an organized group", has later on a reference sentence "Other terms sometimes used for the office and its holder include chair, chairperson, chairwoman, presiding officer, president, moderator, facilitator, and convenor" and is categorized under a number of categories that probably should be copied to Category:Chairmen. Leaving aside the mess in related subcategories, I think it is clear that the "president of organization" = "chairman" as far as the logic and usage is concerned, and we should only have one related category. If anyone disagrees, please be kind enough to provide a workable definition for "president of organization" that is distinguishable from that for "chairman". PS. There is the issue of a gender-neutrality in related terms to consider, but I'd suggest it is discussed separately, through a RM/RfC at Talk:Chairman, while we here just take care of the technical merger of two categories about the same concept. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:05, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You also need to consider Chief executive officer. Category:Presidents of organizations should be removed from Category:Presidents as that should be kept for its political use. The President of an organisation is often a figurehead and probably needs to be kept separate from the Chairman; who is usually the chairman of the Directors/trustees etc, and not the same as the CEO. Not simple! Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Category:Chairmen is definitely the dominant category tree but I would prefer a gender neutral term that didn't have a shared name issue like Category:Leaders of organizations/organisations. This would be a much broader nomination though. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with RevelationDirect and like the proposal Category:Leaders of organi(z/s)ations. In the end, you will find organizations with figurehead presidents as well as those where the president really is the organization's leader, and you'll find lots of organizations from non-English language contexts, where the native language's title is interchangably translated as "president", "chairman" or "leader". Organizations are rather free to define title and impact of their leadership, so I seriously doubt that it is possible to categorize by one or the other, except for some specific cases, where titles and role of the leadership are legally defined within a jurisdiction, or follow tradition and common-sense. In the more general case, all we can do is decide on a per-article basis whether someone has a leadership role in an organization. --PanchoS (talk) 15:37, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with PanchoS. these titles are used differently in different contexts. They vary with history geography and language.Rathfelder (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Some organisations have Presidents; others have chairmen; some have both, with the president normally being a figurehead. CEO is certainly neither of these. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:03, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative Category:Leaders of organizations, but as a rename-only proposal, not as a merge&rename. So I would rather keep Category:Chairmen to become a child category of Category:Leaders of organizations. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatever its called it needs to be a Container category. Putting the president/Chairman of Goldman Sacks in a category with the president of Penzance pigeon fanciers club is not very helpful. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rathfelder (talk • contribs)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It still needs to be decided whether this is being merged to Category:Chairmen with the resulting category being named Category:Leaders of organizations or whether it will be renamed to Category:Leaders of organizations with Category:Chairmen as a subcategory. In the meantime, I've removed this from the Category:Presidents tree, since there is clear consensus that it shouldn't be there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ RobTalk 19:34, 8 June 2016 (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:2017 films[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:32, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging:
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: 2017 is next year, and there is no way we can know whether a film will indeed be released in 2017, earlier or later, or not at all. Even within 2016, we should only allow past dates for categorization, and revisit film articles after they have been released (or for television films: aired) in fact. PanchoS (talk) 17:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose All the articles cite the scheduled release date, so there's no problem if they are going to be released tomorrow, next week, next month, or indeed, next year. So we do know if a film is intended to be released in 2017. Note that the 2017 horror and s/fi cats are up for deletion as a case of WP:OVERCAT. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Films should not get articles until principle photography begins per WP:NF, so all those articles compliant with the notability guideline will be made barring extraordinary circumstances (such as bankruptcy/somebody's death). Furthermore, films should not be added to the year category unless the date is sourced. Granted, films can be rescheduled but in the few cases where this happens the category can be updated. This is far easier to maintain than having to remove the "Upcoming films" category and add the "2017 films" or the "2018 films" categories to every single film once they are released. Betty Logan (talk) 19:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Betty and Lugnuts have said it well. The films in this category are presumably notable and have a sourced release date. There's no reason to get rid of Category:2017 films. The other cats are overcategorization and have a separate, pending merge that makes more sense. Stuff like Category:Upcoming horror films is just a bad idea. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:50, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the arguments by Betty Logan. The nominator's idea would ignore sourced information and make navigation more difficult. Dimadick (talk) 13:34, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname/merge to "Future films" -- WP:CRYSTALball suggests that we should not have articles on future films at all. However, where we do have an article on a film in its planning or production stages, we need to have a category for it. It will be much better for it to be a generic one, which can easily be changed from Future to its actual year when released. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
CRYSTAL does not suggest that at all. It states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place", which is why WP:NF requires that principal photography must have commenced. Furthermore, it also states that a "schedule of future events may be appropriate if it can be verified", so if a distributor has set a verifiable release date then the guideline does not prohibit inclusion of the scheduled release date, nor the appropriate categorization. Betty Logan (talk) 18:45, 12 June 2016 (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:Online retail companies by country[edit]

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. No consensus on purging, since it wasn't discussed much. It's probably appropriate, but any interested editor can undertake that. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 19:18, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More by-country categories
Nominator's rationale: There's no ambiguity. Per consistency with parent Category:Online retailers, grand parent Category:Retailers, sister cats like Category:Clothing retailers by country, Category:Food retailers by country, and per WP:COMMONNAME. PanchoS (talk) 14:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Comment: there are quite a few retail companies in these categories that also offer online services, but that are not an e-commerce company, I guess these should be purged. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:03, 11 June 2016 (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:Merchant navy[edit]

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: split Category:Merchant navy to Category:Merchant navy and Category:Merchant navies by country.
No admin tools required to implement this, so I am pinging the participants in the hope that one or more of them can implement the split: @Necrothesp, Mangoe, Marcocapelle, Fayenatic london, and BU Rob13: please, you can do this. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:11, 21 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each country has its own merchant navy. There isn't a single organisation for the whole world. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:33, 8 June 2016 (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.

Governors[edit]

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. Doczilla @SUPERHEROLOGIST 19:52, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clarify that the first category is for list-type articles rather than biographies of individuals. The parent Category:Governors will then evidently be no longer useful. – Fayenatic London 11:34, 8 June 2016 (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:Snack companies by country[edit]

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 03:33, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Defining feature of all of these is that they are manufacturers of snack food. Following the preexisting UK category, the rename also brings the remaining per-country categories into line with Category:Food manufacturers by country and Category:Snack foods by country. PanchoS (talk) 10:53, 8 June 2016 (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.

Film categories[edit]

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 all except horror, which has no consensus. On the merging side, arguments included that these would produce fairly small categories, make it harder to search for films from the same general time period, and are redundant to the "by year" and "by genre and decade" categories that already exist. On the keep side, arguments mostly centered around the fact that the resulting year categories would mostly meet typical WP:SMALLCAT standards and the potential decades categories would be large.
While this guideline wasn't specifically named by merge supporters (most of which were not CfD regulars), WP:NARROWCAT is obviously relevant to the merge arguments. The SMALLCAT arguments aren't convincing because that guideline isn't the only concern. NARROWCAT sets a higher standard for categories that are intersections, and these categories are clearly intersections of various "film by year" and "film genre by decade" categories. No evidence has been given that the resulting decades categories would fit the bill of "very large" that justifies such an intersection.
Further, we have to consider that the actual content creators are overwhelmingly on the side of upmerging. Categories exist for two sets of people – the readers, who want to find articles to read, and content creators, who want to find articles needing development. The content creators clearly see no need for breaking out by year, and no case has been made that readers would want to navigate within "by genre and year" any more than they would "by genre and decade". In fact, it seems probable that readers would care more about general time periods in film history than the arbitrary calendar cutoffs of January 1st through December 31st. On strength of arguments, merging wins out, especially given that decades was the long-time status quo prior to the undiscussed creation of the "genre by year" categories. Because the status quo for horror was different and editors have advanced reasonable arguments that the decades categories would be so large as to meet NARROWCAT for that genre, I encourage a new discussion to discuss that specific genre. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 22:09, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose merging film genre by year categories to decades:
Crime film categories
Drama film categories
Horror film categories
Comedy film categories
Romance film categories
Science fiction film categories

Following on from a lengthy discussion with the Film Project, consensus was reached not to create a scheme of categories by year AND genre. Therefore, the above list should be merged into the parent decade category. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge all. Trying to populate some of these categories would likely be difficult and result in small, overly-specific categories. There's already consensus to go by decade. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 09:26, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • With a few exceptions, these generally are not too small by our categorization policy, please see WP:SMALLCAT. Jim Michael, the editor who refined the categories clearly chose the wrong approach – he should have started with splitting the 2010s by genre and subgenre, before proceeding to the 2000s. Then it would have become clear that the categories are perfectly fine, and he possibly would have been rudely interrupted at all. We can fix this though, if we take our time to listen to Jim's rationale, and collect and weigh all arguments. --PanchoS (talk) 16:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all.♦ Dr. Blofeld 10:05, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. All films carry the appropriate year category anyway (such as as Category:1969 films) so having a second year category is arguably redundnant. The only reason for having these categories would be to diffuse the decade categories (such as Category:1960s horror films) and diffusion is only necessary when the parent catgeories are over-populated. As you can see from the above mentioned discussion at the Film project there is a strong consensus that there is not an over-population problem with the decade categories. In fact at least one editor voiced concerns that diffusion to this level was counter-productive (diffusing to year categories adds a multiplicative effect of 10x which takes us from hundreds of genre categories to thousands). Betty Logan (talk) 10:11, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per above mentioned talk page discussion and other comments here. --GoneIn60 (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all per above. Fortdj33 (talk) 11:15, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging already large per-year categories to huge per-decade categories. For an extreme case, see Category:2000s horror films or Category:2010s horror films, which, when merged would hold more than 1.000 articles. If huge categories such as Category:2010s romantic comedy films or Category:2010s crime thriller films are properly split into per-year categories, their parent genre categories will be evenly filled as well. While categories are usually accepted with ~5 entries, given that there is room for enlargement, a relatively strict minimum standard for splitting would be 200 films on average, so a decade gets split into years.
    I also disapprove with the other editors' rude tone dealing with Jim Michael's valuable work refining the categories. This wasn't a "discussion" – it was rather an indictment, and here project members with a sense of entitlement seem to suggest that "there is already a consensus." No, the consensus is reached here, and the general rules apply, unless someone can come up with good arguments why within the area of film, huge categories would be a good thing, contrary to the rest of Wikipedia. --PanchoS (talk) 16:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly more of a discussion than what occurred before editors took it on themselves to undertake a major restructuring of the categorization of the film articles. There is no limit on how many articles a category can hold; the question of diffusion is what best serves the organization of the articles. If readers/editors need to search the categories by year that option remains available; if they wish to search by genre then this level of diffusion is unhelpful. I do not see how making readers search through thousands of genre categories rather than hundreds is of any discernible benefit. Unless you can explain how this is a clear benefit to readers and editors the previous organizational structure should be restored. Betty Logan (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Readers don't and won't need to search through thousands of genre cats. It's already been stated that the cats by year will remain. Splitting them by genre makes it better for readers who want to search by year and genre and makes no difference to those who don't. Jim Michael (talk) 16:46, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) What is obvious is that people don't want to search a per-decade category with 1000+ entries on more than five pages to have last year's thrillers being mixed with hundred others from 2010. We're generally avoiding small categories with less than 10 entries as well as overly large categories. Categories with more articles than fit on a single page are unquestionably unacceptable and need to be broken up, especially if there is a clear-cut defining criterion, such as a film's release year. The release year, not the decade, is given on every film listing or TV program guide, and is relevant for a film to qualify for an award. --PanchoS (talk) 16:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is not obvious at all. If readers want to search films by year then there are categories for that. If they are searching by just one genre then this level of diffusion now means they have to click through over a hundred categories rather than just a dozen or so. You say they don't want to search through 1000 films, but if you are perfoming a genre based search rather than date based search then you are still searching through 1000 films regardless of the number of categories they are split over. This is a classic example of a solution looking for a problem. Betty Logan (talk) 17:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Many film awards, such as Saturn and Golden Globe, are restricted to genre and year. Therefore it is a relevant intersection and not overcategorisation. Jim Michael (talk) 10:35, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That is why we have lists covering award ceremonies! Betty Logan (talk) 14:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Readers may want to see which other films of the same genre were released during the same year, including those which were not nominated for awards. The genre-year film cats serve that purpose, whearas the lists you mention - and the other cats - don't. Jim Michael (talk) 20:30, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per the above and the previous discussion (which was in no way, shape or form an indictment) MarnetteD|Talk 16:10, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging, per PanchoS. All the major film cats should be split by year. It helps people find films within a specific genre and year. I didn't initiate splitting cats by year and genre. Horror films had long been categorised by year, and drama films for recent years were already catted by year before I extended into other genres. When I begun doing so, there had not been a consensus not to. If all valid cats are used for each film, the new cats will have plenty of entries; they won't be underpopulated. Jim Michael (talk) 16:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"It helps people find films within a specific genre and year"
This is definitely a subjective observation. While some may be interested in browsing by year, others will be interested in browsing by decade. How does one determine which is more helpful? Is there a concrete example that clearly shows one method trumping the other, or one method creating a disadvantage? It would seem at the moment that having both options would be the best compromise until evidence proves otherwise. --GoneIn60 (talk) 17:00, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging, the decade categories are overpopulated and non-defining. Weikrx (talk) 18:55, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment as someone who still edits a fair bit in the film area, I honestly have no take on this. But I want to thank the nominator for tackling this head on, so we'll all have some clarity (hopefully), either way. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Most/Neutral on Horror This tree is creating tons of underpopulated categories that do no aid navigation. If there is concern about diffusion about Horror films would hinder the navigation, let's drop that one but the rest of the nomination is still valid. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:19, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per others above. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 02:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose on horror. The others are kind of general, but I only oppose the merging of the horror films because there are typically hundreds of films in each year, meaning that it's not a case of 20-30 films in a small and infrequently used category. In some cases this could potentially be more confusing if you have similarly titled films released in the same decade. I won't lose a ton of sleep if it's merged, but this is the only category I'd say should likely be left as it is. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 07:52, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The horror year cats are the most populated only because they've existed for longest. The year cats for drama and comedy could easily be populated to a similar size. Jim Michael (talk) 10:32, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Some genres have, or are eligible to have, more entries than the sci-fi cats.
Readers are not likely to want to see only those under a particular letter. Looking up a particular genre and year is much more likely. Jim Michael (talk) 16:59, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep year categories and diffuse decade categories, it's not beneficial for users of Wikipedia to find exceptionally large categories while that is not necessary. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This is what I've said - why should the reader not be able to search by year and genre? Jim Michael (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2016 (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:Thai desserts and Category:Thai snack foods[edit]

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. Given that this doesn't mesh with existing category trees such as Category:Desserts by country, there needs to be at least somewhat of a consensus to complete such a merge. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:00, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Desserts and snacks in Thai cuisine are poorly distinguished; they are known by the same term in Thai: ขนม. It'd be easier to categorise them together. Paul_012 (talk) 03:49, 17 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:40, 8 June 2016 (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.

Roman Empire establishments (1st century and earlier)[edit]

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 establishments/disestablishments in countries/continents per year, keep those per decade. The WP:SMALLCAT / ease of navigation rationale applies to the per year articles, but not to the per decades articles (that are sufficiently populated, or have enough potential for growth). Although these categories are part of an established category scheme, in this case it has proven to be detrimental to navigability and the user experience. There is consensus, found at Wikipedia:Categorization, that categories serve foremost to improve the user experience by providing navigability, before being a classification tool. The latter should not come at the expense of the former. Yearly events categories have been added to affected articles since establishments are a widely accepted subcategory of it. Note that several countries per year categories have been deleted as a result of being empty, but may be recreated if populated. Cenarium (talk) 12:44, 31 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
More merges
More deletions
Nominator's rationale: Merge to centuries as per WP:SMALLCAT with precedent and delete the empty categories that result. Note that the Africa/Asia category deletions are the result of some pretty blatant misclassification. This may leave behind issues in the "X in the Roman Empire" category tree and "Y establishments in Europe" category tree, but including those issues would make this balloon up. Those can be handled in follow-up nominations, if necessary. Please do not expand the scope of this nomination beyond establishments/disestablishments in the 1st century and earlier, to prevent it from becoming too large. ~ RobTalk 02:32, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom, let's please aim for more robust establishment categories instead of all those endless 1-article categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: I've nominated a few of these category trees within establishments over the past couple days, but this is getting to be too much to handle without clogging up CfD. I'm wondering if it would be appropriate to post a single discussion that aims at establishing some criteria by which we could delete categories within the establishments tree. It seems like a waste to keep nominating these and discussing over and over again when there's obviously consensus to merge beyond these year articles. Do you think that type of discussion would be appropriate? I was thinking something to the effect of:
      "If there's no more than 5 pages in any one year of a decade, all years can be merged up to the century of establishments in the country (Category:Xth-century establishments in COUNTRY), the specific year of the country (Category:Y in COUNTRY), and the specific year of establishments in the continent (Category:Y establishments in CONTINENT). If the requested merge target is not exactly these three categories, a new CfD is required. All resulting empty categories can be deleted."
    ~ RobTalk 00:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support all per nom. Also support the scope definition as proposed above. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:48, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- Keep up the good work of culling these thickets. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 12 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak support. I started most of these and in retrospect, they will never be populated. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:02, 28 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, this would create category clutter on articles, three in place of one. Moreover, one of those (for the year/decade) is intended to hold events, but the contents are mainly buildings and towns, which are not themselves events – it is the establishment that is the event. IMHO the categories work best as they are. – Fayenatic London 21:58, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't oppose cutting "X in the Roman Empire" categories out of the merge, which would result in only two categories per page and address your second concern as well. @Fayenatic london, Dimadick, Ricky81682, Peterkingiron, Marcocapelle, and Laurel Lodged: Would this be a compromise that satisfies everyone? ~ Rob13Talk 16:27, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • Agree with nominator's alternative. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:23, 17 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • I oppose the alternative, as the establishments were notable events which should still populate the events categories, by keeping the nominated Establishments categories. – Fayenatic London 16:45, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per the reasons listed by Fayenatic london. Dimadick (talk) 08:35, 15 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - the Roman period is well documented and we already have a well-developed chronological tree, which can potentially be fully populated. This proposal is merely a misunderstanding of Wikipedia's guidelines for WP:SMALLCAT and thus an overkill for the full Roman chronology tree, which would be anyway completely filled in the future. Recently, we have a tendency of some editors going in a very wrong direction of "old=delete" and this overkill is an example.GreyShark (dibra) 20:16, 4 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative merge, partially as a compromise and partially because some of these categories aren't as small as it seemed from reading the nomination. To give an example, Category:70s establishments in Roman Britain has 9 articles in it, which definitely meets every WP:SMALLCAT definition I've ever come across. This means that there isn't a problem with the decades, but the years are still a problem. Most year categories only contain one article. Therefore, I feel that the best solution would be to merge all single year categories up to the relevant decade categories instead of upmerging to centuries. Exception: any Africa/Asia categories created due to miscategorization should be deleted, not upmerged. -- Tavix (talk) 15:36, 15 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The amount of category clutter created would be minimal if we upmerged properly. The extreme example is Category:10 establishments which has 5 sub-categories, but only one article that would go up to it. I really think that the article should be put in Category:10s establishments and no sub-cats of any kind.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:14, 17 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose I fundamentally disagree with this proposal, and instead agree with Greyshark's reason to oppose it. All these per year and per decade categories are part of a well-established category tree. Of the two interpretations of WP:SMALLCAT I agree with the inclusionist one. Moreover, I disagree with the thesis of User:BU Rob13/SMALLCAT is not a suicide pact, and hold that this is true even where such categories would contain only one article. I would like to add that if this discussion would be closed as a merge and delete, then I would agree with those who said that the Foo years in Foo region categories are for events, and establishments are not events. Such is common practice in this question on Wikipedia, even if theoretically one could argue otherwise. That also puts to rest the concern that articles would be cluttered with categories, although I have to add that in view of the fact that we do not restrict the number of categories on articles on Wikipedia, this was not a matter of great concern to begin with. Debresser (talk) 00:32, 2 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Greyshark's optimism about getting these categories populated is based on nothing. Since we have many years that don't have articles at all (hence no categories) and many other years with only one article there is really no perspective at all of getting the categories decently filled, with say 5 to 10 articles per year. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which IMHO is not a problem at all. My understanding of WP:SMALLCAT is such that for categories in structures like these, even 1 article justifies the category, as I said clearly above. Debresser (talk) 15:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is a problem because it hinders easy navigation to related articles, which is after all the primary purpose of categories. Instead of getting a bunch of related articles in one mouse click, as normally is the case, it now requires many mouse clicks because you need to select an article within every year category separately. This is also the obvious reason why we have WP:SMALLCAT generally discouraging small categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:23, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Debresser: I still agree with you on SMALLCAT, but disagree about establishments not being events – unless perhaps I have misunderstood you. The thing established (e.g. state, city or institution) is not an event, but the establishing of it is an event, and the "Establishments" categories are for the latter. – Fayenatic London 16:28, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Are "establishments" in "event" categories? No. So they are not events, on Wikipedia. In either case, even if establishing were an event, but we have distinct categories for general events and establishing events, so to say. Debresser (talk) 17:34, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: There's many other discussions that have already closed with clear consensus to prune these establishment tree messes, though, so the overall "establishments" category tree already includes exceptions where not many articles are included (especially for the earlier years). This isn't about inclusionism or deletionism, in my opinion. It's about finding what's best to navigate to the right articles (i.e. what helps the readers!). I think it's best when we consolidate categories, but I'd love to hear and debate the alternative view. How do you think these small 1- or 2-article categories help our readers? ~ Rob13Talk 07:29, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I for one find it much easier to look for year categories than for decade categories. Much more intuitive. How many articles there are in a given year does not really matter to me. Debresser (talk) 10:57, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Debresser: The whole point of categorization is to navigate between articles, though, no? Our average reader certainly doesn't look for a category for its own sake. This is supported by WP:CLT, a guideline, which specifically identifies the purpose of categories to be grouping articles together. ~ Rob13Talk 12:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, so? In general, I feel you don't really have a point besides "I disagree with you". You make an unsubstantiated claim as though there is a general consensus against small categories in category trees, which stands at odds with one of the two interpretations of WP:SMALLCAT. You ignore the fact that WP:SMALLCAT stands unchanged and that several editors here have expressed their agreement with that specific interpretation, which you try to imply leads to a "mess". What you consider to be a mess, I consider to be order. Please be civil. Debresser (talk) 14:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates restricts itself to certain aspects of categories, in relation (comparison and differences) with lists and navigation templates. It is not the right place to look for a general understand of the purpose of categories on Wikipedia. Debresser (talk) 14:31, 8 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It strikes me as a bit ridiculous that we need to repair four or five templates to support categorization of only one establishment (in AD 6) and one disestablishment (in AD 9). I support the proposal to limit categorizations to the decade level rather than the year level in this period of history. That would minimize the need for template maintenance. I leave it as an exercise for those supporting this minute level of categorization to fix these templates to work properly in the first decade (nine years) AD. – wbm1058 (talk) 14:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I have attempted to mend Category:6 establishments in the Roman Empire, Template:Establishments in decade, Template:Discat and Template:Estcatbyyear. I've also produced Template:EstcatCountry/sandbox, which I think can replace Template:EstcatCountry if someone is feeling bold. I'm not an experienced template editor and would welcome a review. Certes (talk) 15:52, 19 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why has this never been closed? Pppery 20:09, 30 December 2016 (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 series produced in Oregon[edit]

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. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 04:08, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant categories. JDDJS (talk) 01:53, 8 June 2016 (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 series shot in Los Angeles, California[edit]

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 04:09, 17 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of the other articles are named as "shows filmed" so for consistency, this should be named that as well. JDDJS (talk) 01:51, 8 June 2016 (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:Siblings of Prime Ministers of Malaysia[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:25, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category.
The only person in this category is Badlishah of Kedah who was half brother to PM Tunku Abdul Rahman but he wasn't really defined by that relationship as the article makes clear. Both of these siblings are already in Category:Royal House of Kedah which I think better covers their relationship which wouldn't be much different if he was an uncle or a first cousin. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Alexander Iskandar as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Malaysia. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:28, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the spirit of WP:NOTINHERITED, as it does not seem to be a criteria that members should be grouped under. Siblings of different prime ministers would furthermore share no relevance to each other, and hold no similar positions/influence, unlike relationships with an established reputation such as first lady. CMD (talk) 00:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Anyone can explain and give justification why the Category:Siblings of Presidents of the United States (head of state of USA) and Category:Siblings of Taoisigh‎ (head of government of Republic of Ireland) are allowed? Is it possible for other 204 United Nations-listed sovereign states (including Malaysia) to have the Category:Siblings of Z. Z stand for any head of state or head of government of these sovereign states. Alexander Iskandar (talk) 02:27, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, not for the US one. Being a member of the Category:Bush family is certainly defining for Jeb Bush but there is no defined role for siblings of presidents (versus cousins, uncles, nephews) like there is here for spouses. If a country/culture has a specific role for siblings of heads of state, I'm certainly open to exceptions though. RevelationDirect (talk) 05:24, 8 June 2016 (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:Rotary Clubs in the United States[edit]

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. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:28, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the spirit of WP:C1, an empty category.
I have no conceptual problem with a national subcategory for Rotary International but Wikipedia doesn't have any articles on specific rotary clubs in the United States. None. Zip. Zero. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified Whoisjohngalt as the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Organizations. – RevelationDirect (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I thought a few pages would have been created by now, no need to have an almost empty category. Whoisjohngalt (talk) 01:01, 8 June 2016 (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.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia%3ACategories_for_discussion%2FLog%2F2016_June_8

Leave a Reply