Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 February 20

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< February 19 February 21 >

February 20

Category:Die Wende/Category:German reunification

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. – Fayenatic London 21:16, 22 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rational: Both are about pretty much the same thing and they both contain all the same articles. Charles Essie (talk) 20:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I guess there is a distinction between the two, but they're both part of the same revolution, the thing is they're so inter-connected that I don't think they warrent separate categories. Charles Essie (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2014 (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:Largest cities by population (Global)

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:22, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unclear inclusion criteria; currently lists 18 cities, so why not the 19th? Then why not the 20th, etc.
McGeddon (talk) 17:08, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete a-no inclusion criteria. b-this is the type of thing better covered by a list, especially since it changes over time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hey there,
    McGeddon. I am currently creating the Global Metropolises category & the Largest Cities by Population (Globally) category. I'm not desperately attached to keeping both categories, but I do think there is a subtle distinction. At this point, my plan is to add the 100 largest cities to each category but I think that as other's contribute to the categories they may grow to contain different datasets/cities and certainly people will find each caytegory for different reasons, from different searches on the search engine. I was inspired to create these categories because I was frustrated by how regionally atomized information was on the cities category page, and it seems to labor intensive to me to constantly edit and update pages like the "World's largest cities, since the same cities are usually going to appear on the list, but they are constantly changing ranks with each other. Does that make sense? Why do you want to delete the Global Metropolises category?
    Support/Include/Do Not Delete Sorry it's a bit unclear if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "oppose" or if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "support." I've discussed my arguments for inclusion in detail on the talk pages (see below). Basically I am frustrated by the regional atomization of city information as it is currently categorized on Wikipedia. I do not propose dismantling the current regional organization, I just think there should also be categories that are global in scope. I think a better option than deleting the categories at this point would be to create criteria for inclusion. Perhaps only cities with more than 1 million people should be included? What do you think should be the criteria?ThomasMikael (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Delete - lack of inclusion criteria and redundant category. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     18:54, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Include/Do Not Delete(per
    WP:NOTVOTE) I've added inclusion critera to both pages. "Criteria for inclusion: cities must have a population above 1 million to be included in this category."ThomasMikael (talk) 19:49, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Full discussion from both points of view is quoted below:

Content copied from User talk:ThomasMikael by that user
The concept of "
WP:CAT, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." - and global city
is, I'd said, already that exact list article.)
Category:Largest cities by population (Global) may make sense renamed to something like "100 largest cities" so that the reader knows what to expect, but this feels a little arbitrary (why not 50 or 200?).
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20 is where these two are being discussed, though, so that's the best place to leave a comment about it. --
McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
"The concept of "global metropolises" seems a subjective one, with several competing lists." Can you refer me to the competing lists? I think you may have a fair point here, but when I was looking for a big exhaustive list of global metropolises, I couldn't find one.
I think your suggestion about changing the name to "100 largest cities" would make sense, except for the fact that this would then become a list that would have to be updated constantly--at the very least once a year--whereas if we leave it open and it grows to include 200 cities or 300 cities, that would only increase it's utility for researchers. I only have time to add 100 cities today, but I might return to add more, or someone else might continue to build the list, and I think that would be great personally. Does that make sense to you? I'm open to discussion about this obviously, I'm just stating my point of view here.ThomasMikael (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the
McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've just finished adding all of the top 100 cities to both categories--the ones that have currently existing Wikipedia pages. Creating pages for the cities that don't have pages but have million of citizens is out of scope for me today : ) At any rate, as per your suggestion, I will copy & paste this convo to the discussion page you referred me to, and we'll let other arbitrators chime in.
Making the cutoff is arbitrary which we discourage. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:09, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails
    WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, because the definition of a city's population depends on a choice of census boundaries or local govt boundaries, either of which may or may not encompass the city's full extent.
    These categories are unstable, because censuses are held at different intervals in difft countries, and as cities grow or expand their rankings change. This sort of data is much better handled in a list, which can explain all the different factors in each case. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:17, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • delete we don't do "biggest", "largest", etc categories, nor do we have arbitrary cut-offs. If there was some grouping of "The United Nations Top 10 cities in the world" that was truly defining for these cities, you might have something, but I don't think such a thing exists. Category:Lists of cities by population is what you want, there are plenty of lists there, and more could be added if needed.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 07:12, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Could be a list (then the arbitrary cutoff would be just that — arbitrary.) Should not be a category. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 05:41, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. What's especially odd about this category is that while its name suggests that it should only contain the one city which is the largest by population in any given country, in actual effect it's been added to almost any city with a population over one million even if that puts several cities per country into it. And I've even caught one case where instead of a city, the category had actually been added to an entire state of the United States. So in addition to the concerns about arbitrariness above, the category's name doesn't even correctly match its contents. We have plenty of lists that already cover this criterion quite well; we don't need a category for it. Bearcat (talk) 19:24, 22 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would support a change to "Cities of over X million" , but "largest" is just vague and the cut off of 1 million as being "largest" is arbitrary. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 15:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The best way to deal with largest items is in a list, which can provide details of population and thus rank them in order. "Cities with a population over 1 million" would be a valid category, as would "Cities of over 10 million people" as its subcategory. However a list does the job much better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:39, 26 February 2014 (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:Global metropolises

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:21, 27 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
McGeddon (talk) 17:05, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete No standard, agreed upon method of defining.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Include/Do Not Delete Sorry it's a bit unclear if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "oppose" or if I'm supposed to vote for inclusion by writing "support." I've discussed my arguments for inclusion in detail on the talk pages (see below). Basically I am frustrated by the regional atomization of city information as it is currently categorized on Wikipedia. I do not propose dismantling the current regional organization, I just think there should also be categories that are global in scope. I think a better option than deleting the categories at this point would be to create criteria for inclusion. Perhaps only cities with more than 1 million people should be included? What do you think should be the criteria?ThomasMikael (talk) 18:23, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above. Subtropical-man talk
    (en-2)     18:57, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support/Include/Do Not Delete I've added inclusion critera to both pages. "Criteria for inclusion: cities must have a population above 1 million to be included in this category."— Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMikael (talk • contribs) 19:51, 20 February 2014‎
(Striking out that bold and second
McGeddon (talk) 20:18, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]

Full discussion from both points of view is quoted below:

Content copied from User talk:ThomasMikael by that user, identical to collapsed content in above section
The concept of "
WP:CAT, "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy, then a list article (which can be annotated and referenced) is probably more appropriate." - and global city
is, I'd said, already that exact list article.)
Category:Largest cities by population (Global) may make sense renamed to something like "100 largest cities" so that the reader knows what to expect, but this feels a little arbitrary (why not 50 or 200?).
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20 is where these two are being discussed, though, so that's the best place to leave a comment about it. --
McGeddon (talk) 17:34, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
"The concept of "global metropolises" seems a subjective one, with several competing lists." Can you refer me to the competing lists? I think you may have a fair point here, but when I was looking for a big exhaustive list of global metropolises, I couldn't find one.
I think your suggestion about changing the name to "100 largest cities" would make sense, except for the fact that this would then become a list that would have to be updated constantly--at the very least once a year--whereas if we leave it open and it grows to include 200 cities or 300 cities, that would only increase it's utility for researchers. I only have time to add 100 cities today, but I might return to add more, or someone else might continue to build the list, and I think that would be great personally. Does that make sense to you? I'm open to discussion about this obviously, I'm just stating my point of view here.ThomasMikael (talk) 17:46, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the
McGeddon (talk) 18:10, 20 February 2014 (UTC)[reply
]
I've just finished adding all of the top 100 cities to both categories--the ones that have currently existing Wikipedia pages. Creating pages for the cities that don't have pages but have million of citizens is out of scope for me today : ) At any rate, as per your suggestion, I will copy & paste this convo to the discussion page you referred me to, and we'll let other arbitrators chime in.
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:Audio engineering schools in Canada etc

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. There may still be some that need to be removed from Category:Audio engineering schools. I erred on the side of caution, so feel free to purge further. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 7 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There are some fields of education for which there are many institutions dedicated just (or mainly) to that field (e.g. agriculture or nursing).
WP:DEFINING characteristic of an institution like University of Strasbourg or Texas State University
.
There are a very small number (e.g.
Recording Workshop – RECW) which should be upmerged to the parent category which should be also be purged. The UK category was recently CFDed; I intend to withdraw that CFD in favour of this one. DexDor (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_February_20&oldid=1146512778"