Category:Climbs in cycle racing in Switzerland[edit]
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.
Keep(as the one who broke the category down into per-country categories) Nominating a single one of these per-country subcategories for deletion makes no sense. If you consider the topic unsuitable for categorization, then you'll have to nominate all of them, up to Category:Climbs in cycle racing. Actually all I did is breaking this crowded one down to the individual countries, following the precedent Category:Climbs in cycle racing in the United Kingdom. Now, only the extensive media coverage of the Tour de France, Giro d'Italia and other cycle races, especially in previous pre-doping-scandal decades, brought many of these mountains to international prominence. In fact, quite a number of these mountains are primarily known as climbs in cycling. So IMHO, this aspect is defining, it is actually more defining than individual categories such as Category:2015 Tour de France places etc., though those seem to be viable, too. This individual category has five entries now, though quite obviously there is much room for improvement. The Tour de Suisse has a long tradition going back to 1933, and Switzerland is not exactly poor in mountains, so there's no reason to expect this to remain a WP:SMALLCAT. --PanchoS (talk) 22:38, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The category does now contain 5 articles, but, for example, Col des Mosses doesn't even mention cycling (but does mention hiking) so there's no way that cycling is a defining characteristic (see also WP:DNWAUC); the correct a better action would have been to remove the cycling category from such articles. The same logic does apply to most/all of the other "Climbs in cycle racing" categories, but that doesn't mean we should keep this one - I intend to take those other categories to CFD once this discussion is concluded (if not before). Category:2015 Tour de France places (which contains, for example, Utrecht) is even worse - and is now at CFD. Another example of a similar previous CFD is Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_September_10#Category:Mountain_biking_venues_in_France_etc. DexDor(talk) 05:23, 20 May 2016 (UTC) Adusted DexDor(talk) 21:41, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that Category:Geocaching in the United Kingdom, if including geocaching locations, is a totally different case. Also note that Category:Mountain biking venues in the United States and others weren't deleted in that other nomination. It's all about whether this would usually be a defining feature of the articles categorized in this branch, and unlike with Category:2015 Tour de France places I continue to think they would. At the same time, I agree that removing the category from that Col des Mosses article would be a correct action. I'm a bit annoyed of your lecture thought, as refining categorization clearly was a correct action, too. When doing a task, it's not my duty to do all other tasks at the same time. Neither did I doublecheck the location of a particular mountain climb. You have to take some things for granted when doing a task, though others are free to scrutinize other aspects. --PanchoS (talk) 15:41, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This seems synonymous with Category:Hills and isn't defining. No objection to creating a list of climbs in the Tour de France. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:18, 21 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category per WP:NONDEF. With the different countries, this is a not a one-size-fits-all situation. In Switzerland there are grand cols that are important from a geographical point of view, and incidentally they are visited by a cycle race. On the other hand, Belgium is almost flat (compared to Switzerland), the hills in Category:Climbs in cycle racing in Belgium are totally insignificant from a geographical point of view, but they have become famous and notable by cycle racing. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:02, 26 May 2016 (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: For places such as a port, a station, a bridge being on this trail is a WP:NON-DEFINING characteristic. The articles are already appropriately categorized as a ports/stations/bridges etc. This could be listified to Industrial Heritage Trail, but most of the articles about bridges etc make no mention of this trail so it would be better to create any such list directly from a WP:RS. Note: That it was originally created without any parent categories indicates that it was created by someone who (at the time) didn't really understand categorization. Some examples of previous CFDs for categorization based on what trails things are on: 2013, 2016DexDor(talk) 19:23, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Category:Ruhr Industrial Heritage The defining characteristics is being part of the Ruhr industrial heritage, and the allocation to the trail is the verifiable evidence of this. There may also be other items which can be added to this category which have not been included on the trail. Leutha (talk) 07:24, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The defining characteristics of, for example, Bochum Hauptbahnhof are that it's a railway station and that it's in Bochum. The heritage trail isn't mentioned in the article. DexDor(talk) 21:46, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renaming: the defining characteristic is indeed that the items represent aspects of industrial history that people may want to visit. It is also worth noting that the heritage trail was created to link the items, so it is not just a collection of items along a pre-existing footpath. Note: although it was "created by someone who (at the time) didn't really understand categorization", it was then added to other categories, presumably by someone who does understand categorization... Robevans123 (talk) 16:55, 21 May 2016 (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: Nationality of a piece of writing is less well defined than the writer's nationality. fgnievinski (talk) 10:46, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support comment I would phrase it "writer's" since it's a possessive. But poems don't carry passports; people do. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a trivial intersection. Poems are already subcategorized by language and that should be sufficient. E.g. for a Spanish-language poem it does not matter whether the writer was a Bolivian or a Colombian. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure about that one. Many countries promote and even publish collections of literature, including poetry, that was written by nationals of the country. Growing up in Canada, I was certainly bombarded with all manner of "Canadian poetry" and "Canadian literature" textbooks, and I think this is fairly common worldwide. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:32, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to be more accurate to the contents. Since this is a container category, we can't quite delete.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 5 June 2016 (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:rename as per nom. Good Olfactory, you're welcome to start another discussion about potentially expanding AA to American Association, but I doubt that would receive consensus in isolation. (AA) is currently the consistent disambiguator in categories. Do a search for "Category:AA players" to see what I mean. Those renames would be a broader nomination that far exceeds the scope of this discussion. (non-admin closure) ~ RobTalk 01:04, 9 June 2016 (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 intent of this container category is to group real world manifestations of Harry Potter such as amusement park rides and web sites. Unless a Wikipedia category starts with "Fictional..." I think the assumption here is that all categories are in the real world, which is why we don't have a Category:Real world tree. Also, what is or out of this category seems subjective: the books exist in the real world but they are *not* in the category but the controversies arising from those same books *are* in the category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 01:15, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm also open to either outcome, although I lean toward upmerge. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:51, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support No "real world" category tree, and this category has no articles of its own. Dimadick (talk) 00:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This is an unneeded level of categorization. Even the category Category:Harry Potter controversies which might be confusing as to whether it is for actual controversies, or controversies mentioned in the works, is not much helped by having this parent, since people do not have to look at the parents before categorizing. The potential confusion here is also probably very low.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 5 June 2016 (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.
