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: Match the style of other categories, for instance Category:Recipients of the Distinguished Service Order and all other award categories that I know of. Catrìona (talk) 23:25, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per WP:OCAWARD. A list will also give the opportunity to provide more background information about whether it is an individual or a film award. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:05, 15 July 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:keep. ℯxplicit 03:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is huge overlap. Most of the model makers also make toys. Many of the toy makers make models. The distinction between the two is unhelpful. Rathfelder (talk) 21:05, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The two articles Toy and Scale models clearly show that a distinction can be drawn between 'toys' and 'models'. I am not sure that merging the manufacturers of those two items is helpful. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:25, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This discussion is about the companies, not the models. Most of the companies that make scale models also make toys - or sell the models as toys. Maintaining a distinction among the manufacturers is not viable. Rathfelder (talk) 21:08, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maintaining that distinction (among the manufacturers) is viable, even if it means a lot of duplication. What matter is whether a merge would be helpful. I am tending towards keep. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:28, 10 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom & if there are scale model manufacturers who are NOT toy companies create a separate category for those (Category:Industrial model manufacturers perhaps). For many models are toys, whether intended to be or otherwise. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:00, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Model or toy is a subjective issue - My dad made models and I played with them as toys. Rathfelder (talk) 16:38, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Some models are a variety of toy, but not all models are toys. I was once asked to take a model about 3-foot long of a component less than an inch long to barrister's chambers in London in connection with patent litigation. The clay sculpture to be covered in plaster of Paris for a bronze casting is also a model, as is the equivalent to be covered in loam to cast a cannon or bell. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:02, 15 July 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:Philosophy and thinking infobox templates[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 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.
Category:Athletics clubs in the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale: It is unclear how one can distinguish an "athletics club" from a general "sports club". This naming also presents ambiguity over whether the category relates to the sport of athletics, which is already covered at Category:Track and field clubs in the United States. SFB 15:11, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case purge -- In American usage, I understand what I (in England) call athletics is "Track and field" in America. Possibly, the subject should be retained as a cat-redirect or a dab-category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:05, 15 July 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:Underground mines in the Isle of Man[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:Not merged. Timrollpickering 08:13, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No you aren't. In many countries there are both underground and surface mines. But not in the Isle of Man.Rathfelder (talk) 14:44, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep nomination is flawed and unhelpful to the category tree structure. Hmains (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above and my comments in the related discussions below. TurganTalk 23:22, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A gravel quarry is (excepting in rare circumstances) a surface mine, thus while all the mines on Isle of Man that have articles are underground, not all mines on Isle of Man are underground. --kelapstick(bainuu) 18:47, 20 July 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:Not merged. Timrollpickering 08:14, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unneccessary. The categories for individual countries - where there is categorisation by surface/underground is useful. This intermediate category isnt. Rathfelder (talk) 09:46, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, as long as we have an underground mines category for a substantial number of countries, it does not make sense the merge the parent category. See also discussion below. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment is mining sufficiently differentiated between underground and surface? Is it purely a question of access? or are the techniques sufficiently different to merit two category trees. Presumably a surface mine is still accessing under-the-surface minerals rather than just collecting what's in plain sight on top and not making any change to the landscape or removing anything below the surface. Aren't some mines of both types. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:06, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Many mines are both surface and underground, and change over time. The distinction between a quarry and a surface mine is also a bit vague. "A quarry is the same thing as an open-pit mine from which minerals are extracted." Category:Quarries Only a minority of articles about mines are characterised as surface or underground, and I doubt if the categorisation is useful to many readers. Rathfelder (talk) 16:43, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is definitely a fair question, but in any case we can't merge the nominated category without also merging all country categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:02, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Definitely an issue about the subcats. But if this were approved, couldn't we just assume that the tree merges all the way down. Procedurally, someone would need to tag them all, but if we have duplicate categories for a short duration of both "mines" and "underground mines" cats for every country while awaiting their merger isn't an untenable situation. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:52, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Not in this case, because nominator has explicitly stated in the nomination below that the distinction is relevant in some countries. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:13, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In short, to answer your 3 questions - Yes, No, and Yes. And there is a third categorization, Solution mining, which depending on your definition of what a mine is, could be either of the first two, or different. Most who are involved or follow the industry would consider them different. A "quarry" is typically a mine for the extraction of industrial minerals like Stone, Marble, Silica Sand, etc. Significantly different methods are employed than would be used at a conventional open-pit mine. TurganTalk 23:45, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per well thought arguments above Hmains (talk) 17:18, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The converse is open-cast mines. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:06, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As per my comments in the discussion below concerning the parent category. TurganTalk 23:19, 19 July 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:Not merged. Timrollpickering 08:15, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Superfluous category. There is a category Category:Surface mines to distinguish the minority of mines which are not underground. Rathfelder (talk) 09:40, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Category:Underground mines in the United Kingdom is OK, and its obvious ancestors (in the usual formation of category trees prevalent throughout category space) include Category:Underground mines by country and Category:Underground mines. It is disappointing when long-term contributors to cfd such as Rathfeld (first misadventure into cfd in 2015) do not extend to other editors the courtesy of combining similar noms despite repeated requests to do so (see eg here). Oculi (talk) 12:50, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing when long-term contributors such as Oculi resort to abuse rather than discussing the merits of proposals. In reality many mines and mining companies operate both underground and on the surface, and very few of the articles are characterised in this way. I prefer to look at the content of the articles rather than coming with presuppositions about the usual formation of category trees. It doesnt appear that this distinction is terribly important in the mining industry. Rathfelder (talk) 15:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment while I'm willing to buy the argument that we do not need an underground tree because mines are usually underground (so that only surface mines should be categorized as exceptions), Oculi has a point, this should have been one nomination with a few dozens of categories (all country categories) being nominated at once. The trade-off when nominating is: little effort and zero effect, or more effort and actually reaching something. Or if you are too unsure about a nomination and do not want to spend that much effort to begin with, you might first want to start a non-committal discussion at the relevant WikiProject talk page and/or Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:13, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not planning to nominate all the country subcategories. In some countries the surface/underground distinction is useful. I think they should be considered individually. Rathfelder (talk) 20:57, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case, it certainly does not make sense to merge the parent category, i.e. oppose. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 9 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment awaiting response(s) to my questions/comments posted in the above discussion to see whether two trees are really necessary. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There may be some misunderstanding of the nomenclature in mining. See Mining#Surface mining and Mining#Underground mining. Both are in use around the world and both dig into the earth. But the tunnels, roof support, and hoisting needed for underground mining means using different equipment and construction techniques from the open pit used in surface mining. That an article about a mine may not mention the methods in use is a failure of the article, not a reason to stop categorizing. An area may have both types of mine, but any operation is either one or the other. Given the expense of underground mining, surface mining is a least as frequent as underground mining. So it does not make sense to keep Category:Surface mines and eliminate this one. StarryGrandma (talk) 03:49, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep per well thought arguments above Hmains (talk) 17:17, 14 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
merge to parent(s). This is a wholly unnecessary category level, merely housing a single subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:08, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I seem to recall there was discussion among members of the Mining WikiProject when this tree structure was implemented and it was agreed at that time that there are three major classifications of mining methods that could be distinguished (Underground, Surface, and Solution). There are also variations of these styles, but that would have been overkill. Which "type" is most prevalent really depends on the commodity, the area of activity, and when the mining occurred. There are a significant number of all three "types" throughout the world, so stating that any one method is a minority is incorrect and an extreme over-simplification of an already simplified category tree. TurganTalk 23:17, 19 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep generally based on rationale by Turgan, and while I don't have any data, I would think that most mines are surface mines (I don't know if anyone could definitively answer that question). Not that it particularly matters, we don't inherently categorize by exception (and I don't think this is an exception). The fact that Underground Mines by Country is the only subcategory doesn't mean that it should be or will always be. Thinking off hand, it could easily be subcategorized into stope mines and cave mines, which are both distinct types of underground mines. One could even add a category for underground gold/copper/salt mines, although I think that is a little too detailed for a category.--kelapstick(bainuu) 18:43, 20 July 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.
"If you think something needs to be upmerged, make sure that all parent categories are included in the nomination as merge targets (or make sure you have a good reason not to include all of the parents)." This advice can be found, not made long ago and buried in some obscure place far from Rathfelder's gaze, but on their own talk page in April 2018. I would be grateful if Rathfelder could commit either to heeding such advice or avoiding cfd and category space altogether. Oculi (talk) 14:27, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We havent broken down steel companies to any other regions. Even in the USA they are not broken down into states. There doesnt seem to be any good reason for this particular subdivision. The only entry is for companies in Karachi. The articles both seem to be about companies, not about the mills themselves, as is the case with many of the articles about steel mills.. Rathfelder (talk) 14:48, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
At present Category:Manufacturing plants in Pakistan contains 3 articles at the top level and 4 articles in subcats (2 shipyards and 2 steel mills in Karachi). The nom has the effect of removing the 2 steel mills in Karachi from Category:Manufacturing plants in Pakistan. What is the rationale for this? Is a steel mill in Karachi not a manufacturing plant in Pakistan? Oculi (talk) 15:34, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The two articles in the Karachi subcat are about companies named Steel Mills, they are not about the actual plants. So Rathfelder is right in not proposing to merge to Category:Manufacturing plants in Pakistan. It would be helpful to rename/merge the Karachi subcat as well, in order to avoid this confusion. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge upwards to eliminate this layer - probably not a full upmerge. The only content is about Karachi, which can go direct into a Pakistan category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:12, 15 July 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. Timrollpickering 12:43, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, hardly any of the nominated categories contains more than 1 article. The second part of the listed categories, which are nominated for deletion, are container categories which naturally become empty after the proposed mergers have been implemented. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose - there was an Italian peninsula in the Middle Ages, but there was certainly no Republic of Italy. This is a gross anachronism, which is bound in the confusion between Italian peninsula (shortened "Italy") and Republic of Italy (shortened "Italy"). In Wikipedia Italy redirects to the modern republic. Suggest Alternative reverse merge of all "Italy" categories at the Middle Ages time into Papal States year categories.GreyShark (dibra) 10:03, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "Suggest Alternative reverse merge of all "Italy" categories at the Middle Ages time into Papal States year categories." Is this a joke? The Papal States covered areas in Lazio, Marche, Umbria, Romagna, and Emilia. They never covered the entire Italian Peninsula, where several other states were competing for power and territories. And there were parts of the Papal States which were outside the Peninsula: Avignon and Comtat Venaissin. Avignon remained under Papal control from 1309 to 1791, when annexed by the Kingdom of France during the French Revolution. Dimadick (talk) 12:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dimadick, well at least there were Papal States in the Middle Ages; there was certainly no Italy (modern Republic of Italy). When you think of Italy - you consider borders of modern Italian Republic, but there was no such a thing until 19th century. If you like - you can propose rename of all Italy year categories at the Middle Ages period into Italian Peninsula year categories.GreyShark (dibra) 12:58, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If I understand correctly this is not a strong oppose against merging as such, but against Italy as a merge target. However, in this discussion there was consensus to keep medieval Italian categories, so it is pointless to bypass those categories in this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Papal States was a polity, Italy was in that period merely a historical geographic reference. Not the same concepts. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination certainly does not intend to get rid of Papal States categories, the only intention is to create more robust categories for the Papal States, i.e. at century level. At the same time the articles should remain somewhere in the year trees as well. My preference would have been to have "year in Europe" as the second merge target, but that proposal didn't make it (see earlier link) so that is why I am defaulting to "year in Italy" as the second merge target. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:18, 13 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Support all The alternative is to unwind a slowly building consensus on these matters which would be a shame. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:00, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose in part -- Italy was (and is) a peninsula. I support the policy of eliminating category twigs (where they are not trees), but this is going too far and too fast. We cannot allow categories for every small polity, but Italy can be split into a series of reasonably stable (and long-enduring) polities, including the kingdom of Naples (later Two Sicilies), Papal States, Tuscany, Piedmont, etc. Each of these should have its own tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nomination certainly does not intend to get rid of Papal States categories, the only intention is to create more robust categories for the Papal States, i.e. at century level, at least in the Middle Ages when there is little content. I suppose every polity, large or small, can keep its own tree, but the size of the tree will vary with the size and duration of the country. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:08, 15 July 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. Timrollpickering 12:45, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: split projects from events, then upmerge in the projects tree or in the events tree as a natural consequence of this earlier discussion. The amount of content per country is too small to create separate cancelled projects categories per country and separate cancelled events categories per country, therefore the split is now combined with a merge. Some countries currently do not have any cancelled event, others do not have any cancelled project, in that case an immediate merge is proposed. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:02, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment although I support the idea, many of these have nothing but daughter categories that don't neatly split between projects and proposals. Take, e.g., Category:Cancelled projects and events in the Soviet Union, with two daughter cats. Into which side of the proposed split would those daughters go, and why? I see this problem in many of the categories above that have no "events" like cancelled olympics or some such previously set but unavoidably cancelled. @Marcocapelle:Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:13, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, assuming who ever is splitting those that are splits knows what he or she is doing, I'm fine with the proposal. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:48, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Many of these have "cancelled military projects in foo" and "abandoned military projects in foo" as their only content; and I am not sure what the difference is: the target should be e.g. Category:Cancelled projects in Sweden. UK and Sweden also have cancelled engineering projects (which will fit). A few have cancelled elections, referendums, and other events. These need to be purged into a separate category: there are few enough for the target to be a Europe-wide category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If there is enough content, it is certainly a good idea to insert an extra layer for Cancelled projects under Proposals. That is however not yet the case in Sweden. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:28, 15 July 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2018 July 27#Category:Czech Lion Awards winners (people). ℯxplicit 03:56, 27 July 2018 (UTC)
