Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 27

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< April 26 April 28 >

April 27

Category:Political alliances in Colombia

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. MER-C 11:52, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per Category:Political party alliances and every other category by country. Charles Essie (talk) 23:41, 27 April 2015 (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:Politicians with military background

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. MER-C 05:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's not clear what "with military background" means (would having a dad in the army or doing 2 years national service be enough?), but assuming it means people who served in the military with some distinction there are still thousands of people who could be in to this category - Ashdown, Bush, Churchill, JFK are a few that immediately spring to my mind, but many (perhaps most) UK/US politicians of the 1950s could be eligible. Categories of the form "Fooers with ... background" could become a huge category tree "Diplomats with military background", "Politicians who were formerly lawyers" etc. Whilst there may be nothing inherently wrong with such categories (and I recognise that there are currently several other Politicians by occupation categories) I think the effort that would be needed to make this particular category anywhere near complete would not be the best use of editor time. Also, in the longer term category intersection may provide a better way for editors/readers to select people who have achieved notability in 2 separate fields. DexDor (talk) 22:29, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Possible Renaming:In its creation I meant Politicians with a career in the armed forces (not just military service); this is why it is a subcategory of Category:Military personnel. It seemed to me that Category:Politicians by occupation needed more subcategories than the two already existing.SoSivr (talk) 00:40, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
correction: the category in question was the fourth (not the third) (direct) subcategory of Category:Politicians by occupation.SoSivr (talk) 00:57, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not defining - a career military person versus someone who was drafted or volunteered to do his or her bit during a war lumped together. Eisenhower, Truman, JFK, Nixon, Washington, so much in common with each other and with Hitler and Goering who also would fit...worthless. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 01:15, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-defining vague intersection with no clear inclusion criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:52, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Former career for a politician is quite likely to be defining, for example forming their attitudes. "Politicians with a military career" might be useful and would need to be defined in a careful headnote: they would need to have retired from the military, not merely have served their term on enlistment. However, wartime service in WWI, WWII, and Vietnam War (for Americans etc) was probably too common to be defining. To qualify a person would probably need to be naotable as a soldier, sailor or airman and also as a politician. An analogy is drawn with lawyers, but in UK they do not cease to be lawyers on election, though possibly they cease to practise. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:07, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clear inclusion criteria. Neutralitytalk 14:02, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear inclusion criteria― Padenton|✉   16:04, 5 May 2015 (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:Disabled sportspeople

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 to Category:Sportspeople with disabilities and Category:People who compete in parasports. – Fayenatic London 14:27, 22 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In line with the logic of the parent, Category:People with disabilities, this category title should be rephrased to emphasise foremost that these are people per people-first language. SFB 21:10, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Makes sense, but the child categories need to be looked at too. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 06:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, with reservation. While I can't remember what exactly I had mind when I created it (it was probably a missing supercategory back then), sportspeople may present a special case: is it a) "sportspeople who happen to have a disability, including those who compete with non-disabled sportspeople", or b) "sportspeople who compete in
    disabled sports"? I'd go for b), but there are subcategories that suggest a), such as e.g. Category:Sportspeople with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder. If this difference is not important (granted, the overlap is large), "Sportspeople with disabilities" is fine. GregorB (talk) 09:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Comment -- I am not quite sure that nom's logic works. We have special events, such as the Paraolympics, for the disabled. I think we should be focusing the categories on them, rather than those able to compete with the able-bodied. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:10, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment what is the purpose of these categories, to categorize disabled people, or to categorize people who compete in parasports? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 10:57, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's almost exclusively about people who compete in parasports. SFB 19:00, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then neither the current nor proposed names are appropriate. There are able-bodied athletes who compete in parasports and vice-versa (particularly, some of the para-teamsports have many able-bodied athletes in the lower level competitions). Depending on the sport, one's particular disability can have no impact on performance, since it does not use whatever body part has been affected. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 04:54, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative: Category:People who compete in parasports per discussion before. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:43, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I'd prefer something of the sort too: "parasports or "disabled sports", or perhaps simply "Parasports competitors"/"Disabled sports competitors". GregorB (talk) 11:44, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marcocapelle and GregorB: I think the parasports idea is a good one, as it clearly distinguishes athletes with a disability from athletes who take part in parasports (I'd reject "Disabled sports competitors" on the basis that it fails to do that). I think there may be a case for a high level tree for both these concepts. SFB 17:08, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per original nomination. This does not include only parasports competitors but sportspeople who are deaf or have other disabilities which do not prevent them from competing. They are not necessarily "disabled" but functional. Dimadick (talk) 17:04, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A solution that probably everyone can live with is to split the category into Category:Sportspeople with disabilities and Category:People who compete in parasports. 17:12, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
    • Support the split as proposed above. GregorB (talk) 18:00, 17 May 2015 (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:High schools by county in Oregon

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. MER-C 11:51, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other similar categories. DexDor (talk) 18:33, 27 April 2015 (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:Human gene

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. MER-C 11:50, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of the latter. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:23, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. I'm seeing that the creator caused some other trouble up the tree that will also need to be fixed as well. Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 1 May 2015 (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:Gene

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. MER-C 11:48, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Genes, which, unlike this category, is named correctly. הסרפד (call me Hasirpad) 18:07, 27 April 2015 (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.

Counties of the United States

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 16:37, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting:

long list of "Foobars in the United States by county" categories

Rationalle: Counties are subdevisions of states, not of the US, and typically don't have independant notability from the state. These categories are non-defining. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:39, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rambling Comment/Question There is certainly some overcategorization by county going on. (There aren't so many airports and ghost towns in states to make diffusion by county necessary and rivers tend not to respect county boundaries, so I would dump those trees in their entirety.) But most of these categories are containers for county categories by state, such as Category:Transportation in the United States by county, rather than directly housing county categories at the national level. @Od Mishehu: Are these non-defining container categories a sign of non-defining sub-categories, or do you specifically question the containers themselves? RevelationDirect (talk) 18:00, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
There's a 3-level hierarchy (country-state-county) and there's no need to navigate directly between the top and bottom levels (e.g. jumping straight from country level to county level without going via the state level). It's not made particularly clear in the nomination so I suggest you take a look at the category structure (maybe even draw a bit out on paper). DexDor (talk) 20:36, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
By that same logic, we could eliminate most of Category:Subdivisions of the United States and Category:Cities in the United States. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:09, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not "most" of the content of those categories, but some subcats (example) are included in this nom. DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: could you clarify whether you support deleting all of the nominated categories (e.g. even Category:Counties of the United States). DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor: Upon second look, I support the retention of the first two (i.e. main counties category and counties by state category) as these are useful venues for searching the geographical locations. It is the division of other things by county that I do not support. SFB 15:57, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep all as {{container category}}s, and diffuse article to appropriate sub-cats. From a quick glance, it seems that most of these are already container categories, so the nominators rationale of "non-defining" is misplaced. These categories are indeed defining of the subcats which they contain ... and the only effect of this nomination is to rip out a navigational pathway through the category tree.
    For example, how on earth would deleting Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by county reduce categ clutter in any article, or imprive navigation? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:58, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
It's true that deleting in-country-by-county categories should make no difference to the number of category tags on any articles. It would, however, delete a part of the category structure that (IMO) performs no useful purpose (and hence is an unnecessary complication in wp infrastructure). It would also remove an inconsistency - compare, for example, Category:Schools_in_Alabama_by_county (4 parents) with a similar Canadian category (3 parents). DexDor (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@DexDor:, these categories do serve a useful purpose, which is exactly the purpose described on the tin: they group the groups of material categorised by county. For a reader interested in examining the USA at county level, these categories provide an entry point to all such categories. For editors, they group together similar categories to assist maintenance and development of the category tree. If the Canadian categories lack a similar pathway, then it should be added ... unless the hierarchy of Canadian political geography is different, in which case your comparison is invalid.
As RevelationDirect pointed out below, you are making he mistake of view in the category system as a tree, rather than as a direct relational model. You want to rip out one set of navigational pathways, with no user benefit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:41, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categorization describes it as a tree and hierarchy. In as much as it can be compared with a database then Hierarchical database model may be a better fit.
Imagine a situation where there are so few churches in a particular state (Foo State) that by-county subcats are not created (this may be unlikely in the case of the US, but it could occur for a country with fewer articles and/or more complicated political geography such as a state that doesn't contain counties). I.e. Barfoo Church (in Barfoo County) would be categorized in "Churches in Foo State" and "B&Ss in Barfoo County" (as there's no "Churches in Barfoo County" category). A reader who is interested in churches in Barfoo County could navigate down from "Churches in <country>" to "Churches in <country> by county" (the type of category proposed for deletion here), but they wouldn't find the articles they are looking for by going down that route. We normally try to avoid such dead-ends in categorization; if you keep navigating down into an appropriate subcat you should end up at the articles you seek. If the <country>-by-county categories didn't exist then the reader couldn't be misled in that way; they would instead go down to the "Churches in Foo State" category and find the articles. Note: even if the reader doesn't know which state Barfoo County is in the <country>-by-county categories wouldn't help them because all the subcats are for specific states. DexDor (talk) 12:31, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not a very persuasive argument, DexDor. By the same logic we could remove the container categories for foo-by-US-state, because not all foo will have a categ for each state. And we could also apply it to foo-by-country. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:50, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
No - The dead-end scenario I've described above doesn't occur for "normal" categorization (in which as one navigates down the category tree the units being referred to become smaller - e.g. country->state->county or century->decade->year). The categories proposed for deletion here are an extra form of categorization that sits alongside the normal category structure (if you haven't done so already I recommend drawing it out on paper). No-one in this discussion has provided a use case for how such categories would be useful to readers looking for articles on a particular topic. DexDor (talk) 21:41, 7 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selectively merge I sampled several of the nom categories and found one article or subcat. However the railway stations one is parenting state by county categories, which is helpful. However single member categories need to be emptied manually into something more appropriate with a substantial population. This applies to parks and bus stations, for example. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're talking about a different change to the categorization structure to what's proposed in this CFD. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as container categories. These categories serve an important purpose in organizing the "Foo in STATE by county" categories, which are a logical way of breaking up a state category, especially since some of the "Foo in STATE" categories could otherwise have well over 1,000 articles. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 12:30, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure you understand what this CFD is proposing; it would not increase the number of articles (directly) in any category. The "Foo in STATE by county" categories are sufficiently categorized by 3 parents (as per equivalent Canadian categories) - a 4th parent is unnecessary. DexDor (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How many equivalent Canadian categories are there? I only can find the one for Ontario. (Which in a way illustrates the difference here - many of these categories have subcategories for all 50 states, and it's convenient to organize them in one place.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:11, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Quite a few (some examples) and its not just Canada (example). The category structure should be for finding pages (it doesn't exist just for the sake of its own existence). DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All I think some editors are looking at the category structure as hierarchical where you have to drill down through country/state/county/city whereas I see it more as relational where readers should be able to easily move across by city or county (if they so choose) without having to zig zag up and down to navigate up to the state level and back down again. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To navigate from a category about (for example) houses in one county to the category for houses in a different county you have to "zig zag up and down" - with or without the categories that are proposed for deletion here. The categories under discussion provide a shortcut up to the country level (bypassing the state level) which does reduce the number of mouse clicks for some navigation, but at the expense of some extra complexity in the category structure. Imagine if there was a 4 or 5-level categorization scheme (e.g. continent-country-state-county-town) - you could have such "shortcut categories" (e.g. to go directly from the "Foos in <town>" category up to the "Foos in <continent> by town" category and down to the "Foos in <town2>" category), but consider how many different shortcut categories would be needed. DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If these "shortcut categories" created clutter on the bottom of actual article pages, I would completely agree with you. But, since these are are container categories, we're not adding any complexity to the articles to gain these navigational paths. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
clutter on the bottom of actual article pages does not form part of the argument to delete these categories (that's a strawman argument). No-one has provided an example of how the extra navigational paths could be of use to anyone (they provide an alternative, but as shown in my example below they don't help and can hinder). DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep all Nominator and several editors here do not understand the category structure or purpose in WP. Categories are to help readers find related articles and that is exactly what these categories do. These are container categories doing what container categories are supposed to do: organize WP knowledge. Hmains (talk) 04:13, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have any examples of how these particular categories (the ones proposed for deletion) would "help readers find related articles"? DexDor (talk) 22:30, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because the Canadian situation has been raised as an analogue to this one, I just wanted to step in as a Canadian to clarify it. "County", in Canada, is a type of division that some Canadian provinces have, while others have similarly-structured divisions that aren't called counties, and still others have nothing even remotely comparable at all — and even in the provinces that do have them, it's very variable as to how thoroughly (if at all) the county level has actually been used as a point of category subdivision. Only four of Canada's ten provinces — namely Ontario, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island — have systems of by-county subcategorization in place that would fit into any Canadian equivalent to this. (And even then, both ON and NS name the divisions in variable enough ways that we'd already have to kludge up the name of a Canadian equivalent to "county, regional municipality or district".) In Alberta and British Columbia, county-like (but not named that way) structures do exist, but haven't been used by Wikipedians as a point of subcategorization for anything besides people. And in BC, for that matter, we actually have a "do not expand" moratorium on that system at the moment, due to unresolved talk-page controversy about whether the regional districts are the appropriate level of subcatting for most topics or whether we should swap it out for a broader regioning system (Chilcotin, Okanagan, Cariboo, Boundary Ranges, etc.) instead. Quebec has a county-like structure of "regional county municipalities", but they're politically and socially and culturally extremely subordinate to a higher layer of 17 administrative regions (Mauricie, Lanaudière, Nord-du-Québec, Montérégie, etc.) that are much more central to the way the real world actually divvies things up in that province — so in that case we ignore the "counties" and subcat on the administrative regions instead. For the other three provinces and all three territories, no county-like system exists at all, so either we use an alternate system of geographic regioning (e.g. the Westman/Eastman/Interlake/etc. thing in Manitoba, subdividing Newfoundland and Labrador into separate "Newfoundland" and "Labrador" subcats), or we simply leave anything at the province/territory-wide level that can't be funnelled all the way down to an individual city or town subcat. So the lack of a Canadian equivalent to the category under discussion here is irrelevant to the question of whether this should exist or not — a direct Canadian analogue simply wouldn't fit the complicated "one size does not fit all" reality of how Canadian provinces and territories get subcatted. I'll post my actual thoughts on the nomination itself as a separate comment — but just wanted to clarify first why the lack of a direct Canadian equivalent has nothing to do with the matter. Bearcat (talk) 15:28, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the complexities of Canadian administration, but I think the above can be summarised as that (unlike in the U.S.) different parts of Canada use different administrative structures (or different nomenclature). Similarly, in Europe different countries do things differently so if we had Foos-of-Europe-by-county categories (with subcats such as Foos-of-the-UK-by-county, Foos-of-France-by-departement) then editors could object that English counties and French departements are not exactly equivalent. In other words, a large-small-medium (e.g. country-county-state) categorization structure can only possibly work in cases (like the US) where the same administrative structure/nomemclature is used across the whole area. Thus, if we have country-county-state categorization for the US (in addition to the normal country-state-county categorization) then that's inconsistent with Canada/Europe etc (note: that's not the main reason why IMO these categories should be deleted). DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because these are container categories for other subcategories, they're not contributing to any clutter or bloat on articles — their contents are subcategories, not articles, so they simply offer a navigational path within the category system for people who are looking for articles that way. I grant that this may not seem useful to the nominator, but that doesn't mean that it's not useful or helpful to anybody — not everybody is already an expert in the way our categories are organized and subcatted, so there's no harm and much benefit in offering as many reasonable and justifiable roads as possible to get from the very broad category where somebody might be starting to the more specific one that actually contains the content they're looking for. The category system is a relational web, not a linear tree, so there's no reason why multiple paths to the same place can't or shouldn't exist. Accordingly, I really can't see any compelling reason, besides "I don't like it", why these should actually be deleted. Keep all. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearcat, it's quite correct that these categories don't contribute to clutter on articles, but category clutter on articles does not form any part of the argument for deleting these categories (i.e. it's a straw man argument). They do add complexity to the category structure. The category system is more of a hierarchy than a relational web; category links have a direction (X is a child of Y). For a practical example of how these categories impede navigation see my airports example below. DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, especially useful is Category:Counties of the United States by state. The only other thing I would consider for the sub-categories of that category would be adding "by state and county", instead of just "by county". For example, Category:Buildings and structures in the United States by state and county. Funandtrvl (talk) 17:41, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose deletion, as above.Djflem (talk) 19:27, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All Thanks to User:Djflem for reminding to participate here, but the structure of organization by county across the United States is far too useful a means of categorization to justify deletion. I've heard this argument that counties (and cities) derive their authority from the state in which they are located, but this has no relevance even if it is true in its entirety. Counties exist across the nation as an intermediate level of government to provide a level of governance between the state and the individual municipalities. The network of structures by county allows readers to navigate across articles that share a common county and to navigate around the differing categories and counties. Dumping all of these structures for people, places and things into state-level category structures makes this harder to navigate and eliminates an appropriate and effective level of commonality across these structures. There may be some categories deep within the structure that are not yet populated to a sufficient degree has been offered (such as the examples of ghost towns and airports), but the benefit of allowing navigation where these categories do exist at a county level simply outweighs the negatives. If someone is seriously opining that "Counties are subdivisions of states, not of the US, and typically don't have independent notability from the state", isn't that an argument for deleting the county articles themselves, a result that would be utterly ludicrous? Alansohn (talk) 19:51, 5 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
This CFD does not propose to delete "the structure of organization by county across the United States" (although it isn't well explained in the nomination). Nor does this CFD propose to "dump" things into state-level category structures (no merging is proposed/needed). DexDor (talk) 11:53, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support delete. I guess that many opponents have not understood that the nominated categories are categories higher in the tree than state level: the nominated categories subdivide by state. That is what makes these categories redundant. The arguments against the nomination assume that the nomination goes entirely against categorizing by county and that's a completely wrong assumption. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Marcocapelle: that is a gross misrepresentation of the arguments against deletion. The arguments advanced by me and by several other editors (e.g. @Bearcat, RevelationDirect, and Hmains:) specifically note that these are container categories. These categories provide an alternative navigational path for readers interested in examining issues at county-level, just as the by-state categories do at a higher level. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:54, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @BrownHairedGirl: It was not my intention you'd take the comment as if all opponents misunderstood it, sorry about that. Still I don't get your point of view, while DexDor's example below make perfect sense to me. You might reply to DexDor, let's just create the 45 missing categories, but then I would argue: why bother creating them if your alternative way of navigating is never going to be any shorter than the 'normal' way? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:46, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • These may be container categories, but they should still (1) serve a useful purpose and (2) not impede navigation (see my example below). DexDor (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Marcocapelle: could you clarify whether you support deleting all of the nominated categories (e.g. even Category:Counties of the United States). DexDor (talk) 13:04, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • @DexDor: I support deleting the "in the United States by county" categories, which is what the bigger part of the discussion is about, while I'm neutral on others. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete As far as I can tell, all this does is gather up those states and/or fields in which the articles are numerous enough to justify subdivision into county categories. I don't see the reason for that. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 13 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Example. A reader in Aroostook County is interested in local airports and wants to navigate down from Category:Airports in the United States.
He (I'll assume it's a he) can take the normal route: to Category:Airports in the United States by state, Category:Airports in Maine and Category:Airports in Aroostook County, Maine. Or he can take the alternative route: to Category:Airports in the United States by county, Category:Airports in Maine by county and Category:Airports in Aroostook County, Maine
The alternative route hasn't saved any mouse clicks (and is a less logical route). I would !vote "weak delete" (to remove unnecessary complexity from the category structure) just from the above analysis, but there's more -
If he lived in Brevard County and took the alternative route he would go to Category:Airports in the United States by county, but then find no Florida subcategory (in fact, there's currently only subcategories for 5 of the states so there's about a 90% chance that a reader getting to this point has hit a dead end). He'd have to go back up the category structure and then down the normal route to get to Category:Airports in Brevard County, Florida. Afaik, nowhere else in wp categorization are there dead ends like that.
In short, the alternative route isn't a shortcut and can be a dead end (as well as adding unnecessary complexity to the category structure). DexDor (talk) 23:01, 16 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This deletion will delete the entire county category tree from Category:Counties of the United States down to but not county categories within a state. This forces readers to have to follow the US state category structure to find county information. There is no reason to impose such limits on readers, who come seeking information from WP. The purpose of categories is to help readers find articles; this deletion is designed to hinder not help. Counties are an important part of the government structure of the United States. Hmains (talk) 17:48, 17 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deleting Visitor attraction by county. Categories tend to have slender oversight by editors. "Visitor attraction" requires that Wikipedia draw a conclusion based on no
    WP:PEACOCK! Student7 (talk) 20:34, 4 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
    ]
  • Keep all though I am amenable to inspired name twiddling. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 21:40, 4 July 2015 (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:Religion navigational boxes

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. (
NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 02:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. This was proposed at the Speedy page, where a full discussion was requested. The contents do cover beliefs that are not all "religions". – Fayenatic London 10:07, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support category name change to match parent template category name. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Copy of discussion on Speedy page
Well, the template categories are named slightly differently than the article categories, and "Religion and belief" is more inclusive for the templates, since there are some in there that are related to beliefs and not necessarily religion. Funandtrvl (talk) 16:38, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
FYI-the Contents/Categories are actually
Portal:Contents/Religion and belief systems, but the categories for articles are separated into both "Religion" and "Belief", when maybe they should be under "Religion and belief systems". Funandtrvl (talk) 16:46, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
Nonetheless, this is more suitable for full discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:10, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Seems straightforward. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:59, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose' it isn't straightforward, we have two conflicting C2C arguments, per speedy discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:27, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • The current title does not describe the category contents. The proposed new title does describe it.
      There may be a case for re-creating a [:Category:Religion navigational boxes]] as a subcat, but either way we need a more inclusive title for the current category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:47, 29 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • There is very little in the nominated category that is not about religion, and this little should be categorized C2C to the main category tree. There is no point having a deviating category structure just for navigational boxes. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:06, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The main article categories are almost all different than the template categories. The template categories follow
Portal:Contents/Categories. The article categories follow that, however, they have tended to split the categories into two. For example, instead of "Religion and belief", they use "Religion" and "Belief". This is probably due to the # of articles that WP has. I don't see a problem with handling the template categories a little differently than the article categories, and in a way that follows the Content categories more closely. Funandtrvl (talk) 19:52, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with Funandtrvl. The template categories do not need to slavishly follow the article categs, and in this case the slight divergence allows us to group related templates together. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:36, 16 May 2015 (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:Historic Hotels of Europe members

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. MER-C 05:22, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That a hotel (
WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. DexDor (talk) 06:14, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete per nom as non-defining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:25, 28 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (edit conflict) -- We have deleted membership of several associations of univerisities, and I do not see why this should not follow the same logic. If the members were the consistituent national associations, it might be appropriate to repurpose the category for historic hotel associations in Europe, but none of the members appears to have an article. Direct membership by hotels is non-defining. The fact that they are historic hotels might be. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:33, 28 April 2015 (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:National Magazine Award for reporting winner

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. MER-C 13:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
National Magazine Award for reporting. DexDor (talk) 06:10, 27 April 2015 (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:Louis Aragon

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:Works by Louis Aragon. The Novels sub-cat has five members now, so seems worth keeping as part of the Novels hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With one article and no parents this category performs no useful purpose. It might work if renamed to something like "Novels by Louis Aragon" and given appropriate parent categories. DexDor (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2015 (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:People from the Banks Peninsula

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. MER-C 13:19, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Local usage. When used as the object of a sentence, its always simply "Banks Peninsula", never "The Banks Peninsula". The key article Banks Peninsula uses the article-less form throughout, as do its references. Grutness...wha? 02:18, 27 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. The category name should fit common use. Dimadick (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2015 (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/2015_April_27&oldid=1090392060"