Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 28

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< February 27 March 1 >

February 28

Category:Religion in Afghanistan 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: merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:46, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, unnecessary category layer with just one city subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:47, 28 February 2019 (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.

Establishments in Pennsylvania 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: Delete/merge. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:25, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting:
Propose merging:
9 more Pittsburgh
23 more Philadelphia
Nominator's rationale per WP:NARROWCAT. There is no broad scheme of establishments by city in the United States. It may make sense for a megacity like New York City, where the same editor (@MainlyTwelve) has created Category:2001 establishments in New York City etc ... but Pittsburgh (population 305,000) and Philadelphia (pop 1.5 million) are not in the same league as NYC (population 8 million).
The target categories are not overpopulated, so there is no pressing need to create subcats for the cities. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's a meaningful distinction in a state with only two major cities. That was my rationale for creating the categories.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:37, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MainlyTwelve: See e.g. Category:1990 establishments in Pennsylvania: 15 articles, plus nine more in the two subcats.
Looking at succeeeding years, take e.g. Category:2016 establishments in Pennsylvania with 24 articles seems to be about the biggest. That's too small to need subcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds good, I don't really have a preference about whether they get merged or not.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
However, to your point about NYC, I think there is value in making a distinction between some cities in the U.S. and their state-level buckets. For example, probably useful to have subcategories for SF, LA, and San Diego in California, at least for years with 100+ entries, of which there are several.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly, tho 100 is a low threshold; I'd suggest a minimum threshold of 200 (i.e. one page), preferably about 300. Looking at California since 1980, I see only three years which exceed the 200 mark.
But I'm not sure how WP:defining the distinction between city and state is for establishments and disestablishments.
Also, it's only worth doing if it's going to be part of a viable long series, so that readers don't don't need to jump up and down between category levels. Note for example that the establishments-by-state and disestablishments-by-state cats are automatically cross-linked; that sort of handiness gets lost if establishments are subcatted deeper than disestablishments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:12, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
At least for New York City I'm happy to go through and also organize disestablishments at the same depth. However, based on my observations, I don't think there's an extremely well-established pattern of tagging disestablished institutions as disestablished. I'm not ignorant of that class of category existing, but it's certainly not as well used as the "Establishments" category.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But yes, to address your concern ("viable long series")...this isn't a passing effort of mine, I intend to be committed to it for the foreseeable future and if you see value in any portion of it would welcome help/advice.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MainlyTwelve, my point is not about your undoubted energies; it's that I am not sure if a long series would be viable. Two reasons:
  1. The further back we go, the thinner such a series gets. It's theoretically possible to say "not before YYYY", but in practice once a series has started, editors expect a "YYYY in Foo" category for every value of YYYY. So the non-existent years become redlinks (WP:REDNOT) or get created and then come to CFD. Either way that creates a maintenance headache.
  2. Starting such a series for one city creates a precedent for more, so we risk a proliferation of series of WP:SMALLCATs. I can see a case for NYC, but even then I am unsure whether that is a good idea. For precedent, see see WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 March 27#Establishments_in_London_by_year_etc.. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:22, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for providing the precedent discussion. I struggled to find one, or any. Given that it was up to debate for a similar city with a similar position in its country's national consciousness (London to the UK/NYC to the U.S.) as early as 2012, I think it's reasonable to continue as is with the NYC subcats as they're no doubt much more populated than the London categories were at that point. At the very least, I'd extend this rationale to apply to years where the number of articles currently indexed is similar the number of articles indexed in the categories I've currently worked through. A brief look at the breakdown by decade for NYC through the 20th century indicates this effort would extend meaningfully backward in time to at least the 1910s, and probably earlier.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@MainlyTwelve, I draw a different conclusion from that 2012 discussion, viz. don't create estab-by-year cats for 2nd-level national subdivisions.
In the case of NYC, I don't see the numbers to justify creating an exception.
This current discussion should give us some measure of where consensus currently lies on estab-by-year cats for cities. If this closes as keep, then I guess NYC will stay; but otherwise, I will nominate the NYC cats for merger. Please can you hold off creating more of them until consensus is clearer? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Yes, I'm happy to hold off for now.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 15:24, 1 March 2019 (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:Jaclyn Victor

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:21, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:21, 28 February 2019 (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:P. Ramlee

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 as there is currently nothing left to merge to the works subcategory (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 15:19, 28 February 2019 (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:W. C. Fields

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:27, 11 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:PERFCAT; WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:56, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the articles are appropriate per WP:PERFCAT though! --woodensuperman 15:30, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - 3 subcats are enough. I probably agree with Woodensuperman about the articles. Oculi (talk) 16:47, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete NeutralThe two subcats can be connected with hatnotes which takes 1 click for navigation. The category (at least with the current contents) serves no other purpose other than connecting the two subcats with 3 clicks and doesn't overcome WP:OCEPON. Tried to find more direct articles (house, statue, lawsuit, etc) and found none. RevelationDirect (talk) 17:43, 1 March 2019 (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:James Woods

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:28, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to meet WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:55, 28 February 2019 (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:Sandra Bullock

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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:49, 28 February 2019 (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:Hailee Steinfeld

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:50, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:48, 28 February 2019 (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:Dustin Hoffman

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:32, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Does not satisfy WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 14:36, 28 February 2019 (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 Kelly

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:34, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough articles to satisfy WP:OCEPON --woodensuperman 13:33, 28 February 2019 (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:Ismaily matches

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:37, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Requesting renaming to match parent article. Ben5218 (talk) 11:52, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:45, 4 March 2019 (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:Ismaily managers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 20:42, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Requesting renaming to match parent article. Ben5218 (talk) 11:51, 28 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. GiantSnowman 13:44, 4 March 2019 (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/2019_February_28&oldid=887336347"