Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 9 June 11 >

June 10

Category:Guadalajara, Jalisco

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 as named. Dana boomer ( talk) 01:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Guadalajara, Jalisco was recently moved to Guadalajara, and I think the category names should follow. This is a clear case of overwhelming primary usage to the level of a Category:Paris or Category:London. The city in Mexico has a population of 1.5 million (4.3 million in the metro area). The city in Spain of the same name has a population of 84,000. If this category is renamed, the subcategories can be speedily renamed to match. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:18, 10 June 2012 (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:Legal articles without infoboxes

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. Dana boomer ( talk) 00:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Move this out of articles and include the tagging on the talk page via the project template ({{ WikiProject Law}}. Most all of the other projects tag missing infoboxes on the talk page. There is no reason, even if hidden, for this to be located on the articles. Vegaswikian ( talk) 22:57, 10 June 2012 (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:Venezuelan music albums

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:Albums by Venezuelan artists. If an expert would like to move some to Category:Folk albums by Venezuelan artists, go right ahead.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 10:57, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: These are two different schemes: one by the nationality of the recording artist, another referring to indigenous/folk music of a people group. It seems that they've been combined here. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:25, 10 June 2012 (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:Blue-eyed soul musicians

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:07, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Blue-eyed soul is not a music genre but a subdivision of an existing music genre (soul) based solely on race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sadib en ( talk • contribs) 20:15, 10 June 2012 (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:Football clubs in Kettering

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:09, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Only 2 articles, and no scope for expansion, so it fails WP:SMALLCAT. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 18:13, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 00:11, 12 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> establishments in Vatican City'

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 delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  1. Category:Millennia in Vatican City
    1. Category:3rd millennium in Vatican City
      1. Category:3rd-millennium establishments in Vatican City
        1. Category:21st-century establishments in Vatican City
          1. Category:2000s establishments in Vatican City
            1. Category:2009 establishments in Vatican City

Complete tree of 6 categories to host 1 page. Vatican City is a country which is, by definition, smaller than a city. These categories are very unlikely going to have more than 2 notable establishments per year (and most years are likely going to be missing). Way to fine grained categorisation, especially as a start. Upmerge with possibility to split when the master category becomes too large. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

@Lugnuts, The Bushranger and Koavf .. a larger scheme? Which only makes sense for large countries in recent years, so it is expanded throughout. I think that a serious rethink of that 'larger scheme' should be done. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Yes, a larger scheme: please take all trees into account: you seem to be looking at this from a "vatican City" point only, not from the 2009 point: upmerging this would place this page in the "2009 establisments" cat, and remove it from the "2009 establishments by country" pool, for the sake of "no small cats" only. Such upmergings from some elements from a large group (the 2009 establishments by country) but not others doesn't help anyone but only makes it harder to find (and categorize) things. Fram ( talk) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
I can agree that for 2009 many of the country categories are having a significant number of articles in them - but already quite a number will have 1 or 2 (almost by definition). Going a few years back will only increase that number (plus giving the illogical situation of countries not existing (yet). I am still not convinced that the larger scheme is beneficial, and would need further discussion (see RfC). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the bottom category is not only part of this 6-cat tree, but also of other trees: removing it from those other trees is not helpful at all. That this means that a number of small or even very small cats have to be created is not in itself a problem. Please, when nominating cats for upmerging, consider all trees this cat is a part of, not just one of them. Fram ( talk) 10:23, 11 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> establishments in San Marino'

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 delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:35, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  1. Category:Establishments in San Marino by millennium
    1. Category:3rd-millennium establishments in San Marino
      1. Category:21st-century establishments in San Marino
        1. Category:2000s establishments in San Marino‎
          1. Category:2001 establishments in San Marino‎
          2. Category:2009 establishments in San Marino‎

Complete tree of 6 categories to host 2 pages. San Marino is a country the size of a small city. These categories are very unlikely going to have more than 2 notable establishments per year (and most years are likely going to be missing). Way to fine grained categorisation, especially as a start. Upmerge with possibility to split when the master category becomes too large. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

@Lugnuts, The Bushranger and Koavf .. a larger scheme? Which only makes sense for large countries in recent years, so it is expanded throughout. I think that a serious rethink of that 'larger scheme' should be done. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the bottom category is not only part of this 6-cat tree, but also of other trees: removing it from those other trees is not helpful at all. That this means that a number of small or even very small cats have to be created is not in itself a problem. Please, when nominating cats for upmerging, consider all trees this cat is a part of, not just one of them. Fram ( talk) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> establishments in the Cayman Islands'

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 delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:29, 21 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  1. Category:Establishments in the Cayman Islands by millennium
    1. Category:3rd-millennium establishments in the Cayman Islands
      1. Category:21st-century establishments in the Cayman Islands
        1. Category:2000s establishments in the Cayman Islands
          1. Category:2008 establishments in the Cayman Islands

Complete tree of 5 categories to host 1 page. The Cayman Islands are three small islands. These categories are very unlikely going to have more than 2 notable establishments per year (and most years are likely going to be missing). Way to fine grained categorisation, especially as a start. Upmerge with possibility to split when the master category becomes too large. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:12, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply

@Lugnuts, The Bushranger and Koavf .. a larger scheme? Which only makes sense for large countries in recent years, so it is expanded throughout. I think that a serious rethink of that 'larger scheme' should be done. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 03:47, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, the bottom category is not only part of this 5-cat tree, but also of other trees: removing it from those other trees is not helpful at all. That this means that a number of small or even very small cats have to be created is not in itself a problem. Please, when nominating cats for upmerging, consider all trees this cat is a part of, not just one of them. Fram ( talk) 10:24, 11 June 2012 (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:Images of body parts

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:19, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: contains one image. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 09:46, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - The one member is miscategorized, in my opinion: the image is of an album cover that depicts a body part, not of a body part per se. The distinction lies in the fact that whereas this image could be used to illustrate the article about the album, it could not be used in an article about vision. It might be possible to populate this category with various anatomy-related images; however, either Commons or Category:Anatomy images (currently red) would be better homes for such images. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:26, 11 June 2012 (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:Songs with disputed authorship

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. The Bushranger One ping only 01:30, 16 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Nearly every song has 'disputed authorship', for instance every Lennon/McCartney song is credited as such, yet Lennon or McCartney or somebody else claims they wrote it! 'Disputed authorship' is the stuff of myth and fandom. This category has existing for nearly a year and I am grateful there is still only one entry! If the category was more along the lines "Songs whose authorship has been challenged in Court" my opinion would be different. Richhoncho ( talk) 09:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep: I have added more. Like any category, it should only be added if the relevant facts are stated and cited in the article, e.g. " John Brown's Body". Therefore, this category should only collect articles with notable disputes. I am adding this to the category page as a reminder. – Fayenatic L ondon 18:14, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Question: I'm not familiar with songwriting credits. What would make a song "officially" written by Lennon? Have these cases ever gone to court? I would support a more precise category name if I heard a specific proposal, such as the one suggested by the nominator. CaseyPenk ( talk) 06:52, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Response. All (99.9% anyway) of Beatle songs are credited jointly to Lennon/McCartney and are listed 'officially' as such (i.e. not just on the album cover), however many were written by one without further input from the other. This is a fairly common practice and can be seen in other bands. The copyrightable bit of a song is the words and melody and any distinquishing arrangement (not ANY arrangement). There are plenty notable cases where it is claimed the credited writers are not the actual writers. Even with WP:V all I need is some website to say I co-wrote XXX song and I have created another myth! I am grateful to Fayenatic london for his additional text on this category, which goes a long way to allaying my fears about this category, but it should also be considered to fall under the remit of WP:BLP when appropriate, and that unknown or uncertain is not the same as 'disputed authorship' -- Richhoncho ( talk) 09:46, 12 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Comment -- This should be about cases where two people both claim to have written a song separately, so that there is a dispute between them. If two people wrote it jointly, it is a jointly written song. It is futile to argue over how much each contributed.
  • Delete the fact that we do not have Category:Songs with unknown authorship suggests to me that there is not a need for this level of categorization. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 03:40, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Delete (Listify if wanted). "Disputed" can mean many things. Which cannot be explained for each entry in a category. So this should be a list if anything. - jc37` 23:39, 4 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Comment. Good point, "disputed" is a loaded word - wish I had made this point in my nomination. -- Richhoncho ( talk) 12:28, 13 July 2012 (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:Songs with music by Bernie Taupin

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. None of the article say he wrote any of the music, some specifically say he only wrote the lyrics. Taupin has never claimed he wrote any music. Richhoncho ( talk) 09:30, 10 June 2012 (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:Atlas

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. -- Black Falcon ( talk) 22:58, 20 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per naming convention. The collection of 11 rather varied member pages are already suitably categorised. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:21, 10 June 2012 (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:Maps of astronomical bodies

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:08, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Contains two images that need moving to Commons. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:05, 10 June 2012 (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:Economic maps

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 into Category:Maps. Ruslik_ Zero 19:22, 28 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: per WP:SMALLCAT and the name is grammatically incorrect. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 08:02, 10 June 2012 (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:Flag image galleries

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. The galleries themselves are in Commons; everything else here is a list that happens to be graphical. All the lists are now in Category:Lists of flags and appropriate other container categories.-- Mike Selinker ( talk) 11:07, 30 July 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Needless duplication. There is only one page that deserves to be in the category. The rest are either in Category:Lists of flags (a bit crowed and needs diffusing) or are soft redirects to Commons. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 07:50, 10 June 2012 (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 tree '<period> disestablishments in New Zealand'

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose split to Category:21st century disestablishments and Category:Disestablishments in New Zealand - with the possibility to split by decade (if the century categories become too full) or year (when decade categories become too full) or, alternatively, by reqion (where appropriate for the latter), if they become too large. A logic expansion of this tree will become historically unsound ( Category 9th century disestablishments in the New Zealand, where New Zealand did not exist at that time). Moreover, there is no need to start of with a fine split category when it is unclear whether many articles will be in the bottom categories:

  1. Category:21st-century disestablishments in New Zealand
    1. Category:2010s disestablishments in New Zealand
      1. Category:2012 disestablishments in New Zealand
  2. Category:20th-century disestablishments in New Zealand
    1. Category:2000s disestablishments in New Zealand
      1. Category:2001 disestablishments in New Zealand -- Dirk Beetstra T C 06:51, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now as this tree is currently being created and populated which due to scope takes a long time. It is part of the larger scheme of Category:Disestablishments by country and Category:Disestablishments by year. There are a lot of articles in, for example, Category:2012 disestablishments that need to split by country and type of organisation, and many articles have not even been categorised with year of disestablishment so need tracking down. I personally am opposed to the creation of categories such as 9th century disestablishments in New Zealand prior to the existence of the country, but it does not exist and isn't a reason to delete the existing categories. Tim! ( talk) 09:37, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    I tried to look here (but maybe I am looking in the wrong place), but that does not give much hope for much more. "That need to be split by country" - that gives for some countries trees which are just way to fine grained, and I am not convinced that this needs a level of years, I am not even sure if it needs a level of decades. As I suggest, start with high level, and split where necessary - not split and hope that there will be enough.
    Note that categories like Category:1040 BC disestablishments in China do exist - that sets a very bad precedent. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:58, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    [ This does not seem to give anything that needs categorisation as establishment nor disestablishment .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:05, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative.
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 tree '<period> disestablishments in the Netherlands'

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:12, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply

Propose split to Category:20th century disestablishments/ Category:21st century disestablishments and Category:Disestablishments in the Netherlands - with the possibility to split by decade (if the century categories become too full) or year (when decade categories become too full) or, alternatively, by province (where appropriate for the latter), if they become too large. A logic expansion of this tree will become historically unsound ( Category 5th century disestablishments in the Netherlands, where the Netherlands did not exist at that time - yet people lived in that area in that time). The whole tree now results in many categories which are having at most 1 or 2 members. Of interest is the non-existence of Category:2011 disestablishments in the Netherlands, there have not been any disestablishments been identified to make this category viable (same is true for 2009, 2005, 2004, 2003, and other gaps in below list).:

  1. Category:2010s disestablishments in the Netherlands
    1. Category:2012 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:2010 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  2. Category:2000s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:2008 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:2007 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:2006 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:2002 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:2001 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  3. Category:1990s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1998 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1994 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1980s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    4. Category:1989 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:1986 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    6. Category:1982 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    7. Category:1981 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  4. Category:1970s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1977 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1975 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1973 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1972 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:1971 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  5. Category:1960s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1967 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1966 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1965 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1963 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  6. Category:1950s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1959 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1958 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1956 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1952 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    5. Category:1951 disestablishments in the Netherlands
  7. Category:1940s disestablishments in the Netherlands‎
    1. Category:1948 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    2. Category:1946 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    3. Category:1945 disestablishments in the Netherlands
    4. Category:1941 disestablishments in the Netherlands -- Dirk Beetstra T C 05:44, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep for now as this tree is currently being created and populated which due to scope takes a long time. It is part of the larger scheme of Category:Disestablishments by country and Category:Disestablishments by year. There are a lot of articles in, for example, Category:2012 disestablishments that need to split by country and type of organisation, and many articles have not even been categorised with year of disestablishment so need tracking down. I personally am opposed to the creation of categories such as 9th century disestablishments in New Zealand prior to the existence of the category but it does not exist and isn't a reason to delete the existing categories. Tim! ( talk) 09:38, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    I tried to look here (but maybe I am looking in the wrong place), but that does not give much hope for much more. "That need to be split by country" - that gives for some countries trees which are just way to fine grained, and I am not convinced that this needs a level of years, I am not even sure if it needs a level of decades. As I suggest, start with high level, and split where necessary - not split and hope that there will be enough.
    Note that categories like Category:557 establishments in France do exist - that sets a very bad precedent. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 09:56, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    [ This does not seem to give anything that needs categorisation as establishment nor disestablishment .. -- Dirk Beetstra T C 10:06, 10 June 2012 (UTC) reply
  • Keep, this is being populated and will get a lot more complete. Upmerging them now and downmerging them again afterwards is a useless waste of time and effort. As for the decade cats, a general RfC on these cats is happening at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories#RfC on "Years by country" categories, where input is welcome from all sides and on all issues, to see what appraoch is the most useful and informative. Fram ( talk) 09:28, 11 June 2012 (UTC) reply
    • Can you give a, realistic, consideration how many there will be in either of the lowest level categories? As I suggested in the RfC - for those decades where the year-categories are not likely to contain more than 5 pages on average (is that a reasonable number?), I would suggest to upmerge to the decade level (and for the 19th century, maybe a consideration that century level is fine grained enough to start?). -- Dirk Beetstra T C 11:37, 11 June 2012 (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:Corporate history of Australia

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. The Bushranger One ping only 23:14, 17 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Note that the only member article is not really appropriate for this category. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 04:23, 10 June 2012 (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:Ships by designer

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. The Bushranger One ping only 19:07, 19 June 2012 (UTC) reply
Nominator's rationale: listify into the approp articles. -- Alan Liefting ( talk - contribs) 00:38, 10 June 2012 (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/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_June_10&oldid=1167402436"

Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE