Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 April 30

< April 29 May 1 >

April 30

NEW NOMINATIONS

Categories : Election campaigning OR election campaigns OR political campaigns

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--Ymblanter (talk) 08:07, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All three categories cover the same topic ... A simple google search reveals that "Political campaigns" has a much higher frequency than "Election campaigning" (13.400.000 hits to 340.000). Stefanomione (talk) 20:58, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose merging to Political campaigns A political campaign is not necessarily an election campaign, which is why the latter is a subcategory of the former, and why Category:Political campaigns contains a good many articles on things that are not "elections." Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • However, as for the Election campaigning/Election campaigns part of it, I have no strong views. I suspect that "campaigns" i.e. a category structure for individual campaigns, could simply be a subcat of Election campaigning or some such, about the activity, strategy and people involved, etc. The latter is an old category dating back to 2006. Rearranging, or the application of Catrel, and rather than merging, may be all that is required. But I agree with Stefanomione on this point that it's a bit of a muddle. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:42, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge First Two with no opinion on which name to use. Category:Election campaigning andCategory:Election campaigns clearly cover the same ground, but they are a subset of the broader Category:Political campaigns. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:03, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge first two -- IN view of the next nom, it may be that "campaigning" should be the target. POlitical campaigns should remain as a parent. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose any merge at all. Even a quick glance at the contents of the first two shows that they are distinct: one has generic articles about campaigning practices, and the other has articles on specific campaigns. – Fayenatic London 17:32, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Fayenatic london. In order to differentiate the two categories better, it may be a good idea to rename Category:Election campaigning to Category:Election campaigning practices and to change the text of the header accordingly. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:08, 22 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:_________ about election campaigning

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 Category:Works about election campaigning, merge Category:Documentary films about election campaigning to Category:Documentary films about elections and rename Category:Documentary films about election campaigning in the United States to Category:Documentary films about elections in the United States. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete this Stefanomione category branch per WP:SUBJECTIVECAT WP:OVERLAPCAT. Just on the doc film side, we already have branches Category:Documentary films about politics (with subcategories), Category:Documentary films about politicians (with subcategories) and Category:Documentary films about elections. There is no main article Election campaigning. There is one for Political campaign and if kept I suppose the category could be called Category:Works about political campaigns, but I think it's an unneeded and confusing offshoot for things that are already adequately grouped. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

:* Rename to Category:Works about political campaigns, Category:Documentary films about political campaigns and Category:Documentary films about political campaigns in the United States. We have a Category:Election campaigning - maybe this should be merged with Category:Political campaigns, as there is no clear difference between them ... Stefanomione (talk) 19:49, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Well, I for one don't see the need for this endless splintering of things in the works about category. And I don't agree at all with your related nom above. Political campaigns and strategy are an inherent part of politics. When they are involved in elections, we have something distinct to group, at least. I think what we have is fine. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 21:12, 30 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:WikiProject New York Theatre participants

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 18:50, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose deleting Category:WikiProject New York Theatre participants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. WikiProject is inactive and has no category, only member is a user who hasn't edited since 2006. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:18, 30 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:Healthcare by city

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 and repopulate. @Rathfelder: please restore any other valid contents that you removed from here or the former Category:Health by city. At present this contains by-city categories for India, Pakistan and United States; Zurich; and hospitals. – Fayenatic London 18:46, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Could merge into Category:Hospitals by city. All the articles are about hospitals, not about healthcare more generally.Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep and repopulate. It's extremely disingenuous to empty a category and then claim it's not worth keeping because there's nothing in it. You've been warned about this behavior before. Why do you insist on manually depopulating categories that you dislike? - Eureka Lott 13:15, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The discussion about the target category is still open. Can we please wait with this discussion until it is clear whther or not the target category is being kept? Marcocapelle (talk) 15:30, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Oppose per Marcocapelle; we can't merge a category into something that may be gone by the time this nomination closes. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:33, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If Hospitals by City falls then clearly Healthcare by City is indefensible. But if you think there should be a category of Hospitals by City then clearly these articles should be in it. Rathfelder (talk) 18:34, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I have no opinion on the substance of any of these three nominations. But how can editors possibly weigh in on a merger to a category that is in flux (and what possible sense a closing admin could make of any qualified/conditional votes that appear under this nomination)? Holding off on this nomination until the other one closes seems like the best approach here IMO. RevelationDirect (talk) 19:56, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
How can anyone be expected to evaluate the category when the nominator has removed its contents prior to the nomination? - Eureka Lott 20:11, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and repopulate per EurekaLott; clearly the nominator knows proper procedure having been informed about it a month ago. -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 03:41, 1 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems like everything is back in the category now. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:09, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I only see one subcategory, which isn't close to how it looked prior to being emptied. Do you see something different? - Eureka Lott 14:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • This was also emptied last month, as part of the decategorization of topics from the activities outlined in March, are only the recent activities rolled back, or have the decategorizations from March also been reverted? -- 65.94.43.89 (talk) 05:41, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Apologies, you're right! I was looking at the target instead of the nominated category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • User:Rathfelder, could you please restore the content of the category? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:45, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've restored a random selection to Category:Healthcare by city. As you see the vast majority of the articles are about hospitals. Rathfelder (talk) 08:48, 4 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • A majority yes, but not everything. Could you please restore the rest as well? Marcocapelle (talk) 03:36, 6 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Healthcare is rather broader than hospitals. I see no objection to a general "by city" category, provided the subcats are by country. This applies to most of the subcats, but not Zurich. In Britain, city has an limited meaning, so that we should perhaps by using a "by populated place" solution. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:13, 4 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:Male film actors from Shanghai

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. MER-C 12:02, 8 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_January_31#Category:Film_actresses_from_Shanghai, if the actress categories have been moved, so should the male actor categories.

Also propose merging:

Per User:Sillyfolkboy in that discussion, the following mergers are also proposed, as Chongqing, Sichuan etc. are of the same administrative level in China as Shanghai & Beijing:

Timmyshin (talk) 04:09, 30 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:Political alliances in Benin

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 13:08, 19 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale; per Category:Political party alliances and every other category by country. Charles Essie (talk) 00:41, 30 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename per WP:C2C, although it isn't actually speedy anymore... kennethaw88 • talk 14:10, 9 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom to fit the category tree. Dimadick (talk) 17:22, 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_30&oldid=1090392065"