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. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:27, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 23:21, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Single-article category. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 04:35, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have g7'd this, as the label name is inaccurate. However I don't think either of the rationales above apply to album label categories. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:02, 19 December 2018 (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 as an unnecessary category layer for these countries, all the above container categories contain only between 1 and 4 subcategories. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:32, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose the parent city cats would then contain a jumble of cities from different countries, together woth articles pertaining to a whole continent. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I would delete all the Category:Religion in Foo by city categories. Religion very rarely varies by city. And there is no good reason to separate religion in cities from religion in rural areas. Rathfelder (talk) 12:13, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a different discussion, this discussion here is about the parent categories of these. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for the reasons given above. – FayenaticLondon 08:56, 7 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Dual Upmerge with no objection to recreating if any ever get up to 5 or so articles. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:25, 26 January 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: My first choice is to delete both. I do not see how it helps collaboration to categorize users who like or use VisualEditor, which would mean these categories violate WP:USERCAT. My second choice would be to merge both to a new category, titled Category:Wikipedians who use VisualEditor, which would better fall in line with our established naming conventions. VegaDark (talk) 10:05, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Wikipedians who use VisualEditor. Unlike categories about users' favourite sports teams or most disliked foods, this one is relevant to WP editing and therefore useful. ReykYO! 10:23, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds very much like a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Just because those categories exist does not mean they too should not be deleted. I nominatedCategory:Wikipedians_who_have_turned_off_VisualEditor in the past, which ended in no consensus at the time, but perhaps it's time to renominate that as I still agree 100% that it should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
How is it useful to Wikipedia to categorize those who "like" a particular editor? And how does "who like" match better with "Who have turned off"? VegaDark (talk) 19:10, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry about it this is sheer timewasting. Let user cats be, unless they are causing problems. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:07, 19 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
Merge both as per SD0001 above, keeping "wikipedians who like" because that's the most populated. I don't use Visual Editor, but it's not hard to imagine that fellow users benefit from an easy way to find each other to consult about issues which may arise. I don't, however, see the point of two such categories, one (using or who use) is sufficient. – Athaenara ✉ 23:55, 22 December 2018 (UTC) 03:50, 24 December 2018 (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. No prejudice against speedy renomination. (non-admin closure)DannyS712 (talk) 04:40, 14 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article was moved to North Jutland Region, a name that matches usage more closely. This category and its subcategories should be renamed accordingly. — JFGtalk 06:12, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Prodedural comment should all the sub-categories with "North Denmark" in the name be nominated also? Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:25, 23 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Concur with procedural comment. @JFG: please add all categories with North Denmark in the name to this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:11, 1 January 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 result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:28, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category of redirects which all point to the same album containing zero information about the songs themselves beyond the track listing is not beneficial to readers and I, personally, would find completely frustrating. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 05:05, 18 December 2018 (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:Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands[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.
The result of the discussion was:do not merge. -- Black Falcon(talk) 03:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Kingdom of the Netherlands and the Netherlands are governed by a single entity. Note that there's only a single Wikipedia article: a duplicate category is just confusing. The governments of Aruba, Curaçao and Sint Maarten are regional / semi-autonomous entities, but the government of the Netherlands is the government of the sovereign state. ghouston (talk) 03:39, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support- yeah, that seems a sensible way forward. ReykYO! 08:58, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am withdrawing my oppose based on nominator's comment of 19 December 20:05 and 21:31. Those are convincing arguments not to start with the entire tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
the Netherlands does formally exist as a subdivision of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, but it doesn't have a separate government. Category:Politics of the Kingdom of the Netherlands at least should also be merged though. ghouston (talk) 23:04, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Or perhaps I should say the Netherlands does have its own government, which basically also governs the Kingdom, with the exception of the local affairs of the 3 islands where they have autonomy. ghouston (talk) 23:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Given this confused structure, I think merging Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands with Category:Netherlands would be a useful (minor) simplification. There's an overlap of over 98% between the two anyway (of population and economy, and probably land area). I'd keep the category Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands, to make it clear that it was about the state and not the "constituent country". ghouston (talk) 08:34, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghouston: en.wp categories are a directional lattice, so if properly set up there should be multiple paths.
The existence of the convoluted path which you have discovered suggests that some categories may be incorrectly parented. It is not necessarily evidence of a fundamentally-flawed structure. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:23, 21 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Ghouston's arguments are important, but I think that after consideration they mean that the structure should be sorted out. Only after this is done, should we consider which if any categories should be deleted. All the best: RichFarmbrough, 12:14, 19 December 2018 (UTC).[reply]
I agree that the present categorisation is confusing. The complexities can be explained in the articles, but not, effectively, in the categories. Rathfelder (talk) 12:17, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The structure should be sorted out, but I don't think there's any doubt that the government category should be merged in the meantime. It would have the advantage that a log message of the deletion could point to this discussion where it's explained. Perhaps the structure won't be sorted out for years, if ever. ghouston (talk) 20:05, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I can imagine a request to merge Category:Kingdom of the Netherlands with Category:Netherlands being contested and rejected, since the two entities do actually exist. Unlike the idea that the two entities have two different governments, which I don't think can be defended. ghouston (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
oppose the two categories have different content as one would expect since they pertain to two different entities. Hmains (talk) 03:10, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Can you explain why you say there are two entities (governments)? I didn't really expect so much opposition to this particular category merge, but I always underestimate the power of the status-quo. ghouston (talk) 04:19, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Purge, most subcategories do not belong here, they are about the government of the separate constituent countries rather than about the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:23, 20 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]
This issue is presumably solved after the discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:35, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for now. This is at least in part a function of the broken nomenclature which we use for the govt-by-country: "Govt of Foo"
In nearly every country, there is a national govt, and one or more levels of subsidiary govt. The second level may be a state or region; the next a country or department; the smallest may be a commune (France, Italy) or parish (England).
In most cases the top level is indeed known as "Govt of Foo". But apart from all the various levels of local govt (which are usually known as "council" or similar), we also have federal states and countries-of-countries where there are other entities whose title is "Government of X".
So what we are doing for now making the title "Govt of Foo" fulfil two difft roles: one as a topic category for the national (or federal government), and one as a container category for all the various level of govt within that country.
This causes much confusion. It could be resolved relatively simply, by having a parent "Cat:Govt in Foo", whose subcats would include e.g. "Cat:Local govt in Foo", "Cat:Regional govt in Foo" and a category for the national/federal govt which we could "Cat:National govt of Foo"/"Cat:Federal govt of Foo" or maybe plain "Cat:Govt of Foo" (if editors are happy that the difference between "in" and "of" is suffiient distinction).
I have not examined the Netherlands cats for a while. But I think that making a decision on these cats should be deferred until we have cleaned up the broader terminological jungle; I think it is likely that the Netherlands situation will become much clear once we stop using "Govt of Foo" to mean two closely related but different things. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 06:19, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think the government structure of the Netherlands is just confusing, and it's not surprising that Wikipedia is confused. The people who edit the articles and categories are unlikely to be experts on its constitution and government. Of course my argument seems odd, that the Kingdom of the Netherlands is governed by one of its constituent countries instead of having a government of its own, and perhaps this is different to every other country, with the possible exception of Denmark. If Category:Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands is retained, I'd suggest making it a container category with nothing but 4 items that Marcocapelle put in Category:Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands by country. Foreign relations and defence are formally "Kingdom" affairs, but they are handled by the Government of the Netherlands with minimal involvement from the other countries (which are only tiny islands after all. They each get a representative on a committee, but can never out-vote the Dutch cabinet). ghouston (talk) 10:29, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yet the 7 articles that are currently in this category are valid and unambiguous content of the category so oppose merging. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:34, 22 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is legally inaccurate to say that the Netherlands has a govt but that the Kingdom does not. The govt is, legally speaking, the sovereign's govt, as in the UK. Laurel Lodged (talk)
The Kingdom and the Netherlands (constituent country) are both governed, but it seems to me they are both governed by the same entity. It doesn't make sense to speak of separate governments for the two. If the categories were "Governance of ..." then I wouldn't have a problem with them, but with the current structure it's implying that there is a regional government of the Netherlands which is a subentity of the government of the Kingdom. If that is the case, where are the headquarters of the two governments, and who are their executive leaders? Are they democracies, and if so when were elections last held? When did the two governments last have a major (or even minor) dispute? ghouston (talk) 21:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think there's any legal issue, since the merged category would be the "sovereign's govt", and the semi-autonomous regional governments would be subcategories. You can take "Government of the Netherlands" as being short for "Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands" when required. ghouston (talk) 23:20, 26 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The Kingdom and the Netherlands (consituent country) are not governed by the same entity. Moreover, the 7 articles in this category are about how the government of the Kingdom differs from the government of the Netherlands. Therefore it is a perfectly valid category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like you're proposing a re-direct solution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:34, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At https://www.government.nl/ministries, the Government of the Netherlands includes Defence and Foreign Affairs as two of its ministries. Does the "Government of the Kingdom" even have a website? ghouston (talk) 22:49, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The presence of the Defence and Foreign affairs subcategories are questionable indeed, but that is not a reason for merging the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:29, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support: There does not exist a "Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands". The Government of the Netherlands is the state authority. UN, Nato and the EU all use the Netherlands as a common name for the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Kisualk (talk) 20:29, 15 January 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 result of the discussion was:Delete. Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:29, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Each of these categories contains only the main article and a single page, Essex-Caledonia-Orleans Vermont Representative District, 2002–12, about a state-level electoral district that covers many towns. The latter should be removed from the town categories not included in this nomination. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:15, 18 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- a clear case of overcategorisiation. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:07, 22 December 2018 (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.
