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.
Support per Johnbod: categories imply false precision. @Sugrammr: Please review this discussion and avoid creating similar categories; also, please see my edit summary in the history of Category:994 books which will soon be deleted as an empty category. Johnuniq (talk) 04:25, 14 November 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.
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: "Scottish" is not a language. "Scottish Gaelic" is a real language spoken by a few Scots but Scots is an English language. Euanjohnb (talk) 20:35, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename but to Category:Scottish surnames. Some of these are based on Scottish place-names (e.g. Selkirk, Hamilton). Some are English language (e.g. King, Armstrong). Some are Highland clans, which are presumably Gaelic. At least the Gaelic ones are not Scots-language, which is a dialect of English (or related language, according to your POV). On the other hand, I suspect that we have in the past deleted my target. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:34, 9 November 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.
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:WP:SMALLCAT for a not inherently notable political position. Winston-Salem is not a city where the city councillors get an automatic presumption of notability, so there's little to no prospect of expansion -- and as it stands, there's just one person actually filed here at all, and even his article is up for deletion as it doesn't properly demonstrate that he's actually notable in the first place. But even in the unlikely event that somebody can salvage it enough to make it keepable, this category still wouldn't be needed for just one person. Bearcat (talk) 19:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added two more. I started the category but I must admit that I am not sure why. It's a medium-sized city (about 250,000 residents) so there is a decent chance that more City Council members are notable but we can recreate it if and when that is found to be the case.--TM21:04, 7 November 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.
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.
Oppose - I am not altogether familiar with Konkani, but if we substitute 'English', there will be English people who write in (say) Latin or Cornish, and (eg) American people who write in English. Also I have a feeling that previous similar cfds have preferred the precision of xxx-language over xxx. (I seemingly created the category: I have no recollection whatever of this or why I did it.) Oculi (talk) 14:03, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reverse merge and purge if necessary. Analogy with a language as widely spoken as English is not helpful when considering those largely confined to a modest-sized area and people. 16:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)Peterkingiron (talk)
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:WP:SMALLCAT for a not inherently notable position. City councillors are not routinely accepted as "inherently" notable, so this isn't readily expandable -- both of the two people here are notable for other reasons (one went on to become mayor and the other served in the state legislature) rather than because they were city councillors per se. So there would need to be a lot more than just two notable former city councillors to justify a dedicated category for them. Bearcat (talk) 19:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CommentWP:SMALLCAT does not even really apply in this situation. Greensboro is a city of almost 300,000 residents. Other comparably-sized cities all have more than a sufficient number of articles on City Council members. For example, Lowell, Massachusetts (population 111,000) has 20.--TM19:11, 9 November 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.
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.
Support. This had been incorrectly copied/linked to Arabic Wikipedia, but I have now redirected the duplicate category there and merged the Wikidata items. – FayenaticLondon13:09, 7 November 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.
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.
@Rathfelder: you don't seem to grasp how the merge process works. Forgive me being long-winded now; I am not seeking to be patronising, but to give a clear explanation.
When you nominate a category, you need to consider what are the parents of that category, and whether its contents (either sub-cats or direct member articles) belong in more than one of those parent categories.
The CFM template may not help you make a nomination for merger to two or more parents, but you can edit the nomination after creating it, or just enter "ALL PARENTS" as the target in the first place.
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.
And I also added Category:Categories by category and "by parametric categorization" to the nomination. Thank you for your willingness to clean up after your own work, but please wait for consensus to develop here rather than moving things mid-discussion. Multiple moves clutter up the page history of the members. – FayenaticLondon18:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Lmatt: you deserve a little historical explanation. Category:Categories by parameter is one of, and perhaps at the top of, many "X by Y" categories that were set up by user:Stefanomione, which made sense to him at the time, but which other editors did not understand intuitively. Many of those have since been dismantled, as a slow team effort. "Categories by parameter" remains even though it is not a good name, because no one has yet thought of a better name. You appear to have missed that Oculi's suggestion above was meant as a bad joke. Categories by thingy, by something, by whatever... Categories by defining aspect??? – that sounds good for a moment, but then again, that description should apply to every single category. Categories by characteristic??? – FayenaticLondon07:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I acknowledge that some of your new names follow Category:Categories by geographical categorization which has been here for 5 years and currently holds categories by culture, language and location (aspects of human geography?). I haven't nominated that one here, because it's worth a separate discussion.
Part of the trouble with your approach is that by emptying categories and creating new ones, instead of renaming via the CFD process, you are leaving behind the page history of the category (which matters for GFDL), as well as the talk page and the interwiki links. – FayenaticLondon09:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
CN1 approach
I propose seeing this branch of the category system in the following manner:
As I see it, this category for now has four subcategories only, because sport, religion, etc are topics, they are no topical categorizations. field and issue are topical categorizations.
Regarding potential confusion between »categories by enzyclopdic topic« and »categories by topic«
»categories by enzyclopdic topic« is a category that lists [classical enzyclopedic] topics by with [all kind of] topics are sorted). In the form ‚X by Y‘, it lists the Ys.
»categories by topic« is a category that lists categories, which are sorted by topic. In the form ‚X by Y‘, it lists the Xs. It would really help to rename it to »topics by topic«.
Editors seem to be channelling their inner Stefanomiones; this can be unwise as User:Lmatt is now blocked indefinitely. Category:Categories by categorization is an example of a category which should be discarded after a moment's thought and not added to "categories still standing as eternal rocks in the ephemeral Wikipedia stream" (User:Stefanomione). As for »topics by topic« ... Oculi (talk) 17:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have neither an idea who Stefanomiones is nor willingness to research him. If you have something substantial to address my post with, that would be helpful. CN1 (talk) 12:32, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@CN1: see my message addressed to Lmatt.[1] I'm afraid that like those two editors, your suggestions so far on these meta-categories are not gaining support, because they are likewise not intuitively clear. – FayenaticLondon14:27, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Oculi Okay, okay, but what is it specifically, that is not clear in these categories that the proposal mentiones or in my proposed approach? People so far did nothing but comparing me to a user who, as far as I understand, might have done some confusing categories, but as I see also did created extremely many useful categories. Just saying the categories are bad and confusing is not enough, WHAT is it about them that confuses you? CN1 (talk) 12:34, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that these kinds of categories are considered not useful in general. I disagree with that because what they are doing is providing an overview on the differnet ways of categorizations itself: categorization by (1) topic, (2) time or (3) space / location. Naturally, the by far largest portion will be about categorizations by topic and here we need to make sure to have at least 2 categories: One that lists all the numerous topics (politics, history, ..) that are getting categorized and another category which lists several parameters [X] by which categories (topic not specified, hence »categories«) are getting categorized: subcategories names have form (category by X). CN1 (talk) 13:04, 13 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Categorically rejecting a naming syntax or type of categorization solely based on ... whatever reason you personally might have with it, is no good practise. I ask in which way letting the categories well alone and let people naturally further develop them to their liking would be disruptive to the rest of Wikipedia. Let it sit. Give it time. See for example Category:Categories by geographical categorization, it's 5 years old and is doing rather well. CN1 (talk) 13:06, 15 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Suppport mergers of Category:Categories by parameter, Category:Categories by category and Category:Categories by parametric categorization. Neutral for the topical, periodical and regional mergers. Currently by parameter by category and by parametric categorization have the same purpose of being the root of the same tree. There is no real distinction between them and they should be merged to avoid confusion and improve navigation. For the others I'm unsure. On the one hand the tree is so large some sort of subcategories are needed on the other it's not intuitive what's in it and what's not making a larger category potentially making it easier to find what you're looking for. I think an overwhelming restructuring of the tree is required and this will probably require a lot of CfDs. Perhaps an upmerge of these three, and maybe some more and then combining related categories together in subsequent discussions could be a good way forward? ‑‑Trialpears (talk) 18:53, 4 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not sure what exactly is going on but several of these categories (listed above) have just been emptied before this discussion has been closed. LizRead!Talk!02:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, Liz' comment refers to a non-admin closure by a participant, which was reverted by JJMC89. The first two nominated categories were deleted on 6 Nov, see LMatt's initial comments; the others are not currently empty. – FayenaticLondon10:39, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support nomination, the split has been made based on trivial characteristics. (I notice that my alt proposal to delete the categories does not get support, and merging is a next best option.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:00, 19 January 2020 (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: Current name "by biographer" does not appear to fit all the members, since only some of the contents have the biographer's name in the article name. – FayenaticLondon08:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It currently contains 2 entries - at full strength I imagine it would contain say 400, including a high proportion of art historians. That's not so good. Please start filling it. Alternatively, it partly seems to duplicate Category:Biographies about artists (also very under-filled), so may be we don't need it. Johnbod (talk) 17:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All except one of these are indeed "older works", I think 250 years. Few if any could be called "biographical dictionaries" as they have a relatively small group of biographies, say 50-200. Category:Biographical compilations on artists surely isn't grammatical, and one of the points of the category is that it contains article that list the subjects covered, with the exception of Benezit Dictionary of Artists, which doesn't list the 170,000 biographical entries the book contains, and should not be in the category. Johnbod (talk) 17:55, 9 November 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.
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.
