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.
Nominator's rationale: Propose split both to conform to the naming convention established by the parent categories, and to distinguish between films and series, both of which are currently lumped together in this category. The BushrangerOne ping only23:06, 8 April 2012 (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 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.
First, this isn't a "vote", it's a consensual discussion, second, it's not a duplicate. the nomination rationale is separate from what the person would actually like done. For example, I have nominated procedural noms where I personally disagreed with the nom. But besides all that, I have no doubt that the closer will understand. (And I have experienced years of closures to back up that assertion.) Thanks for your concern, all the same,. - jc3718:08, 9 April 2012 (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.
Most of these have Template:Container category as a banner. I suggest this be changed to {{Wikipedia category|container=yes}}
(I'm not proposing these should be hidden, since (afaik) none of them should be in article space, these only being containers of other categories.)
This should be fairly straight-forward. Renaming administrative categories to add "Wikipedia" to help indicate they are not for article space. (per WP:NCCAT, etc.) - jc3722:17, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Cancel nomination. Nomination should be closed on technical grounds since the categories that are nominated aren't listed. __meco (talk) 12:38, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That's far from good enough. You need to follow the set procedures. All categories included in the nomination must be tagged with a CfD notice, and all of them must be listed here, each and every one of them. This nomination is flawed and must be terminated. __meco (talk) 17:46, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged, maybe. But that's not what you said above. Must be listed here? No. They can be listed anywhere as long as it's easy to see. And this is. (I have seen noms where the list was on a subpage somewhere.) As long as there is a clear link to a list for a group nom, we're fine.
As for tagging, often only the parent of like type cats is tagged. But if you're that concerned, we can see if someone with automated tools will helpfully tag them.
(I'm chuckling, because in the past I've been called - among other things - a "process wonk". And to me, your comments made me look pale by comparison : ) - jc3717:59, 9 April 2012 (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.
Comment Right now there is nothing to "mess up". The other tributaries of the Willamette River don't merit a subcat. The creation of this one was random (I know because I'm more or less the person who created it) and not part of the larger scheme. It is highly unlikely to grow (and in fact I think the list article it contains should probably be deleted). It can certainly be recreated if someone deems it necessary to put all the Willamette tribs, including Molalla River into the scheme, but the tributary category is a good enough aid to navigation for the time being. I personally think splitting things into ever smaller categories is not an aid to navigation. Valfontis (talk) 17:06, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Note I've merged the list article into the Molalla River article so the only thing in the category is the river article itself. Valfontis (talk) 21:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP (also as per WP:SMALLCAT; this is part of the "schema" for geography. rivers as subcats can be grouped by tributary, watershed, region, etc. it also should mirror the system @ wikimedia commons. this makes things easier to find & associate; the topic cannot be adequately organized using only interal wikilinks. please don't mess this up!Lx 121 (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The schema at Commons has a different requirement. A river may have numerous photos and files which then need a category, but a river does not always attract many related articles that require categorisation. Also, how do you define what goes in the category? I can understand waterfalls tributaries etc but these categories are being used for nearby towns and cities. So then we have to decide how close an association article have to a particular river. It is all too messy in my opinion. Articles are the primary way of linking related articles. Categories, of which I am a great fan, should not be overused. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 21:51, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm unable to present as emphatic a !vote as Lx I still see this category as part of an established scheme and that deleting it would be disruptive. I also find it unfortunate that nominator couldn't see it within their capacity to nominate all these seven river categories under one umbrella nomination. __meco (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A category with only the one (1) namesake article doesn't aid navigation. Don't accept premise that there is an established scheme that every geographic feature gets an eponymous category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have held off on this hoping that some new articles would appear, but it has been over two days and still has one article. There is no reason to have a one article category, especially when the one article has the same name as the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 11 April 2012 (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.
STRONG KEEP (also as per WP:SMALLCAT; this is part of the "schema" for geography. rivers as subcats can be grouped by tributary, watershed, region, etc. it also should mirror the system @ wikimedia commons. this makes things easier to find & associate; the topic cannot be adequately organized using only interal wikilinks. please don't mess this up!Lx 121 (talk) 01:37, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm unable to present as emphatic a !vote as Lx I still see this category as part of an established scheme and that deleting it would be disruptive. I also find it unfortunate that nominator couldn't see it within their capacity to nominate all these seven river categories under one umbrella nomination. __meco (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I brought it up from 2 to 3 articles but my arbitray cutoff for the poorly written WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles. Don't accept premise that there is an established scheme that every geographic feature gets an eponymous category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:28, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. I was going to close this discussion as "no consensus", but when I looked at the head article Mur (river) I noticed that this is quite a long river. It apparently has several hydroelectric dams in Austria; Bad Radkersburg/Gornja Radgona are divided by the river, and there seem to be many other major settlements on the river, as well as a history of industrial and commercial uses of the Mur. Does this add up to prospects for expansion? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:32, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Has potential to grow (see e.g. the comment above and sl:Kategorija:Mura), because this river has a significant economic and cultural meaning also for the Slovenes. In addition, as stated above, this is part of a larger schema. --Eleassarmy talk20:42, 16 April 2012 (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.
STRONG KEEP (also as per WP:SMALLCAT; this is part of the "schema" for geography. rivers as subcats can be grouped by tributary, watershed, region, etc. it also should mirror the system @ wikimedia commons. this makes things easier to find & associate; the topic cannot be adequately organized using only interal wikilinks. please don't mess this up!Lx 121 (talk) 01:40, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm unable to present as emphatic a !vote as Lx I still see this category as part of an established scheme and that deleting it would be disruptive. I also find it unfortunate that nominator couldn't see it within their capacity to nominate all these seven river categories under one umbrella nomination. __meco (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I brought it up from 2 to 3 articles but my arbitrary cutoff for the poorly written WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles. Don't accept premise that there is an established scheme that every geographic feature gets an eponymous category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:38, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question. The head article lists 5 tributaries, but this discussion does not address whether they should be included in the category. This seems likely to have a critical bearing on the outcome. Do editors have any thoughts on this? --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:22, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It appears that at present we do not include tributaries. I base this on what I see at Category:Mississippi River. To start including tributatries we would make Category:Ohio River among other a subcat of the Mississippi River cat. We could do this, but we should probably discuss doing so in a forum where there will be lots of input on the issue. I am not sure where that would be, but it probably will not be on this discussion. Is there a relavant place to discuss rivers and river categories? Are there any guidelines on what goes in a category named after a river?John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:52, 17 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are more views of what a river category should include than I expected. I thought it would be very narrow on the actual physical river and directly related (bridges, dams, falls) that touched the rivers. Others see it as about the broader river basin. I don't have a strong opinion about including tributaries except that it should be (as much as possible) across the board. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:53, 17 April 2012 (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.
STRONG KEEP (also as per WP:SMALLCAT; this is part of the "schema" for geography. rivers as subcats can be grouped by tributary, watershed, region, etc. it also should mirror the system @ wikimedia commons. this makes things easier to find & associate; the topic cannot be adequately organized using only interal wikilinks. please don't mess this up!Lx 121 (talk) 01:41, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm unable to present as emphatic a !vote as Lx I still see this category as part of an established scheme and that deleting it would be disruptive. I also find it unfortunate that nominator couldn't see it within their capacity to nominate all these seven river categories under one umbrella nomination. __meco (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I brought it up from 2 to 3 articles but my arbitrary cutoff for the poorly written WP:SMALLCAT is 5 articles. I don't accept premise that there is an established scheme that every geographic feature gets an eponymous category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep this is the first time I have ever given a weak vote. I do not like doing so. However the argument for this category is pretty weak. I think that categories for rivers are standard, but I am not sure if it is a clear exemption to the small category rule. However since a dam can only be on one river, this does not seem to have the problems of some overcategorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 11 April 2012 (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:keep per WP:SMALLCAT, i.e. it is a small category, but some editors think with 6 articlesit is just big enough to keep as it is. Crucially, and the Norwegian Wikipedia shows that it could be expanded. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:03, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP (also as per WP:SMALLCAT; this is part of the "schema" for geography. rivers as subcats can be grouped by tributary, watershed, region, etc. it also should mirror the system @ wikimedia commons. this makes things easier to find & associate; the topic cannot be adequately organized using only interal wikilinks. please don't mess this up!Lx 121 (talk) 01:42, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm unable to present as emphatic a !vote as Lx I still see this category as part of an established scheme and that deleting it would be disruptive. __meco (talk) 12:25, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the other articles are integrally connected with the river. They are clearly in this rivers zone, and inextricably connected to it. They are not connected with any other river, so we will not get over categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:35, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep not SMALLCAT. All articles in the category are valid entries, as they are either bridges which cross the river (defining aspect) or industrial plants which located on and relied on the river for power, thus interacting with the river. There is fair bit of potential here; according to no:Akerselva, there are 44 bridges that cross the river, of which the Norwegian Wikipedia has articles for nine. I imagine most of those would be notable on the English Wikipedia as well. The Norwegian Wikipedia also has articles for two of the river's twenty waterfalls. The Norwegian version of the category has 22 entries. Arsenikk(talk)14:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Aluminum plants cluster around hdyroelectric dams and auto plants are almost always on a railroad line. We should be cautious about categorizing manufacturing plants by their source of power and transportation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I something is notable enough to be in the Norwegian wikipedia, it is notable enough to be in the English wikipedia. Notability is not conditioned by speakers of a particular language knowing something about the subject. There is no requirement that your reliable sources be in English. Wikipedia is meant to reflect no ethnic or national biases, although the English wikipedia currently has a strong preponderance of articles connected in some way to the United States and the United Kingdom, and a clear lack of articles connected in some way with Yemen or Mozambique.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:36, 15 April 2012 (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 per WP:SMALLCAT, i.e. a small category will never have more than a few members. Currently contains only the head article plus 2 others, and no evidence has been offered of any prospect for expansion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 20:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
STRONG KEEP (also as per WP:SMALLCAT; this is part of the "schema" for geography. rivers as subcats can be grouped by tributary, watershed, region, etc. it also should mirror the system @ wikimedia commons. this makes things easier to find & associate; the topic cannot be adequately organized using only interal wikilinks. please don't mess this up!Lx 121 (talk) 01:43, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm unable to present as emphatic a !vote as Lx I still see this category as part of an established scheme and that deleting it would be disruptive. I also find it unfortunate that nominator couldn't see it within their capacity to nominate all these seven river categories under one umbrella nomination. __meco (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Had two articles, added a third one for a stream that flows into it, but don't think a town along the river is a valid inclusion. So 2 legit articles; too small to aid navigation as this can just be referenced in each article. Do not accept claim that there is a schema where every geographic feature gets an eponymous category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:53, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in fact the Mississippi river has 10 sub-cats just for populated places along that river. Thus we have clear precedent for putting places along the river into the river category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:39, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Rivers are important. There are usually towns, farms, buildings, parks and people (some of whom are notable) around them. They often form the basis for grouping and naming local governments. If you are looking to populate them, you won't have trouble. When I look at a river category, I assume it would have geographic aspects both natural (tributaries, falls) and man-made (dams, bridges). Perhaps you're right and that is too narrow; perhaps not. The much larger Mississippi tree has clear sub-cats for populated places along the river; I'm not sure that warrants inclusion of one or two towns in order to populate much smaller categories. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:32, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Question If being along the Mississippi is notable for towns along it, than who are we to deny this distinction at least to towns along other navigable rivers? I would agree to a rule "populated places are only notably connected with a river if the are adjacent to it or cross it, and the river is navigable and has been an actual source of commerce and trade for the place in question." I think this allows us to make sure the connection is notable. We would also not put counties or other larger level divisions in such categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:40, 15 April 2012 (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.
STRONG KEEP (also as per WP:SMALLCAT; this is part of the "schema" for geography. rivers as subcats can be grouped by tributary, watershed, region, etc. it also should mirror the system @ wikimedia commons. this makes things easier to find & associate; the topic cannot be adequately organized using only interal wikilinks. please don't mess this up!Lx 121 (talk) 01:44, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I'm unable to present as emphatic a !vote as Lx I still see this category as part of an established scheme and that deleting it would be disruptive. I also find it unfortunate that nominator couldn't see it within their capacity to nominate all these seven river categories under one umbrella nomination. __meco (talk) 12:32, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
delete: In spite of the strong attachment by some to this "scheme", I'm quite curious as to why there are 52 articles about rivers in Guyana, but only two categories. The notion that 'the system' might be messed up doesn't quite hold here -->Category:Rivers_of_Guyana - if it was messed up, you should be creating 50 more categories for rivers in Guayana. My same vote would go for the others - if the cat is small and unlikely to grow, delete. --KarlB (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I brought it up from 2 to 3 articles by adding and endemic species but I'm looking for 5 articles. I don't accept premise that there is an established scheme that every geographic feature gets an eponymous category. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:41, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment moving logs down river to cut them at a saw-mill does not fit within most people's definition of "trade". Trade involves moving goods in bots, not just floating the goods down the river.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 16 April 2012 (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 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 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 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 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:Motor vehicles manufactured in 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 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.
Nominator's rationale: Again, to match other categories. I can't tell the difference between these two categories. Karl (talk) 14:48, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure I understand the difference between these. The standard for the category is 'Cars of X'. I think they can be merged but would welcome other thoughts. Karl (talk) 14:41, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not quite sure on proper etiquette on commenting, motor vehicles is more than cars, cars is a subcategory of motor vehicles. A merge of "Motor vehicles manufactured in Latvia" into "Cars of Latvia" is not appropriate. ("Indian automobiles," however, would be a duplicate of "Cars of India.") VєсrumЬа ►TALK17:32, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that in general; however, the container category seems to have standardized on the term 'Cars of X' in a broad sense - look at Category:Automobiles_by_country. In addition, the list of Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States contains, as far as I can tell, only 'cars'. The same applies for Latvia - the two categories actually contain exactly the same thing. The categories in this whole tree are confusing - sometimes it is 'motor vehicles', sometimes 'cars' sometimes 'vehicles', sometimes 'automobiles' - indicating the extent of the confusion. In any case, for now there doesn't seem to be anything which distinguishes 'car' from 'motor vehicle' in these three cases, at least as the category is being used, and non-Cars could always be put in a sub category, as other cats seem to do. For example, Category:Cars of the United States includes Category:International Harvester vehicles which are trucks. Another option would be to rename everything to 'Motor vehicles of X' but thats a much bigger discussion. --Karl (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. If you go into the vehicle subcategories you find more then cars. Things like trucks. So the merge as proposed would be incorrect. However it would seem to make sense to clean up this tree. All of the article in Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in the United States should be moved to the correct subcategories to see what we really have. Then if someone wants to create a subcategory for just cars that would be fine, keeping in mind that cars and trucks are subcategories of motor vehicles and not simply vehicles which includes bicycles and other things. So a category like Category:AMC vehicles should probably be renamed to Category:AMC motor vehicles since it contains at least one truck (contrary to the introduction). Even if we drop the truck issue, cars are more correctly defined as motor vehicles. I can't wait to see what we do with autonomous vehicles now that Nevada is issuing plates for them! I do Oppose deletion of Category:Motor vehicles manufactured in Latvia since it includes a bus and buses are not just like cars. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:53, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
comment Thanks. However, I'd like to request that you reconsider your vote, if only in the name of consistency. For now, we have two categories for Latvia, US, and India (and others I think as well), and the ways cars/trucks/vehicles/whatever are categorized, there is no differentiating. For example, the 'Cars in X' categories are littered with trucks, vans, snowmobiles, etc. If we at least combine these categories, then a broader discussion can be had with the denizens of the automotive project to see if they want to rename all of the 'Cars in X'. But for now, maintaining just a few exceptions based on semantics, when there are dozens of 'Cars in X' that don't adhere to the 'a truck is not a car' philosophy just makes things inconsistent. I for one would prefer that the categories be at least internally consistent, even if semantically slightly inaccurate, than have two categories which overlap. Please take a look at Latvia for example - both cats contain the same two vehicles! --Karl (talk) 19:14, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As I said some cleanup required. There is no reason to remove categories that are apparently correctly named when there are badly named ones that need cleaning up or splitting. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:00, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
withdraw Ok it seems eds here don't like the 'Cars of X' standard that exists, in practice, in the category tree today - through these nominations I was simply trying to merge duplicate categories, not challenge a naming scheme that was already chosen and seems supported Category:Automobiles_by_country. In any case, I withdraw this nomination, and I'm going to start a discussion on this here Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Automobiles. I suggest no additional nominations be made until the automobile project has weighed in and we have consensus on the general way in which we want this to be organized - there are deeper problems in this tree (for example: Category:Vehicles_by_country. Also I would just point out that 'manufactured in' is problematic for a number of reasons, not least of which that cars are now made all over the world. Already in 2006 some people thought national categories were antiquated... --KarlB (talk) 15:59, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
However, if a car is manufactured in multiple countries, it can be listed in multiple categories. As long as the number is not excessive, being made in multiple countries is not a problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As pointed out in another discussion, that is ambiguous since 'of' could well mean official government vehicles or those used by governments. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:58, 10 April 2012 (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:Speedy close Let's let the discussions (and subsequent consensual editorial work) continue before nominating here, please. - jc3722:48, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as explained above. For many topics there's a need to have separate categories for China and the PRC. For the sake of easier navigation, I believe other PRC-specific categories should also be titled 'People's Republic of China', even for topics without such a need. Jeffrey (talk) 11:21, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Rename Jeffrey is becoming a very pointy troll creating discussions he opposes, but I came here to request the Law category myself after seeing recent edits. SchmuckyTheCat (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 8 April 2012
I have clearly explained why these categories were submitted. Since I cannot submit them to the existing Cfd on 5th April as a matter of procedure, I can only submit them with a separate nomination. WP:NPA please. Jeffrey (talk) 18:09, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close -- We may need to consider this in due course, but we need to sort out the "Republic of China" tree, by splitting the rest of it between the pre-1949 mainland and post-1945 Taiwan, before we start altering PRC categories; otheriwse there will be chaos. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:45, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the History of China is so large, that the People's Republic separation makes sense. I am not convinced that the other two proposed mergers make sense either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:56, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If they don't make sense, would it be a satisfactory arrangement to have some PRC-specific categories named 'China', while some others named 'People's Republic of China'? Will articles be easily miscategorised? Jeffrey (talk) 14:02, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made it clear that this isn't actually a separate nomination, but additions to the one on 5th April. Wikipedia is not a vote, but if in case my vote is a problem, I'd strike it out for now. Jeffrey (talk) 09:22, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Support merging all three. They could conceivably be viable subtopics at some point, but not under the current arrangement of articles, which seem to be randomly placed between either. As for the nomination, I'm sure there is a WP:POINT somewhere, but I can't figure out what it is... CMD (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment on Nom I don't really understand this nomination; I want to make sure these cats are restructured thoughtfully but don't think this approach is constructive.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Right. But since Karl and some other editors keep bringing up these categories (here and at speedy) we got no choice but to discuss the similar ones too. Jeffrey (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are some categories that will only contain things done in China after 1950, and so it makes no sense to distinguish the PRC and China. One issue we have never fully decided is if China can be used as a super-category for both the PRC and the ROC at present. This is an issue we should somewhere decide, but I am not sure where, and I am not sure if consensus is possible.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes there are topics that only happened after 1949, for example, internet censorship. But it's necessary to standardise the names of all PRC-specific categories. Or else we may end up with a lot of miscategorised articles and subcategories for those topics that require the distinction. Jeffrey (talk) 17:16, 10 April 2012 (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 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 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 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.
Nominator's rationale this category groups together a 1985 novel set in 1849 and an 1836 novel set in "1849". Since one is set 13 years in the future these is actually no overlap between the setting of the two. Eseentially this is grouping together two things that share a same name but no actual similar characteristics. They are not set in the same 1849. Beyond this, the name is too imprecise, but if that was the only problem it could be overcome.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Another unnecessary annual category. MOst of those for remote periods are empty (or virtually so) and of not value as a navigaton aid. WE dealt with a "hurricane" tree, by merging into decades, but even that is not worth doing here. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:49, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, Keep and create sub-category for Category:Historical novels set in 1849. This will create a sub-cat for backwards-looking works, separating them from forward-looking works in a parent category. The time setting is a key part of a fictional work's setting; nobody has argued with my repeated point in other CFDs that taking WW2 fiction one year at a time, e.g. Category:Films set in 1944, is anything other than useful; and if one part of the year-by-year structure is useful, keep it all. If specific works cannot be reliably identified to a specific year, or cover a longer period, then categorise their setting by decade or century. However, I accept Peterkingiron's point about sparse population in categories for remote periods, so I would not oppose upmerging small categories into decades. – Fayenatic L(talk)13:12, 9 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment some have also been depopulated by merging the various year categories for short story collections, which like the novels categories are for items published that year. The whole Category:1849 in fiction and its sister cats seem to have been poorly named. It has been easy to confused these with Category:1849 in literature or whatever we would name a general parent category for plays, poems, short stories and novels published in 1849.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I will argue with Frayentic's claims that dividing WWII movies by year set isu useful. This creates too fine a division of fictional works. It leads to many works being in multiple years. anyway, what may be useful for the 1940s when lots of fictional works are set, seems less useful for the 1840s when we average 2 works per year. What if we had an article on a book written in 1930 set in 1944. Would it make any sense to put it with the same category as WWII films. The 1930 book would not be set in World War II, so it would have no commonality of setting.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:49, 10 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Actually we were discussing the by decade categories, not clearly the by year categories. Plus, the "in fiction" categories largely escaped that discussion, although more because the whole tree is a mess than because they were clearly outside the earlier discussion. I am not sure what the outcome there was, I will go try and figure out.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I hunted down the closure of the last discussion. It closed with no consensus. However it was more a discussion of the general principal, this category focuses on specific failures. Also, there the discussion was all about by decade categories, and not by year, which in fiction have other problems. There were many voices that suggested that the merging of set in the future and set in the past into a single category, as well as set more or less in the present was problematic. So it provides neither precedent or guidance on this discussion here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:17, 16 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. As per others this potentially draws together books that at the time of writing were set in the present day or future as well as historical novels, purely because they share a date. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:16, 20 April 2012 (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:Health organisations in the United Kingdom
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.
Nominator's rationale: I can't tell the difference between these categories. In fact, the name of one is actually a subset of the other. I think they are actually the same thing and should be merged. Karl.brown (talk) 01:06, 8 April 2012 (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.
