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: The tree for Category:Indian film directors has neither branches for directors by state nor male directors. Small category not useful for navigation (with a typographic error to boot). The sole subject is already more meaningfully categorised under "Telugu film directors". SFB21:03, 13 October 2014 (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The result of the discussion was:nomination withdrawn since the articles in question have been recatted in a way that the structure now makes sense. Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Competition by year subcategory which only contains four of the years, in every case sitting alongside rather than replacing Category:Eurovision Young Musicians, while all of the thirteen other years in which the competition has been held are just filed directly in Category:Eurovision Young Musicianswithout this — making this an unnecessary duplication. Just delete; upmerging not necessary since the four entries which are in here are all doublecatted anyway. Bearcat (talk) 08:30, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are actually more articles for the Eurovision Young Musicians by Year, going biennially from 1982 to 2014. See Eurovision Young Musicians#Participation. The contest itself is still going strong for the Eurovision (network) of events, so the category itself will more than likely be a continued usage. There are tons of other categories on Wikipedia that contain fewer articles than this one, so the rationale seems rather desolate. All these annual articles have been in a poorly neglected state, and I am slowly working my way through them all to improve and bring them to a high Wikipedia standard. This is proven by the recent DYK of Eurovision Young Musicians 1982. WesMouse09:43, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The main parent category is already serving this purpose and there is little other content to dissect the year articles from. SFB21:52, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because I am still in mid-process of bringing the subject up to standards of it's main project area. the "by year" category will serve purpose for the annual articles and maybe the participants (but I need to look into that). The "parent" category will serve purpose on [Country] in the Eurovision Young Musicians, which would be the correct usage, similar to how the categories are used on other topics covered by ProjectEurovision. For example, the project uses Category:Eurovision Song Contest on certain types of articles and Category:Eurovision Song Contest by year on annual articles. If we're to delete a category on the basis that a "parent one is already used", then we'd need to look at all similar categories (not just Eurovision-related ones, but the entire Wikipedia cats) and remove "by years" just because they have "parent cats". There's also been several discussions via the project regarding categories (most are archived now) but upon quick glance there has been considerable support for the sub-cats. On a side note, has the nominator notified the project's talk page of this discussion? WesMouse13:47, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I've just realised that the categories are all topsy-turvy in the first place. Looking at WP:ESC continued practice on annual articles, they categorise them with "by year" - yet this practice had never been done on the Young Musician articles - that has now been rectified. The main category Category:Eurovision Young Musicians would become used to categorise country articles and the main EYM article. As there are no country articles as of yet, then the "parent" category would appear to be redundant - and once country articles have been created (which is the plan for the project) then the "parent" category would be used regularly. Perhaps allowing some time for these articles to be created so that these categories can be designated to the correct articles accordingly, would be a logical step? WesMouse14:48, 14 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: I think "by" categories should only be used when there is an existing need to split out information (not the case here). The main Eurovision Song Contest category is a very different case because (a) there is a lot of assorted material in the main cat A Song for Europe (Father Ted) and (b) the category covers more than the competition itself, branching out to the other related national/junior festivals etc (but strangely not this one?). There is no content to speak of that we need to split the "by year" articles from. It doesn't make navigation of the content superior in any way. SFB19:42, 15 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Sillyfolkboy: this is the issue I am speaking of. I have no idea why ProjectEurovision haven't created articles for individual countries that participate in the Eurovision Young Musicians, in the way they have done for countries who participate in Senior and Junior Eurovision contests. But this is something that is being addressed with the aim to create such articles and fully expand the topic so that it is in-line with similar topics within the project. Also from what I have been informed, the project itself is planning on having a full review of the categorising matter by holding a RfC on the project's talk page in the next couple of months. So it may be worthwhile to put this CfD on-hold as the upcoming RfC may result in an outcome to mass-delete quite a few other categories. WesMouse11:12, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Wesley Mouse: My guess would be that such articles weren't created before because this isn't a major event like Eurovision. That said, even upon the creation of a country-based category, the existence of a year category would turn the main category into pretty much a container. I think readers expect to see editions in the main category when there is little or no other content gathered there (cf. Category:Summer Olympic Games). SFB17:42, 16 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Update: All the relevant [Country] in the Eurovision Young Musicians articles have been created using the information held by our Dutch Wikipedia colleagues and have been placed under the Category:Eurovision Young Musicians. The current annual articles are housed under the Category:Eurovision Young Musicians by year. And on the contrary I have enjoyed this little exercise, as I have discovered a plethora of sources and books that also provide in-depth information to be able to expand a topic that was thought to be "not as major an event as Eurovision", when in fact it is as equally important an event in the Eurovision Family of Events. So with that in mind we're now able to create [County] in the Eurovision Young Musicians by year articles, which again will be able to house the Category:Eurovision Young Musicians by year. On the flip side though, it has been discussed by a few members of ProjectEurovision to hold a RfC to debate in the next week or two, over a restructuring of the entire Project's categorisation strategy and potential reform of them all. So would it be wise to place this CfD on-hold so that that discussion can take place? Wes Mouse | chat14:26, 22 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Oohhh that countries one. I hadn't even notice another user make one. Hang on, that sub-cat was created 11 days after this one that is being debated for CfD. So if a countries one is fine as a sub-cat, yet the yearly one is not, then I've just gained a headache. Anyhow, I'll be opening up the RfC soon, as a fellow project member agrees that we need to be reviewing an overhaul/reform of the project as something's are becoming overzealous. Will keep you all posted. Wes Mouse | T@lk23:26, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I hadn't come back to this until now, but I see that since my original nomination the content and structure of the parent category have been reorganized in a way that the category now makes much more sense than it did at the time. Nomination withdrawn accordingly. Bearcat (talk) 22:11, 7 November 2014 (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: These categories are categorizing articles about drugs (e.g. Amoxicillin, Naloxone) by their status in different countries. Such categorization could potentially lead to articles being in dozens of such categories (Germany, UK ...) - especially if it was extended to things other than pregnancy ("Drugs approved for use by children in <country>", "Drugs approved for use by people with <condition>" etc). This could be listified. If kept the top category should be renamed to something like "Drugs by pregnancy category". See also Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Pharmacology#Category:Pregnancy_Category. DexDor (talk) 06:17, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: These pregnancy categories are the ones available in the {{Drugbox}}, and, if kept, this would limit their number to 12, apart from the possibility of getting the drugbox to auto-handle categorisation. Without this limitation, categorisation (or listification) would be very hard to maintain. I don't thing adding "Drugs approved for use by children in <country>" etc. to the drugbox would get consensus, so I suggest limiting this discussion to the categories at hand (plus the ones not created: A(US), B1(AU), B2(AU), X(AU)). --ἀνυπόδητος (talk) 07:59, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. That would not be an obstacle to putting information in drugbox templates. The categories were created in good faith but naively as part of a student class project, but they just are not useful here as defining characteristics of the pages in the categories, and the categorization is based upon rather obscure and non-notable sourcing. I suppose some of the information about drug classification could instead be presented in Pregnancy Category. --Tryptofish (talk) 15:09, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all it's not appropriate (and probably not defining) to any particular pharmaceutical what it's contraindications would be, including those notices imposed by government regulation or custom. Would we have a whole slew of drugs in the "don't drive or operate machinery after taking" or "may cause drowsiness" or "may cause nausea" or "may cause dependence" categories? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:25, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all This type of information is better discussed in prose, or collected in lists where description of the assessment/country interpretations can be made. Drugs may be classified differently by various people, and even reclassified by them. Due to its complex nature, this is not a suitable attribute to be categorising by. SFB21:07, 13 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If kept, they should be renamed to "drugs by pregancy category", etc, but I do not think we need this at all. POssibly listify. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 16 October 2014 (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.
