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: Inappropriate and limited category for a short lived "programming block" that is neither aided by nor totally relevant to the articles. Several aired on multiple channels, with only one doing this particular block. -- Collectonian (talk·contribs) 15:49, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete per numerous precedents for the categorisation of TV programmes by the station which broadcast them. Many TV programmes are broadcast at many different points in the schedule on many channels, so applying this sort of category would rapidly lead to horrendous category cluter. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The category only focuses on programs that aired on CBS late at night during the 1991-1993 period. It wasn't exactly a typical programming block per se but more like an "anthology" series. TMC1982 (talk) 10:03 p.m., 5 December 2009 (UTC)
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:Rename. The current name is misleading as in common use power supply means electrical power supply (generation and distribution). Beagel (talk) 09:29, 5 December 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The current name of this category is misleading. It is meant to include companies providing computer power supply hardware; however, power supply company in common use means a company distributing or selling electrical power. Beagel (talk) 09:22, 5 December 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. I propose to merge category:Reliability interconnections into category:Electric power transmission systems as there is overlapping of these categories and it is not clear which articles should be categorized in the category:Reliability interconnections. The notice on the category page says: "This category lists regional power grids or interconnects. These are usually councils or advisory boards that govern the interconnection of electrical generating stations and electrical transmission and electricity distribution systems on a regional geographic scale." By this definition I understand that this category should include institutions rather than physical grids or connections. However, in practice this category consists of several physical grids. Institution could be categorized in the Category:Electric power transmission system operators. Beagel (talk) 08:57, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to electric grid interconnection(s). As said in the rationale, the definition of the category is not very clear. What id a reliability interconnection?. I also miss an article in Wikipedia about interconnection (definition of) in the electric grid and about renewable electricity interconnection (renewable electrivity interconnection could be in the future a subcategory in the main interconnection category and in the beginning would be included in the main category). Regards.--Nopetro (talk) 18:19, 8 December 2009 (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:no consensus. I suggest this issue be addressed again sometime in the future, after the categories have some months under their belts.Good Ol’factory(talk)09:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Those are not true subcategories, they are just redundant categories for the people. There could be all the people categories or all the people articles or both. Sure, they're no extremely small, but when the top-level categories only have 43 articles anyway it is overcategorization to split them further. Reywas92Talk22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – these are not small categories and the nom is guilty of hyperbole as worse cases of OCAT are legion. I don't myself see much point in laboriously dividing everyone by century but it seems to be happening; and if we are going to have 19th and 20th ones, then 21st and 18th follow by being part of a scheme. (Are all Obama's 40 categories going to become in due course 21st/20th century foos, leading to perhaps 70 or so in all as most will double, or is there some rationale involved?) Occuli (talk) 16:32, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I said one of the worst, which I stand by; there are clearly still much worse others. If the main category Category:Presidents of the United States has only 43 articles, there is absolutely no reason to split into redundant subcategories, which is overcategorization. This excessive categorization just clutters articles and the category system, making navigation more difficult. Reywas92Talk22:42, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all. The nominator's cries of OCAT are misplaced, but this division of all categories by century is an impediment to navigation, not a help. None of the target categories are so big as to need sub-division by century. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all Either the Presidents-by-century takes precedence and should make redundant including Cat:US Presidents at the foot of an article; or, a Pres should be categorised as a US President and as a Xth-century President. The first option is a hindrance to navigation and the second a rather silly example of overcategorisation. Declan Clam (talk) 02:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all There have only been 43 people to serve as President, and without looking it up I think 47(?) Vice-Presidents. By no means is either a large category, and dividing by century is a stumbling block to finding what is desired. (As an aside, Bill Clinton was President for 20 days of the 21st century, and two other men have crossed centuries- and for longer amounts of time. These categories are not mutually exclusive, which makes the category-subcategory-subsubcategory-articles system even more confusing.) Bradjamesbrown (talk) 13:09, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep has anyone followed the parent category tree that includes 'xxth century rulers', that in turn have parents 'Rulers by century|xx' and 'xxth-century people|Rulers'? These connections will be lost with an upmerge. This is not an either/or situation. The presidents can be kept both in their 'xxth-century presidents of the United States' and directly in Category:Presidents of the United States. Hmains (talk) 19:48, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. The 'xxth century rulers' categories may or may not be an useful idea. I have some doubts about the merits of defining historical epochs simply by delimiting them with years ending in 00, and it's not an approach that historians use much ... but I know there is an argument in favour of that division, and this isn't really the place for that debate. What is relevant though, is the apparent assumption that a category-by-century system created much higher up the category tree should carry through in some sort of steamroller logic to the subdivision of every category it encounters, until it reaches the outer limbs of the category tree. That does not have to be the case, and a useful example can be found in Category:Monarchs. I checked to see what had happened to the Monarchs of the United Kingdom, because there have been only nine of them, in three centuries (19th, 20th and 21st). Category:Monarchs of the United Kingdom is split (possibly unwisely) into Kings (7 articles) and Queens (2 articles), but there is no by-century split; instead, each King or Queen is also in xxth century Eurooean monarchs. This is a good solution, not only because it avoids subviding the two Queens of the UK into 3 one-article categories, but because it keeps similar articles together: se the rather useful sollection at Category:20th-century monarchs in Europe, which would be even more useful if the Bulfarians and Ottoman had not been balkanised into their own sub-acts. The same thing can, and should, be done with the POTUS: have one Category:Presidents of the United States, and each of the articles can also be categorised in Category:20th-century national presidents in North America etc. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:59, 6 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge as a hindrance to navigation and an unnecessary division of what are not very large categories. Insisting that these categories' existence do not necessarily destroy the unified groupings of all presidents in Category:Presidents of the United States ignores the reality that people will and have removed them from that category, in favor of these subcategories. Note how few presidents are left currently in that category; maintaining these divisions by century will just create lots of extra unnecessary labor to keep putting them back in as others take them out because it's redundant. The only argument in favor of these categories appears to be the concern that upmerging will remove the connection with the rulers by century category, but that's easy to respond to. The articles can also be categorized by the more general Category:20th-century national presidents in North America, which currently has no other position-specific categories, and should not. Keeping that ruler by century structure at a more general level allows for navigation either by categories by century or categories by specific position, without forcing people to do both in what are ultimately small subcategories. See also BHG's comments above. postdlf (talk) 14:26, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment if we worried ourselves so much about what editors 'might' do wrong with categories, we would need to delete almost every one of them (categories or editors, take your pick). Easy enough to [re-]populate Category:Presidents of the United States with all the 43 presidental persons so I did. Also easy enough to add notes to tell editors to leave all the presidents here. So I will do it. Editors should be more eager to fix things instead of writing little eassays on deleting things. Hmains (talk) 04:38, 8 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Again, the same could be worried about in hundreds/thouands? of other category situations. I see no reason to believe this set of categories is more attrative to this kind of editing that others. Hmains (talk) 03:27, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For which other categories do we want to maintain articles in an undivided parent where a subcategory by century scheme also exists? postdlf (talk) 03:35, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
comment The overcategorization problem is bigger than just that of Category:18th-century presidents of the United States and Category:18th-century vice presidents of the United States. There is a forest of categories applied to every president and v.p. Here is a list of the categories for just four presidents, one from each of the four centuries (I chose the first or last alphabetically but avoided using both Adamses or both Bushes), the duplicates removed:
Some of these are of indisputable importance — but all?
comment cont. How large should a category be? As Abraham Lincoln said of his legs, long enough to reach the ground. XVIII-century presidents and vice-presidents will obviously have short legs; such is the nature of the first or last category in a series (XXI-century presidents and vice-presidents will of course grow longer.) Forty presidents divided between the XIX and XX centuries however create "normal" sized categories.
keep concl. The question then is whether there is any justification in the matter itself for a break at 1900; on two grounds I would that there is.
Most presidents from the XIX century are remote to us; most of those even from the first half of from the XX century are not.
The argument for categorizing v.p. by century is even stronger, as few readers other than scholars of the presidency can name any but the most recent vice-presidents. Quick now, in which century did each of these serve?
First, it is unnecessary to clutter this page with links to all those categories. The fact that prominant people are in many categories is no reason to throw in some more. It is also unnecessary of you to give a list here of many Vice Presidents. The fact that many Americans don't know their VPs is no reason to categorize them redundantly by century. I do not understand how any of your arguments support this excessive subcategorization. Reywas92Talk04:01, 19 December 2009 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 16. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:14, 16 December 2009 (UTC)