Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 July 1

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: double upmerge to Category:Dutch building and structure stubs and Category:European lighthouse stubs. – Fayenatic London 21:09, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Dutch lighthouse stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sparsely populated, even after consulting catscan. Propose deleting category, and double-upmerging template to Category:Dutch building and structure stubs and Category:Lighthouse stubs. Dawynn (talk) 23:28, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Support, but would like to note that it's quite possible that Category:European lighthouse stubs may be created before this discussion is closed; if it is, then that category should replace Category:Lighthouse stubs in the nomination. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:31, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:Oppose, unless there's a guideline stating that 14 articles is a too low number for a category. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:31, 4 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:WSS/P#Proposing new stub types – procedure. Yes -- 60 is considered the low count for first building a stub category (30 if the category is the primary stub category for a WikiProject). Dawynn (talk) 11:09, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough, didn't know about this, wow that's a high number. I'll strike my oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:11, 7 July 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.

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: double upmerge. – Fayenatic London 21:22, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Cuban scientist stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Sparsely populated stub category. Catscan turns up no others. Propose deleting category and double-upmerging template to Category:North American scientist stubs and Category:Cuban people stubs. Dawynn (talk) 23:11, 1 July 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.

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: upmerge. – Fayenatic London 17:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Borkhar County geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Dehaqan County geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Khomeyni Shahr County geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  
• Propose deleting Category:Khvansar County geography stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The county categories are all undersized, each weighing in at no more than about half the expected 60 articles for stub category creation. Propose deleting the categories and upmerging the templates until the categories reach a reasonable size to justify a full category. Upmerge templates to Category:Isfahan Province geography stubs. Even with all four templates upmerged, the parent category will not even fill a single article page, given current article counts. Dawynn (talk) 22:57, 1 July 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 17:17, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Economy of Arab world to Category:Economy of the Arab League

Nominator's rationale: Merge. I don't think we need both categories. The "Arab world" is slightly larger than the Arab League; the former includes Morocco and Western Sahara, while the latter does not. However, most of the economy-related articles about Arab states seems to focus on the League rather than the world: we have Economy of the Arab League, for instance. Therefore, I suggest merging to the more narrow category, and resolving the definition gap by not including Category:Economy of Morocco or Category:Economy of Western Sahara in the merge. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:25, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge We should use the much easier to define category. What is and what is not the "Arab world" will be a bit fuzzy at points, what is and what is not the Arab League is more clear.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:26, 5 July 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.

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: purge. Category:Songs by artist does not have a minimum number of songs needed to justify a category, but songs should only go in it if the recording/performance was defining for the song. – Fayenatic London 06:52, 23 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nicole Kidman songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The rule in Category:Songs by artist is that songs are not categorized by every individual artist who happened to perform a cover at one time or another, but only by artists whose versions are defining characteristics of the song (i.e. they wrote it in the first place, or they performed the original and/or popularly definitive version of it.) Kidman is not notable as a recording artist per se, but merely as a person who's happened to sing a few times in a few of her films, so none of the songs here are in any meaningful way defined by the fact that she happens to have sung them — most of the songs here have also been performed at other times by artists who don't have their own "artist songs" category (or do have one but the song hasn't been added to it because their performance failed to constitute a defining characteristic of the song), and two of the articles — Eternity/The Road to Mandalay and My Way — entirely fail to even mention her name at all until the category declaration itself (thus failing to explicate any evidence of why the category is even there). IOW, none of them actually justify or belong in this category. Bearcat (talk) 18:26, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nicole Kidman's performances of these songs is not a defining characteristic of them. SFB 13:00, 5 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Because Kidman's duet with Williams for Something Stupid is notable means there should be one entry, thereby passing smallcat. Most if not all of the other members of the cat can be removed as non-defining. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Delete/Purge: Come What May (2001 song) is definitely Kidman focused and One Day I'll Fly Away and Somethin' Stupid have meaningful sections; the rest of the songs are not defined by Kidman. But my arbitrary cutoff for WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:04, 6 July 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 17:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Agricultural radio stations and networks to Category:Agricultural radio networks

Nominator's rationale: As with the two categories that I listed below, the key problem here is the conflation of radio stations and radio networks into a common category, even though those two things are otherwise catted separately from each other. There was also a questionable entry here; BBC Lincolnshire is not, strictly speaking, an agricultural radio station, but merely a radio station which airs one agriculturally-themed program within an otherwise conventional BBC Local Radio format. That program already has its own separate article, which is filed in Category:Radio programs about agriculture, but the fact that the station airs it doesn't justify categorizing the entire station in this category (else we'd have to include every single station in the United States that ever aired a "daily farm report".) Unlike the other ones, however, I believe that this category should be retained under a different name than its current one — once BBC Lincolnshire is turfed, Category:Agricultural radio networks would be a legitimately defining category for all of the remaining topics. Bearcat (talk) 17:39, 1 July 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 17:39, 8 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Political radio stations and networks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. More User:Stefanomione. As with "radio stations and networks by content" below, the first problem here is the conflation of radio stations with radio networks, when those are otherwise categorized as two separate types of things rather than being lashed together like this — but this time the second problem is that the category only has two entries, one of which is neither a radio station nor a radio network, but merely a website which hosts streaming audio clips. Renaming this in a more appropriate format (i.e. not one that combines stations and networks) might be an appropriate alternative if additional entries for it can be found — but it's not needed as long as Air America (radio network) is the only legitimate entry in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:25, 1 July 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.

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:  Relisted at 2014 AUG 19. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Radio stations and networks by content (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Another User:Stefanomione special. There are two key problems here: one is that categorizing radio stations by "content" isn't meaningfully distinct from categorizing them by "format", thus making this an unhelpful duplication of Category:Radio stations by format; and the other is the conflation of "stations and networks" into a common bucket, even though all other categories in the Category:Radio tree keep stations and networks catted separately from each other. By either token, this category simply isn't needed or warranted in this form. Bearcat (talk) 17:15, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Split in Category:Radio stations by format and Category:Radio networks by format, and expand both. Stefanomione (talk) 18:05, 1 July 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 21:17, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Female police officers to Category:Women police officers
• Rename Category:American female police officers to Category:American women police officers
• Rename Category:Female British police officers to Cateogry:British women police officers
• Nominator's rationale At heart the issue to me is that virtually all police officers are adults and we tend to use women in categories where this is the case. The closely related Category:Women judges and Category:Women lawyers, as well as their more abundant sub-categories would also suggest a rename would work. Additionally, this has the subcat Category:Women sheriffs. This rename would put this category more into line with its most closely related sister categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Support nominators rationale stands up, but also "woman police officer" is the more common form of those two. Slight nagging doubt about why the form "policewomen" is not proposed, though. SFB 16:54, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. In the US these are virtually always called female and not women. So we should stay with the common usage. How other professions label their members does not always apply to other professions and common usage. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Virtually always? I just did some casual google searches, and all sorts of things like this are popping up. I'm not really seeing that one is favored over another in U.S. material. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. I think this is a good reason to rename—both are used, and from what I can see "women" seems to be favored by the International Association of Women Police and other groups that represent people in this profession. Just from casual google searches, I can't see that either form is preferred in U.S. sources. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:41, 9 July 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.

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: upmerge to Category:Hazara people and also to the other parent Category:Afghan women or Category:Pakistani women as appropriate, as the nominator has failed to give a rationale for removing the member pages from those categories. – Fayenatic London 17:45, 19 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge Category:Hazara women to Category:Hazara people
• Nominator's rationale We only have women by ethnicity or nationality categories for 2 reasons. 1-To group sub-categories by occupation and other allowed subcategories. 2-to contain non-biographical articles related to the subject. The current policy is very clear that articles on indivudal women should not be put in such categories. This category lacks any articles that fit the allowed criteria, so we should just upmerge to the gender neutral category for the ethnicity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gender intersection with an ethnic category - the immediate children of Category:Women by ethnicity is for navigation, not for categorisation. Being a woman of a certain ethnicity in itself is no more defining than being a person of that ethnicity, since all ethnicities have men and women :) SFB 09:47, 5 July 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.

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. – Fayenatic London 06:36, 18 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Bangkok to Category:Health in Bangkok

Nominator's rationale: In order to follow Category:Health in Thailand and the broader container Category:Health by city. I didn't want to create a separate category layer with few potential members. Paul_012 (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Few cities warrant a "Healthcare in" category, and (like countries) "Healthcare in" should be a subcategory of "Health in" for the city or country. Hugo999 (talk) 12:09, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. The subcategory and one of the articles are about health care. I know there may be a consensus to want to reject using health care, but that's what these are about. Also, as a general rule, smaller political divisions provide health care and not health. Health is the result of broader policies, like countries. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:32, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The "Healthcare" categories are natural subcats of the "Health" categories, and this particular category contains articles about both "healthcare" (Tsunami PTSD Center) and non-healthcare "health" topics (Street dogs in Bangkok). We should rename this to the broader "health", which can include both the general concept of health and the more narrow issue of healthcare. Doing so would also make it more in line with the immediate parent and the sibling categories, as the nominator notes. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:32, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So no objection to keeping this and creating the parent as proposed in this nomination? I will support a selected upmerge to a new Category:Health in Bangkok. I may just create that. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:45, 9 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In theory no objection, but in this case—probably yes I would say it would be unnecessary. The if both existed, the Healthcare subcategory would contain only a subcategory for hospitals and the article Tsunami PTSD Center. Unless there is more content out there that could be added? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 10 July 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.