Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 1

< February 28	March 2 >

March 1

Category:Anchovies

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 March 9#Category:Anchovies

Category:Rulers of Chaghaniyan

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: reverse merge, i.e. merge Category:Muhtajids to Category:Rulers of Chaghaniyan. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:38, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Rulers of Chaghaniyan to Category:Muhtajids

Nominator's rationale: ~~merge~~ (or reverse merge), the two categories are largely overlapping. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Not anymore. --HistoryofIran (talk) 19:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, thanks for finding one more article about a ruler from a much earlier period in history who did not belong to the Muhtajid dynasty. So that changes the nomination to reverse merge. With only four articles about rulers of Chaghaniyan in total (not counting the topic article) we still do not need two categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge (or reverse Merge) and Purge Overlapping categories and only one has a main article: Muhtajids. No objection to a reverse merge as it's better than the current status quo. Principality of Chaghaniyan should be removed and Faghanish may need to be reviewed for inclusion by someone with more expertise than myself. RevelationDirect (talk) 23:12, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge -- It would be helpful if Rulers of Chaghaniyan or Chaghaniyan (which is actually the better article) contained a list of the rulers with dates. I suspect that both of these and Muhtajids could usefully be merged, leaving the usual redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 3 March 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:Cameron Crowe

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:38, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Cameron Crowe (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --wooden superman 15:15, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pretty pointless here. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 15:59, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 subcat, effectively no articles. Oculi (talk) 16:19, 1 March 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.

Years in the Captaincy General of Chile

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/merge/delete as nominated (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging/renaming:

Propose deleting the two container categories which would be emptied by this merge:

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other categories for the same era: see Category:Years in the Captaincy General of Chile ... without prejudice to any later wider renaming.

Background: The Captaincy General of Chile was a South American territory of the Spanish Empire from 1541 to 1818, when it became an independent state known as Chile. The term Captaincy General denotes it as division of a viceroyalty in the Spanish colonial administration.

There is an case for saying that all the chronological categories for pre-1818 Chile should be renamed "YYYY in the Captaincy General of Chile" etc, but I don't think it's an open-and-shut case: the more verbose title does not resolve any ambiguity. So a wider proposal to rename the pre-1818 categories woud need some discussion, and in the meantime there is no benefit in having these 4 categories named inconsistently from the ~60 others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Notifications: WikiProject Chile has been notified[1]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:54, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- The main article indicates that the territory included part of Argentina. The question is whether we should treat it as a separate polity or a predecessor of the post-1818 state that had lost part of its land. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Peter, that's really a question for any subsequent discussion on renaming everything before 1818. This nomination is about consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - I entirely agree. We certainly do not need two parallel trees. I commented rather than voting because I do not know enough of Chilean history to answer my question. Merge etc or reverse merge. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:52, 3 March 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:Dan Aykroyd

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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:43, 24 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Dan Aykroyd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --wooden superman 10:02, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 subcat, effectively no articles. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unnecessary parent. Downmerge appropriate articles to Category:Works by Dan Aykroyd. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 07:05, 8 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, meanwhile there are 5 articles in the category which seem not to belong in Category:Works by Dan Aykroyd. @Woodensuperman, Oculi, and Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: does this make any difference to your vote? Marcocapelle (talk) 09:13, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Five articles plus one subcat makes this big enough to keep. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:12, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: only 1 appropriate subcat. For the articles in the top level eponymous category, none have "Dan Aykroyd" as a defining trait, even though Aykroyd is associated with them. --Animalparty! (talk) 02:52, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure/Neutral At the time of writing, there is 1 subcategory, the main subject article, and three other articles. Those three other articles are The Blues Brothers, Crystal Head Vodka, and House of Blues. The Blues Brothers is what the main subject appears to primarily notable for. I don't know if that's enough to clear WP:OCEPON, because I'm not sure the vodka and the jazz festival are so 'directly related' to Aykroyd that it's worth having a category just for him. I'm not very familiar with the subject. — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs) 15:09, 13 March 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:Miloš Forman

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 07:39, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Miloš Forman (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OCEPON --wooden superman 10:01, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 subcat, effectively no articles. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 1 March 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:Robert De Niro

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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 04:52, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Robert De Niro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON --wooden superman 10:00, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - 1 subcat, effectively no articles. Oculi (talk) 10:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete created to support Portal:Robert De Niro which is pretty useless as well. Legacypac (talk) 10:58, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 06:54, 8 March 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:Religion in Gothenburg

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 all. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)

Propose deleting Category:Religion in Gothenburg (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Religion in Riga (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Religion in Bucharest (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:Religion in Ankara (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, unnecessary category layer with just one subcategory. There is no need to merge, because the subcategory e.g. Category:Places of worship in Gothenburg is already in Category:Buildings and structures in Gothenburg and Category:Places of worship in Sweden. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All Not currently aiding navigation and limited wrong for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:00, 9 March 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:Military units and factions of the Syrian Civil War

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. With the benefit of hindsight, the outcome might have been a consensus of some form if the nominator @Charles Essie had provided clear examples of usage in other conflicts. It would also have helped if the category links which were supplied had been unpiped; it was only when I opened the edit window to close that I spotted that what I had assumed were article links were actually categories.
Rightly or wrongly, the reality is that CFD nominations are mostly evaluated by editors who don't specialise in the subject area, and so won't be familiar with the precise terminology and category structures of the topic. So my experience is that extra clarity pays dividends for everyone. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:52, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting Category:Military units and factions of the Syrian Civil War to Category:Factions of the Syrian Civil War and Category:Military units and formations of the Syrian Civil War

Nominator's rationale: This is a necessary distinction and it would make navigation easier. Not mention the fact that this is the way all other "military units and formations" and "factions" of wars are categorized. Charles Essie (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tentative support - I would like to see some examples though.GreyShark (dibra) 19:04, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of what exactly? Charles Essie (talk) 18:45, 28 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC) [reply]

@Greyshark09 and Charles Essie: It may be helpful if you finish your conversation. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I would have expected "military units" to refer to the government forces of Syria. In fact everything seems to be about unofficial or expatriate forces. Perhaps Category:Military factions of the Syrian Civil War would be better, with a head note explaining that it excludes the (official) Syrian military. The Civil War has been a messy affair, with multiple forces with different (and conflicting allegiances): some allied to the government; others fighting it; others devoted to fighting ISIL; etc. I expect the allegiance of some changed, so that an omnibus category for all the groups fighting seems appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was thinking we'd have separate categories for factions and military units and formations in order better distinguish the two and be more consistent with other categories of these types. Charles Essie (talk) 19:41, 1 March 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:Miniature wargames

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. Both editors agree on a merge, just not in which direction. So to remove the duplication, I'll close as merge per the nominator @Le Deluge, without prejudice to any subsequent nomination to rename to @Marcocapelle's preference. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 20 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Miniature wargames to Category:Miniatures games‎

Nominator's rationale: Duplicates the extensive Category:Miniatures games hierarchy, which is a daughter of Category:Wargames Le Deluge (talk) 11:36, 5 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Prefer reverse merging per article title Miniature wargaming. But merging in either direction should happen anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:30, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Focusing on direction of a potential merge.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Rob₁₃^Talk 01:41, 1 March 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:Establishments in New York City by year

This discussion was subject to a deletion review on 2019 May 3.
For an explanation of the process, see Wikipedia:Deletion review.

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. While there are slightly more voices in favour of merging the yearly establishment categories to the equivalent state ones and deleting the container, reading the arguments for and against presents a more complex picture. There is a clear consensus that not all cities neither need nor should have establishment categories, which endorses the result of the Pennsylvania discussion referenced a few times below. There are good arguments in favour of categories for some cities with a large number of establishments each year and those arguments much stronger than the "slippery slope" arguments in opposition - which are fully countered by the proposed setting of some sort of lower limit (whether by city population, number of articles, or some other metric) - there isn't enough support to call a consensus in their favour.

It is also worth pointing out that the nominator's intent differening from what the nomination explicitly proposes is significantly unhelpful for closing administrators, especially those of us who are not CfD regulars, so I endorse BrownHairedGirl's bringing this up with Koavf, but the tone in which they did so leaves an awful lot to be desired - repeatedly calling someone "lazy" is almost never appropriate in a collegiate discussion. Thryduulf (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: /Merge to establishments in New York (state) by year. This is way too fine-grained. If we are going to make establishments by year categories (minus contemporary city-states like Singapore), then we'll end up with tens of thousands of categories like Category:1511 establishments in Paris and Category:1982 establishments in Indianapolis. The by-state categories are fine-grained enough--we shouldn't move to third-level administrative subdivisions. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:38, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(Struck my !vote here, in favour of new substantive !vote lower down.)Oppose as nominated. @Koavf: The nomination as set out would remove all these pages from the parent New York (state) categories. That's destructive; if these cats are to be removed, each NYC category should be merged to the equivalent New York (state) category, and the merge targets should be listed.

Some context: I created Category:Establishments in New York City by year as a container for its subcats, which were all created by @MainlyTwelve. (See User talk:MainlyTwelve#Non-existent_categories and my group nom of other similar cats at WP:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 February 28#Establishments_in_Pennsylvania_by_city.)

I lean towards deleting them all, but would prefer to wait until the outcome of the Pennsylania discussion before making a decision on this one. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:52, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: What are you talking about? How is "merge to establishments in New York (state) by year" going to remove them from "the parent New York (state) categories"? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:13, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: please read the nomination. The category listing says delete, and gives no merge targets. The rationale below says "merge", which contradicts that.

If you intend categories to be merged, please say so in the category listing, and list all the merge targets. Just like every other merge nomination at CFD is done. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:17, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's weird how I've made many similar nominations and they all passed without this procedural nitpicking. E.g. Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_February_6#Category:American_Jewish_conservatives--I don't see anyone else who just doesn't get it or who thinks that some minor method of typing out things is a problem. BHG will BHG, I guess ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf, no there's nothing weird about it. It's simply a matter of Koavf being fundamentally lazy about communication, as usual. Koavf will Koavf.

The reason for setting out in the nomination is so that any editor reading the page can see at a glance exactly what is being proposed, without having to read the rationale. If there is a consensus to merge or delete, then that listing is copied by the closer to feed to the bots ... and if it isn't available in advance, the closer has to create it. There's a higher risk of error if the listing is done at that point, because it cannot be scrutinised by the editors taking part in the discussion.

So what Koavf's laziness does here is dump on to the closer the work which he should have done himself, and deprive other editors of a clear view of his proposals. WP works by consensus, and consensus is built by clear communication, not by this lazy Koavf style of go-figure-out-what-I-meant-because-I-couldn't be-bothered-doing-it-like-everyone-else-does. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:07, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: Nothing I did was motivated by laziness and nothing I did was "lazy"; maybe "malformed" or "mistaken" but hey, why not just leap to the rudest thing and try to litigate someone's vices and mental state in public, huh? Here is a helpful page for you to read: WP:AGF. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf, There no point in you now citing AGF. I made a neutrally-worded point above about the omission, and you chose to personalise your reply as "BHG will BHG". .

I didn't "leap" to any conclusion. I reached it slowly as the evidence accumulated over several years, and repeated requests and reminders to you had little or no effect. We had a long discussion about it last year on your talk.

The first few dozen times, I assumed in good faith that it was an error, but when I saw a consistent pattern which didn't change in response to requests, I realised that it was something else. And now, once again, you gone several rounds of complaining rather than simply fix the error. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And I'm arguing that it's not an error or not an error worth correcting if the only person who is flummoxed is you. It's not a big deal and everyone else understands what to do. I don't know about any bot but I can painlessly recategorize these by merging them into the appropriate parent category in literally one minute with a few clicks. If the formatting of the nomination is really a problem, I just don't see why it didn't come up at the instance I linked above. Again, nothing "lazy" here but you like making pronouncements about my moral character when it's not really warranted, which is typical of every time you've been upset with something on my talk page. If you think I'm going to let you derail this conversation more, you're wrong: we'll see if everyone else here thinks this really requires some procedural close (unlike, e.g. the example linked above). If this is just you not liking something again, then that doesn't motivate me very much. If this is a genuine problem, then I assume someone else will say something and that is compelling to me. Endless rounds of you calling me names, talking down to me, or trying to impugning my character are frankly boring, if nothing else. Also, for anyone who wants to ask questions in good faith to understand my reasoning, I think it is worth actually deleting the categories rather than merging them and using {{catredirect}} (as I did here); hence my suggestion that we both delete and merge. If anyone has a better way of formatting this so that some bot doesn't get confused, I'm all ears. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf, sigh. I am not flummoxed. I am just fed up at having to go an extra few steps to figure out your intentions because you are too stubbornly lazy to set them out clearly.

Your suggestion that we we both delete and merge is precisely what a CFD merge has meant for the last 13 years. The section heading at WP:CFDW is Move/merge, then_delete; In 2006 it was Move/Merge and delete. Your idea that this is something novel is quite extraordinary for someone who as participated at CFD for so many years.

Note that the categories are all tagged for deletion rather than merger. How hard is it for you to type {{subst:cfm}} instad of {{subst:cfm}}? Yes, both forms link to the discussion ... but the category page should display what's actually intended,

You may be right that everyone else understands what to do. But they will do so only after jumping back and forth between your rationale and your category listing to figure it out, because you are too stubbornly lazy to explicitly clarify your intentions like everyone else does. And as usual, you'd prefer to go several rounds of moaning about it rather than fix the problem. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:21, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@BrownHairedGirl: The fact that it is not harder to type {{subst:cf[d]}} inst[e]ad of {{subst:cfm}} is exactly what I would use to point out how I was not being lazy. If doing two things take the same amount of effort, then it's not "lazy" to pick one over the other. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ I already explained how my reasoning is laid out here because it's in distinction to other times when we merge and don't delete. If other editors are too lazy to click on the link and read the CfD then why am I supposed to care? They clearly aren't very invested in the discussion if they're not willing to click on a link and read 173 words. But I'm the "lazy" one here??? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ And you came here not to discuss the actual substance of the nomination but to moan endlessly but I'm the one who moans endlessly??? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Each time you post here, I get more confused as to what your point is: No, I was not being lazy and it's actually lazy if someone won't read CfD to understand what is being proposed. Thanks anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:14, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This side discussion has taken long enough now, it is time for action. Please change the nomination from delete to merge. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:09, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. I understand this to mean delete Category:Establishments in New York City by year and merge Category:2000 establishments in New York City to Category:2000 establishments in New York (state) etc. Oculi (talk) 09:55, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – I notice that each of the NYC categories has more members than the equivalent state category. For navigation and discovery, doesn't that speak for the value of this scheme? -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 11:16, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Michael Bednarek: But that would also be true of (e.g.) Hartford in Connecticut but not true of (e.g.) San Antonio in Texas. So we would end up with some weird hybrid scheme where we only make third-level administrative sub-sub-divisions if it's a large enough percentage of the second-level subdivision that it would be a majority. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose and Keep I established this set of New York City categories—and the Philadelphia/Pittsburgh categories—because of certain cultural and geographical breaks that these cities have from their 2nd-level national subdivisions (states) and due to the volume, in their respective categories, of “Establishments” that can be sorted into subcategories at the 3rd-level. I believe the distinction between state/city is a meaningful one, if only in certain circumstances. That said, I agree with @BrownHairedGirl: about the Philly/Pittsburgh categories. They should go. There is not enough article volume to justify their existence even if there are reasons rooted in the reality of the state for the subcategories to exist.

However, in the case of New York City, there is a meaningful and valuable distinction, for us and for readers, to draw between the state and the city. From a procedural perspective, I agree with @Michael Bednarek: the volume of “Establishments” specific to NYC justifies splitting them from the state for navigation and discovery.

As far as it being “way too fine-grained”...I object as it’s not as if this is a casual distinction between say, establishments in Carlisle, PA and Pennsylvania. NYC has a rich culture that is inextricably linked to that of the state, but which is at the same time distinctly colored by a history of immigration, its role as a cultural, political, and economic powerhouse, and its outsize position in the country’s imagination. That’s not even mentioning its staggering population as far as “3rd-level administrative subdivisions” go: its current population is roughly equal to that of Maine, Montana, Rhode Island, Delaware, South Dakota, North Dakota, Alaska, the District of Columbia, Vermont, and Wyoming combined, and only eleven states have populations larger than the Five Boroughs. I can adequately address @Koavf:’s anxiety about “thousands of categories” by saying I don’t think this is a slippery slope to thousands of unhelpful categories. It might lead to some more city-level categories (London? Paris? Tokyo? Los Angeles?) but there wouldn’t be a struggle to quash the creation of such categories for Peoria, Liverpool, or Marseille, or a rush to create them.

Thanks.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 16:51, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MainlyTwelve: But Los Angeles has a culture, Boston has a culture, Philadelphia, etc. Where do you draw the line? ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:22, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Koavf: Thanks for the reply. I don't have a ready "test" prepared for you now to determine where to draw the line, as I feel that would be an unreasonable burden of proof for this discussion, limited as it is to establishing the "Establishment" categories for NYC. That said, I imagine a combination of a quantitative measurement (say, the number of "Establishments" distinct from the state but associated with a city) and a qualitative measurement (understanding that certain cities are more vital than others/more distinct from their state-level culture) would do. I think, in the United States, this list would probably be limited to SF, LA, and maybe 2-3 others (Chicago and Boston come to mind). As a counterexmple, or as an example of a state-level bucket that I think is sufficient, look at the Establishment categories for Texas. I'm pretty confident saying they don't need subcats for Houston, Dallas, Austin, etc. in the way other states might as there's not a huge abundance of existing "Establishments" and because those categories would necessarily be quite small given the number of large Texan cities.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:30, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MainlyTwelve, I think that there is a slippery slope ... ironically for the reasons you have outlined.

It will start with some megacities such as London, Paris, Los Angeles, etc. Then we will have a Category:Establishemnts by city, and editors spotting that cat won't see this and other discussions, and will regard establishments-by-city as an established series exception to WP:SMALLCAT. It will spread to other large national capitals in the million-plus-population range, and then it will spread to other cities. Maybe not Peoria, but Liverpool, or Marseille, Seattle, Glasgow, Chicago etc will all be on the list.

Looking at the numbers, none of the by-year NY state categories are big enough to need diffusion. The listing at Category:Establishments in New York (state) by year doesn't show an inclusive total for the state+NYC cats, so I made a table which dynamically adds the number of pages in the State+City cats for each of the years since 2000:

Table

Year	Total pages
Category:2000 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2000 establishments in New York City	123
Category:2001 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2001 establishments in New York City	111
Category:2002 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2002 establishments in New York City	158
Category:2003 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2003 establishments in New York City	130
Category:2004 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2004 establishments in New York City	129
Category:2005 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2005 establishments in New York City	154
Category:2006 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2006 establishments in New York City	149
Category:2007 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2007 establishments in New York City	132
Category:2008 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2008 establishments in New York City	160
Category:2009 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2009 establishments in New York City	157
Category:2010 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2010 establishments in New York City	179
Category:2011 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2011 establishments in New York City	190
Category:2012 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2012 establishments in New York City	139
Category:2013 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2013 establishments in New York City	130
Category:2014 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2014 establishments in New York City	137
Category:2015 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2015 establishments in New York City	146
Category:2016 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2016 establishments in New York City	100
Category:2017 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2017 establishments in New York City	78
Category:2018 establishments in New York (state) + Category:2018 establishments in New York City	68

As you can see, only one of the years has more than 100 pages in total, and even that is only 138. So in each case, it's a long way below the 200 mark where the contents would spill onto a second page.

This looks to me like a solution in search of a problem ... and it opens the doors to many more such categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:31, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I understand the slippery slope worry, it's just not one I share. Re: the NYC categories, I think the smaller ones are vital enough to stand on their own for the qualitative reasons I outlined. Thank you for providing the table.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:35, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also object, respectfully, to these categories fitting the WP:SMALLCAT definition of having "[...] no potential for growth".--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:39, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But how far back do you want to go with this? Looking at the 19th century, there would be a long thin tail. You could set an arbitrary cut-of date, but most editors won't be aware of it, so we will have an endless cycle of pages being categorised in Category:1801 establishments in New York City, adding to maintenance burden at Special:WantedCategories ... and some of the categories will crated, adding to the CFD workload.

Then there will be the disestablishment cats. Editors will see a page such as Gotham Chamber Opera in Category:2000 establishments in New York City and Category:2015 disestablishments in New York (state) ... and they will "correct" the second one to the non-existent Category:2015 disestablishments in New York City. Please don't tell me that creating Category:YYYY disestablishments in New York City will solve that problem, because the numbers in Category:Disestablishments in New York (state) by year are way lower, so we'd have an even longer thin tail. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:50, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What solution would you prefer I provide for the disestablishment problem? I don't have another one, partially because 1. I think that works as a solution and 2. I don't think having a small category in this instance is the end of the world. Re: "Establishments" during older decades, I'd agree with @Peterkingiron: that decennial categories would work. Is that the perfect solution? No. Will it confuse some editors? Maybe! I'm not that worried about it, at least in the context of NYC, as that's mostly work I intend to do myself.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 17:57, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The disestablishments problem is an unavoidable consequence of creating the establishments cats. The solution is simple: upmerge the estab cats.

The idea of decade cats is a bad one, because it will require dual categoriation of all pages as YYYY in NyState+YYY0s in NyC. That's another mainteance headache. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:27, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My examination of the the existing state-level disestablishments categories suggests that most have enough for a subcategory of city-level disestablishments containing more than 5 articles, with potential for growth, which seems to be the threshold for establishing a valid category, no?--MainlyTwelve (talk) 18:36, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The commonly-accepted threshold of 5 pages is a minimum. It is not a mandate. If editors went around slicing up en.wp categories into 5-page chunks, we'd have a forest of micro-cats which would be a navigation nightmare as well as a maintenance nightmare.

But this is an example of the sort of slippery slope being opened up here. First we have the establishments-by-megacity, 'cos "look, they have dozens of pages" (at least in the latter years). Then we have the disestablishments-by-megacity, 'cos "they mostly have >5 pages". Then we'll get the establishments-by-smaller-city, 'cos "they mostly have >5 pages" ... and in their trail will follow the disestablishments-by-smaller-city, 'cos "hey, all cities with establishment cats also have disestablishment cats". And on we go.

This solution-in-search-of-a-problem will create its own problems. The fact that one editor currently has the energy to maintain the NYC cats is insufficient. Your personal availability may change, possibly back to the sort of occasional edits you did in your first 7 years, and maybe you will be run over by a bus, have a bad week and get indef-banned etc. No set of pages can rely on any one editor, so any such structure imposes a maintenance burden on the whole community ... and that's before we start factoring in the editorial time needed to deal with the other by-city categories which you yourself have demonstrated will inevitably follow (by your creation of the Pittsburgh and Philadelphia categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right, and these would mostly pass the minimum threshold here as a necessary byproduct of creating the NYC-level establishment categories…my point is that yes, there will be new categories, but that they’ll also be vital/filled/useful in the context of NYC.

Again, my intention, for the moment, is to only go through this process for NYC-related establishments. I immediately stopped editing PA-categs once I realized they were kind of pointless, in part due to your objections.

Of course my personal availability may change. I don’t mean to say that I’ll be the sole custodian of these categories and the articles as they intersect with these categories, that would be insane. All work, here, can be construed as burdensome to other editors—we don’t create in a vacuum—so I’m a little confused about why these categories themselves would provide an undue amount of work exceeding their usefulness, except as a limited precedent applicable only to similar cities that pass a test similar to the two-pronged one I suggested above. I really, really don’t think the slippery slope will be that slippery. Even if there is a chain reaction of categories creation for smaller and smaller cities, it will be a slow process, with plenty of time to forestall it. I know it’s easy to say “we’re attempting to forestall it now” but as I’ve repeatedly said, there is a material difference between cities like New York and cities like Peoria, etc. that most people will recognize and respect.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:32, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

vital??????????? Really????? You're getting carried away here.

Yes, of course there is a material difference between cities like New York and cities like Peoria. The problem with that logic is that it also true to say to say that there is a material difference between cities like Dublin and Berlin and Madrid and cities like Peoria. And that's why this sort of thing spreads, as it did for you when you started on Pittsburgh and Philadelphia.

The flaw in your reasoning is that you have assumed some sort of threshold as being reasonable or appropriate, and assume that other editors will set their own threshold in the same way. I see no reason to expect that, because there are countless reasonable criteria which anyone could apply to justify keeping a slew of other by-city categories.

It's all v well to say that any chain reaction will be slow, so plenty of time to forestall it. That's not my experience of 13 years at CFD.

Each city could generate hundreds of establishments-by-year-cats. Even creating the nom to merge a set of cats like this is a lot of work. WP:Twinkle won't handle it, and there's a very limited pool of editors who can easily create mass CFD noms. So that means that most such sets won't get taken to CFD unless one of the already-overbusy editors does so.

And if/when it gets to CFD, there will be a debate each time about where to impose an arbitrary threshold. It only takes one such CFD to reach a "keep" or no "consensus" close on a low turnout, and hey-ho we've got the precedent. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

With the qualification and additional modifiers I included, I'm not getting carried away.

How about a stay of execution? Let these categories remain for say, a week, and see what happens. If I'm wrong and categories for every city with more than 400,000 people, or whatever threshold, start to crop up, then you're right and we shouldn't set this precedent. If I'm right, then there's no harm and the next set of similar categories will emerge at a pace that is manageable. Forgive me if I've downplayed the amount of work you or other CFD editors do, I appreciate it of course.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:18, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Things like this don't spread on any particular timescale. A week is likely way too short.

But what your suggested stay of execution would mean is that when someone goes to all the work of creating another set of city cats, and some other editor goes to all the work of creating a merge nomination, then we tell them that this was just a honeypot trap and actually the precedent which they followed in good faith was just a test. That won't end well. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:25, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I suppose that's true.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:29, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- (edit conflict) sampling shows that most are very well populated, with much more than the minimum of about 5 categories. Hence Keep. That does not mean that we should have an annual category by to the year dot. For older decades, when there are fewer items, a decennial category should be sufficient. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:42, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support, New York City has enough content for a tree like this - and probably London too - but then we are talking about only two cities. The fact that we can make an exception for these two cities does not mean that we must make an exception. The slippery slope argument is a very real one, this will invite editors creating similar trees for cities that are way too small for it. Let's please keep this consistently at the state level. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:34, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Those are two examples, I believe there are others...cities in California for instance, and perhaps Chicago/Boston, where the separation would be valuable.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 19:37, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, London ... then Los Angeles, San Francisco, Chicago, Boston.

Then why not Paris?

If Paris, why not Milan and Marseille?

And then, why not Delhi, Beijing, Mumbai?

If those, then why not Rome, Hmaburg, Birmingham, Glasgow, Mexico City, Rio de Janiero?

And so on. Once this cat is left out of the bag, any further threshold will be arbitrary and contested. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:49, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I haven't looked at the "Establishment" categories for their state-equivalent 2nd-tier category, so I can’t comment on each city you’ve listed, but again I think most editors who are prone to doing this sort of work would look at a Milan or a Marseille and realize there’s no point in creating subcats for them. I firmly believe there is value in creating subcats for some cities and I think New York is a logical place to begin. I believe that the value these categories contribute exceeds the (potential) cost of the (potential) headaches they may cause.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:04, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your firm belief is not founded on a decade of regular CFD participation. There is a steady stream of overly-narrow category sets with much the same logic as you yourself applied in Pennsylvania.

And don't start on the "state-equivalent 2nd-tier category" stuff. Many countries are not structured on the same basis as the USA, or are much smaller to start with. In Ireland, for example County Leitrim (population ~30,000) is a first-level national administrative subdivision. Swiss Cantons (mean pop ~325,000) are a first-level national subdivison. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:20, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not ignorant of the fact that other countries are smaller/structured differently, all I mean to say is that I've done no examination of those cities, and have no idea what their respective situations are re: governance, and couldn't possibly comment on them the way I can on NYC.--MainlyTwelve (talk) 20:26, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to equivalent New York (state) category per my many comments above

In summary

the NY state categories are not big enough to need splitting. This is a solution in search of a problem
The NYC categories will have either a long thin tail or an arbitrary cutoff date
Keeping these categories would set a horrible precedent which would inevitably be followed by dozens more establishments-by-cities categories
Keeping these categories would likely trigger corresponding disestablishment categories, which would be even thinner.

Slicing the category system up into ever-smaller intersections brings a huge pile of maintenance headaches which needs to be weighed against any benefits to readers (and those benefits accrue only if the maintenance is done). Excessively narrow topics for time slices are the very worst manifestation of this, because each topic sliced in this way triggers many new categories: in this case, several hundred categories. (I did the sums: potentially 640 new categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:10, 10 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all per BHG....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:52, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all We od not want to go down the road of creating establishment categories by city. This gets messy reaqlly fast, and we do not want to go there. States are agreed on and working sub-national identifications. People from is a different issue, and things in, but establishments by should not be broken below the top ranked sub-national level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
"the Ayes have it" per the weird conversation I had here under "Cats". Mainly 16:40, 29 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.

British Empire

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 each category's respective target, as specified in the nomination. (meaning the aren't being merged with each other). (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 03:45, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging:

Category:1983 in the British Empire to Category:1983 in British Overseas Territories

39 more "British Empire" to "British Overseas Territories"

Category:1967 in British Overseas Territories to Category:1967 in the British Empire

16 more "British Empire" to "British Overseas Territories"

Nominator's rationale. Summary: to set 1982 as the last year of the British Empire, for categorisation purposes.

The British Empire was never formally abolished. Most of its territories were decolonised by the 1960s, and the last significant area of land to gain independence was Zimbabwe in 1980. Since the handover of Hong Kong to China in 1997, the United Kingdom's external territories consist of only a few islands, known collectively as the British Overseas Territories. So for example, the South Atlantic island of Saint Helena became a British Crown colony in the 19th century, and has remained under British rule ever since, but is now labelled as a British Overseas Territory.

Those two terms — British Overseas Territory and British Empire — both refer to the same thing, i.e. a set of external territories ruled by the United Kingdom. The terminological change reflects political sentiment in changed times, but the common factor is British rule.

All of these UK's external territories are categorised on en.wp under Category:British Empire, and Category:British Overseas Territories.

However, there was no formal announcement or grand ceremony to announce the end of Empire; in public perception, the change is a fuzzy process. This has led to our chronological categories developing an overlap from 1967 to 1998, e.g. we have:

... with numerous duplications in the intervening years.

This duplication is unhelpful to navigation, and conveys no distinction other than editors' choice of terminology.

So this nomination to proposes to set a single point for the change of name:

1982 as the last year of the British Empire
1983 as the first year of the British Overseas Territories

That choice derives from British Empire#End_of_empire and British Overseas Territory#History. It draws on two changes in the terminology of UK law:

the British Nationality Act 1981. In Schedule 6 it reclassified the remaining Crown colonies as "British Dependent Territories". The Act entered into force on 1 January 1983 (see the commencement order)
the British Overseas Territories Act 2002, which relabelled them as "British Overseas Territories"

The distinction between "British Dependent Territories" and "British Overseas Territories" seems to be widely regarded as insignificant, and on Wikipedia British Dependent Territory is a redirect to British Overseas Territory. So we need only two sets of chronology categories; British Empire until 1982, and British Overseas Territories from 1983. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject notifications: WikiProject United Kingdom [2] and WikiProject British Empire [3]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:06, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Tagging Categories all tagged[4]. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:11, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - per detailed and convincing nom. Oculi (talk) 09:40, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Support - The Nom puts forward a convincing argument as to where to draw a boundary, and I will go along with it. It may be that the boundary could be a slightly earlier date in late 1960s, when the right of any British citizen to enter UK was removed, but I will not press that, partly because the term colony was still applied. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 1 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Certainly merge, the British Overseas Territories is the successor of the British Empire so we shouldn't have both of them in the same year. I am neutral with respect to in which year the transition should be made from Empire categories to Overseas Territories categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:47, 2 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
support changes as nominated Hmains (talk) 02:12, 14 March 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.