Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 8 December 10 >

December 9[edit]

Category:Telefónica Europe[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: delete, merging either to Telefonica or to O2 United Kingdom. – Fayenatic London 08:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Telefónica Europe is now obsolete as a company. The articles within that which are still part of O2 UK can go in the O2 (United Kingdom) sub-category. There are a number of other articles now not part of Telefónica that do not need to be connected with this category. Cloudbound (talk) 20:39, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- The fact that a company is obsolete is not a reason for deletion. The fact that it was important measn that an artiucle should exist. I would not oppose the category being emptied manually, ensuring that all articles are properly categorised and then deletedm but that should not be attempted until the normal closure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterkingiron (talk • contribs)
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:Fauna of Delaware and Maryland[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: merge to Category:Fauna of the Eastern United States‎. – Fayenatic London 20:27, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Note this is a follow up to the close of this discussion. This one was not listed with the others since it was not in the same parent. Also it covers two states and per the introduction not all fauna exist in both states which would normally be expected for a category covering two states. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:28, 9 December 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.

Category:Figure skaters from Odessa[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: merge as proposed and also to Category:Ukrainian figure skaters, Category:Russian figure skaters, or Category:Chinese figure skaters, as appropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Also propose merging-

Category:Figure skaters from Dnipropetrovsk to Category:Sportspeople from Dnipropetrovsk
Category:Figure skaters from Beijing to Category:Sportspeople from Beijing
Category:Figure skaters from Harbin to Category:Sportspeople from Harbin
Category:Figure skaters from Kharkiv to Category:Sportspeople from Kharkiv
Category:Figure skaters from Kirov, Kirov Oblast‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Kirov, Kirov Oblast‎
Category:Figure skaters from Liaoning‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Liaoning‎
Category:Figure skaters from Perm to Category:Sportspeople from Perm
Category:Figure skaters from Saint Petersburg to Category:Sportspeople from Saint Petersburg
Category:Figure skaters from Yekaterinburg‎ to Category:Sportspeople from Yekaterinburg‎
Category:Figure skaters from Qiqihar to Category:People from Qiqihar
Nominator's rationale: Per multiple previous CFD, just two examples here[1] and here[2], we don't subcategorize at the city level per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 14:34, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose -- Quite a number of these are quite well enough populated to be kept. Furthermore something has gone wrong with many of the additional nom which are expressed here (though not on the notices on the cats to be merged to themselves! Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per consensus at many cfds. The objection is that the intersection of 'figure skater' and 'from Qiqihar' is trivial, regardless of how many there are. There need to be upmerges to other parent categories, eg Category:Chinese figure skaters for the last one. Oculi (talk) 22:18, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dual Upmerge These also need to be updated to the Figure skater categories though, per Oculi. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:11, 10 December 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.

Category:Trees of the United States by state[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: merge as amended by Plantdrew. I have listed those in the Great Lakes region, which is international, for dual upmerging. [3] [4] – Fayenatic London 09:08, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

And upmerging:

each state's category into the region's category
In deciding here these should be upmerged to, I used the existing parent categories. In 2 cases, where no such regional category was present (Rhode Island and DC) I figured that it would have to belong to one specific group, since the surrounding areas all did. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:04, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
And as to the usage of the tree categorization, this would require major discussion about Category:Trees. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 17:06, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support All No objection to an alternative upmerge for RI and DC. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:12, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support and listify As per my previous comments, the contents are perfectly valid to have as lists for the relevant states as readers my be looking for content relevant to a particular state. However, categorising life by polity is a sure way to overwhelm an article with dozens of non-defining categories (Oak, anyone?). SFB 19:06, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • are biospheres perhaps a better way to categorize all biota in US and elesewhere. Do we have information on this. Hmains (talk) 04:22, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Once I formally proposed that we abandon categorization of biota by country in favour of categorization by ecozone: see here. As you can see, it was almost unanimously opposed. I don't know if views have changed since then, but some of the users in that discussion do have some good points about why we should categorize biota by political boundaries. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • We already have Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 6#Category:Moths of Cameroon, which I didn't nominate, and I think there are other recent precedents. Anyway, US states are less than countries. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:11, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes; from what I have seen lately, users seem to want to group biota essentially by large or isolated land mass—by continent, in the case of Africa or Europe; or by country if the country is large, such as the United States; or by island group or island country, since islands often have different biota than the rest of the continents they are included in. Not much of a move towards ecozones or anything of that type. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:57, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • In this case, I'm nominating these categories to be upmerged into already exatant regional categories - if anyone wants those deleted, they can nominate them. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • How do you mean states are less than? By area? Oregon alone has >250,000 square km and would be the 78th largest country on the planet (larger than Guinea and the UK). —Gaff ταλκ 15:36, 12 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
          • Sub-national entities are, by definition, smaller than the country they are a part of. Large countries will have sub-sections that are larger than some countries. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:56, 12 December 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.

Category:Highlife albums by Nigerian artists[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:  Relisted at 2015 JAN 15 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scheme at Category:Highlife albums by artist nationality was deleted. This is too small and narrow to support. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:47, 9 December 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.

Category:Highlife albums by British artists[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: merge. – Fayenatic London 09:36, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The scheme at Category:Highlife albums by artist nationality was deleted. This is too small and narrow to support. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:46, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Additional note: I created this subcategory but not the Nigerian one nominated above. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:47, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per my comments above on Nigerian nomination. SFB 19:02, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, I cannot see scope to expand this one, and Osibisa were not pure highlife anyway. – Fayenatic London 08:26, 11 December 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.

Category:Wagdug Futuristic Unity albums[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 09:39, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: That's where the artist's article is located: Hiroshi Kyono. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:55, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per main article name. SFB 19:03, 10 December 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.

Category:States and territories established in the 21st century[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: keep. – Fayenatic London 09:45, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term State has very specific definitions and there is no reason to allow the terms state and territory to be confused. Legitimate national governments may reorganise their territories and Geopolitical entities may otherwise sieze control of territories. Within the listings, I do not see a creation of actual states. If anything a new structure of "states established" categories should be generated to cover the few entries that may apply. See: List of states with limited recognition. There are very few relevant candidates. gregkaye ✍♪ 09:23, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Good Ol’factory, Peterkingiron, kennethaw88 what do you think of the general concept though. There is a huge difference between the establishment of a territory and the development of the level of international recognition necessary for a state to be established. GregKaye ✍♪ 22:02, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think the categories should be broad and apply to the creation of subnational territories as well as states that are well recognized and states that are presumptively created but not well recognized or not recognized at all. Of course there's a big difference between all of these, but they are all actual or presumptive states or territories that share the establishment year in common, which is the central point of this particular category tree. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A new sovereign state, recognised by most of the rest is a great rarity. There are a number of unrecognised se facto sovereign states (as Carlossuarez46 below). There are probably a few that are widely, but not universally recognised. I think it is much best not to leave well alone. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 16 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the above arguments, and the additional one impled by the nom's question posed above: the difference between a state and territory is often in the eye of the beholder or not subject to "international recognition" Which is Kosovo, the Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus, Palestine, Western Sahara, Somaliland? Some subjective or arbitrary level of recognition that is required is eliminated by lumping the two together, even though it encompasses "territories" which no one would consider a "state". And then there is the US and other uses of "state" as a strictly subnational entity.... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:07, 12 December 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.

Category:Royal Polish people[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: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:43, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. What is this poorly named category supposed to contain? We already have a category:Polish royalty. I have just moved the Category:People from the Lesser Poland which used it as the single parent category to Category:People by region in Poland, so at this point this should be an uncontroversial deletion of a poorly named cat. PS. Can someone speedy move Category:People from the Lesser Poland to Category:People from Lesser Poland? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:14, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Piotrus, I created the category (Royal Polish people) that stands for people who were born in the Kingdom of Poland as there is a similar category in regards to Russia such as Category:Imperial Russian people. I think that such category could qualify for irredentism, but if one exist, there should be consistency. Aleksandr Grigoryev (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Aleksandr Grigoryev You linked to a disambig page. There never was one entity that could be classified as Kingdom of Poland, we instead use categories for smaller entities, ex Category:People from Congress Poland and Category:People of Congress Poland (which probably should be merged). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:25, 11 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- We have a category for Imperial Russia, because the next category is Soviet people and Imperial Russia was bigger than the present Russia. This is a problem that does not arise with Poland, because we can satsifactorily use it for pre-partition Kingdom of Poland, the Polish Grand Duchy of Warsaw (under Imperial Russia), the post WWI republic, and the post WWII republic, despite the variations in the boundaries between these successive polities. I presume that pre-WWII people from Lvov (or Lwow) now in Belorus can come under a Polish cateogry, since it was then in Poland. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:52, 9 December 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.

Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy[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: rename. – Fayenatic London 09:47, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Grammatically speaking, using the verb "have filed" for Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy is OK. So too is Category:Companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy by year. But once we get to specific years, the word "have" should be omitted to remove an awkward language construction that is unnatural in the context because it gives the phrase an air of temporal indefiniteness that is combined with the definiteness of the specific year. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:25, 9 December 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.

Category:SWR Big Band albums[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: delete. – Fayenatic London 09:57, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redlink musical artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:58, 9 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as the category is for albums on an artist that doesn't have an article. -Fimatic (talk | contribs) 04:25, 10 December 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.

Category:Hiphop Tamizha albums[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: keep per the guidelines specific to categories for albums. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:39, 17 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:TOOSOON, as the artist has released only one album so far. Kailash29792 (talk) 03:19, 9 December 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_December_9&oldid=1138399180"