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 not useful to subcategorize actors by the intersection of child actor status with the "film vs. television" medium distinction. Even more so than adult actors, child actors really don't "specialize" in one medium or the other, but almost always have both film and television roles in their filmographies -- so obsessively overcategorizing them this way just creates excessive category bloat as each kid gets catted as "nationality child actors" and "nationality film actors" and "nationality television actors" and "film child actors" and "television child actors". By and large, further, these have been used only for a partial random selection of Indian and Filipino child actors, with only one male and one female child actor from any other country on earth ever having been added to any of these categories at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:03, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Keepfor now. The rationale and the proposal don't match.
Category:Child actors by medium is a container category, with a total of 21 subcats in two trees.
Bearcat has nominated only 10 of the 21 subcats and has bizarrely proposed deletion rather than upmerger. So long as any of the subcats exist, it makes no sense to delete the container category.
I am also unpersuaded that child actors don't "specialize" in one medium or the other. The only child actor who I have ever personally known (they are know a middle-aged non-actor) worked exclusively in television. That's obviously only a personal anecdote, but even if the nom did decide to nominate all the subcategories, then I'd want to see some evidence to support their assertion. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
17:18, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
The subcategories I haven't listed here are of a completely different type — "Child actors in Specific-Indian-Regional cinema" — which would have to be batched and considered completely separately from this, because the reasons for or against those will be completely different from the reasons for or against the ones I've batched here. I haven't knowingly excluded a single category whose questionability hinges on the grounds I've specified here, rather than on completely different grounds that require a separate batch, and even if I did accidentally miss something the stragglers can easily still be added to the batch. And the vast majority of the articles are already in the appropriate other categories anyway, and don't need to be upmerged anywhere at all — so there's no need to actively propose an upmerger, when simple editor attention can easily pick out the one or two oddball exceptions that actually need a replacement category rather than just a straight removal.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Sorry, @
Bearcat, but that is a multiply weird response:
Indian child actors are not of a completely different type to other child actors, unless you are measuring skin colour, which I assume your are not. They are child actors, just like child actors in Dublin or Dubai or Durban of Dallas or Dusseldorf. I am finding it very hard to read that comment as anything other than "Indian child actors are not normal child actors", which would be a highly problematic stance. Please clarify what on earth you do actually mean?
I did not say or imply that the actors are of a different type. I said that the categories are drawing a different marker line (i.e. Specific-Indian-Regional cinema) around them, which needs to be considered separately — the arguments for or against subcategorizing actors by whether they perform in Kannada or Telugu or Bollywood work are not the same as the arguments for or against subcategorizing actors by whether they work in film or television. Not because the actors are a different type, but because the category is grouping them in a significantly different way.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:43, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Not what I said either. Not "fine", just that they need to be considered as a separate batch from these because it's a completely different set of considerations that needs to be phrased and addressed very differently.
Bearcat (
talk)
22:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat, it doesn't look to me like a separate thing at all. You haven't identified any meaningful way in which there is, as you claim, a completely different set of considerations ... and have offered no rationale for zapping most of the higher level categories while you evaluate the lower ones.
And I still don't see any evidence to support your core assertion that child actors really don't "specialize" in one medium or the other, but almost always have both film and television roles in their filmographies.
Oppose I am not convinced that this category tree aids in navigation, but a deletion instead of a merger would leave many articles uncategorized.
Dimadick (
talk)
17:59, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
It would leave few to no articles uncategorized, because very close to zero of these articles aren't already in the appropriate "target" categories as it is — and all it takes is a little bit of editor caution to catch those few exceptions, rather than a comprehensive merger that would require a followup round of DUPCAT cleanup. It's only necessary to specifically propose a merger if all of the categorized articles need to be comprehensively moved to the other category across the board, and not if 95 per cent of the articles are already categorized appropriately and need no replacement category at all, with only a very few exceptions that can easily be handled on their own.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:00, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat, as I am sure you know, a CFD such as this will (if passed) be implemented by bots ... so there is no opportunity for a little bit of editor caution to catch those few exceptionsunless you specify manual deletion. Which you didn't. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
18:30, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete/upmerge all the ones not including the word 'film'.
Category:Television child actors has hardly any content and the idea has not been developed. (I looked at several articles of the 30 odd articles involved; these did not need upmerging, being in a plethora of redundant categories.) I agree with BHG that eg
Category:Film child actors should remain.
Oculi (
talk)
16:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)reply
In principle merge rather than delete. Medium is rarely a defining characteristic for actors/resses. The first step should be to merge to parents that have no "by medium" split. It may then be necessary to merge further.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:40, 14 April 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.
Category:Comedians from London, Ontario
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:Overcategorization by location. This qualifies for neither of the exemptions there: the intersection of occupation with city of birth is not a
defining characteristic of the comedy per se, and there is no comprehensive scheme of always subcategorizing Canadian comedians down to the individual city they come from -- categories like this exist only for Toronto and Vancouver, and are of questionable necessity even there, and not for any other Canadian city (and for comparison's sake, New York City is the only place in the entire United States that has its own "comedians from city" category either.) All of which means we would need considerably more than just two comedians from London to actually justify a category for them.
Bearcat (
talk)
16:50, 8 April 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.
Category:Members of the Fabian Society Executive Committee
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.
Comment. There are two other sub cats in this series with “(mechanical)”, so the cat as is follows the cat naming convention. Semper Fi!
FieldMarine (
talk)
02:41, 15 April 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.
Category:European disability organisations
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.
Oppose. These are organisations with a focus on disability policies across Europe. Distinct from "Disability organisations based in Europe".
Rathfelder (
talk)
15:43, 8 April 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.
Category:Kumkum Bhagya portal
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:Mint 400 Records album covers
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: Absent-mindedly, I nominated
Category:Album covers by label rather than this root category. The deletion result of the parent shows there’s no need for a “by label” categorization of album covers. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me14:38, 22 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - The category contains album covers for label compilations (it did not at first). Without this, the image would be categorized with only "Album covers." -
NorthPark1417 (
talk)
15:17, 22 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - we categorize by defining characteristics. "Album cover for Mint 400 Records Presents Nirvana In Utero" appears to be (1) an album cover; (2) Mint Records; (3) Nirvana. It would hardly be overcategorization to have 3 categories.
Oculi (
talk)
10:43, 8 April 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.
Power stations in Lithuania by 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 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:Islamist insurgents
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.
Support that. The term insurgents generally implies some sort of rebellion against your own government, and I dont think that is what is going on here.
Rathfelder (
talk)
17:14, 8 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose any use of the word "terrorist/terrorism" per
WP:TERRORIST. I agree that it would be nice to find a better word than "insurgent", but introducing the loaded term "terrorism" into the title is worse that the current title.
Comment -- The suggested name does not exactly work, because it depends on there being somebody (presumably a state authority) to lay a charge; also it would exclude those who died (e.g. by suicide) before arrest.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:46, 14 April 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.
Bridges by 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.
Nominator's rationale: merge per
WP:SMALLCAT, there are only 1 or 2 articles about bridges in these cities. A merge to "bridges in country" is not needed because all articles about bridges are already in a "type of bridge in country" category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
12:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
WP:SMALLCAT does not apply to all categories which are currently small. It is for cats which "by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme".
WP:SMALLCAT provides two contradictory criteria, in the second line it says "no realistic potential for growth" which is in my view considerably more relaxing than "by their very definition". The "by their very definition" clause can nearly always be appealed to and if we would literally stick to it it would in practice imply that we would abolish
WP:SMALLCAT.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:06, 10 January 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Marcocapelle: are you saying that you have actually made an assessment of the "realistic potential for growth" of each of the nominated categories?
If you had done so, I would have expected such research to be mentioned in the nomination, rather than simply citing current size. But if you have done such an assessment, maybe you could explain how it was done. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs)
04:45, 12 January 2019 (UTC)reply
The additional bridges in Nijmegen on nl.wp are either not sourced at all, or sourced by a list of a 'Bridges Association' (the latter is my own translation). I cannot imagine they would qualify as notable on en.wp.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
07:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Support I assume the vast majority of bridges are non-notable. It's hard to demonstrate non-notability for non-existent articles but I don't think that's the level of proof needed to remove categories that aren't helpful to readers (at least yet).
RevelationDirect (
talk)
02:52, 27 January 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose.
Wikiproject:Bridges#Categorization recommends that bridge articles be categorized by location, starting with country and breaking into smaller divisions when the lists are large enough. The parent (and subcategories)
Category:Buildings and structures is not under Wikiproject Bridges and this proposal could potentially remove them from bridge categories. Just,
WP:BEBOLD and fix the articles individually. But please, make sure they stay in a bridge category that includes a location. I already fixed
John Paul II Bridge, Puławy, as my editing today of that article brought me here. -
¢Spender1983 (
talk)
21:53, 9 February 2019 (UTC)reply
The link is
Wikipedia:WikiProject Bridges and Tunnels#Categorization. Emptying a category out of process (as you
did) is generally considered a bad thing, but in this case (just one article, no linked category on Polish wp) was (IMO) reasonable (although I'm not sure about word "fix" in edit summary); it avoids the cost of a CFD and (when done by a competent editor) is less likely to break things than a CFD. DexDor(talk)08:01, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
I still oppose the wholesale re-cat of articles in bridge-related subcategories to architecture-related subcategories. (An administrator in this discussion might take this as a hint to
notify some applicable wikiprojects.) I have written a handful of bridge articles from scratch and tried to categorize them, so I try to understand which wikiprojects might be interested (bridges, architecture, geography, culture, etc) and categorize (and label on talk pages) accordingly. If you have a link to a discussion or guideline of why you called my category edit a bad thing, I would be glad to read it and try to improve my WP editing, intermittent as it might be. -
¢Spender1983 (
talk)
14:30, 10 February 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, but be careful to ensure bridges remain in bridge categories, dual merging as needed. This probably will mean individual attention to each article.
PennySpender1983, would you endorse such a manual upmerge where we ensure they remain in the "Bridges" category tree? (On the topic of whether these meet SMALLCAT: I note that the opposition has not made any assessment that there is reasonable potential for growth. Less than five notable bridges is the case for almost all cities, which is why I don't expect a reasonable potential for growth. I consider arguments to the contrary to be very weak unless there are specific examples of notable bridges that the opposition cares to bring forth.) ~
Rob13Talk03:39, 3 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose Bridges are considerably different from buildings in general. Even if SMALLCAT would otherwise apply (many cities still have only a handful of notable bridges), the extra specificity this would give for navigation from largers cats of Bridges by country / by region would still be worthwhile.
Andy Dingley (
talk)
23:01, 12 March 2019 (UTC)reply
Oppose for the following, which other language wikis show to have significant space for growth:
Incheon (13 articles, 6 of which are substantial articles on ko.wiki,
ko:분류:인천광역시의 다리)
Sao Paolo (19 articles and 2 subcats on pt.wiki,
pt:Categoria:Pontes_da_cidade_de_São_Paulo - and a glance at a map shows there are clearly hundreds of bridges in the city)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus. Relisting comment: Basically no consensus after almost 3 months, hopefully some more discussion will yield a result
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
DannyS712 (
talk)
02:07, 8 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Furius, I'm happy to go along with your selective approach (provided other parents are considered), but re Nijmegen did you notice what Marcocapelle wrote above, dated 14 January? –
FayenaticLondon13:54, 10 April 2019 (UTC)reply
I did see it, yes. I don't read Dutch as Marcocapelle does, but I can see that the Dutch articles are generally pretty poor. However, the German versions of the same are often substantially better sourced so I don't think that the presumption of non-notability holds. I don't think that
de:Nieuwe Hezelpoort,
nl:De Oversteek (brug),
de:Snelbinder could really be challenged if translated (with the two articles already in the category, that would bring us up to 5 articles, cf.
Category:Bridges in Sheffield). The fact that the other articles aren't so good doesn't make it obvious to me that there's no possbility of notability. In other words, I'm more optimistic about the potential for growth.
Furius (
talk)
23:30, 10 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Well this is a new thing. Is @
Fayenatic london: going down the path of snippiness so favoured by other admins? I hope not. Regarding my map-reading, my post above counted 3 bridges over the Waal in the city of Nijmegen. Though not named, they are the
Waalbrug, the
Nijmegen railway bridge and the Oversteek. Editor @
Furius: above mentions the last named, the Oversteek, so that was included in my count. He also mentions the Snelbinder which is not actually a distinct bridge in itself but rather a paved section of the Waalbrug, already counted. Lastly he mentions the Nieuwe Hezelpoort which is an inland railway bridge in the city (i.e. it does not cross the Waal). It's hard to believe that a perfectly ordinary railway bridge is worthy of an article, but let's assume for the sake of the argument that it does. So that brings the count to 4; still not meeting the threshold.
Laurel Lodged (
talk)
08:35, 13 April 2019 (UTC)reply
Alternative merge -- If this goes ahead there need to be further merge targets. I looked at the Lisbon case, whose parent is "Portugal by city", the sibling category being Porto with 6 bridges. The parent for Portugal has a lot of bridges, but it is not clear where they are. My suggestion is not to abolish the categories but to have county/provincial categories, which might get enough population to be worthwhile.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:54, 14 April 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.
Category:Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection
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.
Williams was a major manufacturer of classic physical pinball machines in the 1970s and 1980s and all of those models are categorized in
Category:Williams pinball machines. In 2011, an electronic video game came out that allowed you to play simulations of those old time pinball machines on the Wii and PlayStation game consoles. This is not a museum or an award. Rather, the pinball machine models that appeared in
Pinball Hall of Fame: The Williams Collection are what make up this category which doesn't seem defining. The contents of this category are already listified
here in the main article. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:19, 8 April 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.
Category:National Fastpitch Coaches Association Hall of Fame inductees
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.