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: Unnecessary intermediate layer. The three city subcategories are each in the category of the relevant province. Rathfelder (talk) 21:57, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Strictly the argument is a valid but if looking for a company with a Rotterdam HQ, it is not helpful to have to know which province Rotterdam is in. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I didnt realise there was a full hierarchy. If there is agreement that these intermediate categories are not useful I'm happy to nominate all 51 for deletion. I dont see any need to merge these categories to Category:Companies by city. They are already in it. Whether it is a useful category in its own right is a different question. Rathfelder (talk) 16:57, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: you didn't realise because you didn't look. Before you nominate a category in future, PLEASE look at its parents, and explore around them to see what it is part of. If you still think it should be deleted, at least you will be able to make a well-informed nomination. In some cases it will help you to see the need to nominate for merging rather than deletion. – FayenaticLondon07:27, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Rathfelder: (i) Wrong – deletion would remove the contents from Category:Companies by city, despite your assertion to the contrary, as Marcocapelle has demonstrated above. (ii) IIRC you have made many other nominations for deletion where you had only bothered to look at one parent category, but your nominations would have disrupted other parent hierarchies where merger rather than deletion would be required. If you utterly insist on refusing to learn this, it may be necessary to consider sanctions against you, such as a ban from working on categories. – FayenaticLondon09:46, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I thought this was a place for discussing categories. Why I am threatened with sanctions because I want to discuss them? If you don't like my suggestions they will be rejected. But I dont see why I need to spend hours constructing an immense list of categories that would be affected before I can raise an issue for discussion. Your position effectively means that all existing category heirarchies, no matter how misguided, cannot be discussed.Rathfelder (talk) 19:27, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It is not a forum of discussion in the sense that you seem to think. The WP:CFD main page says in the Scope section: CfD is intended only for specific proposals to delete, merge, rename or split categories or stub types. For general discussion about how to improve the category system, use other appropriate venues such as Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Categories, and any relevant WikiProjects' talk pages.Marcocapelle (talk) 19:41, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All the similar categories are "Companies by city in Foo". Its not helped by the fact that American use of the term City seems to include what in England would be called villages. Rathfelder (talk) 15:51, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would this issue benefit from a wider ranging discussion? I accept that there is nothing terribly special about the Netherlands category? Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 5 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
That isnt the point. I'm perfectly happy with categories of organisations in particular cities. But I dont see why anyone wants to distinguish between companies classified as being in Dutch cities as opposed those classified as not being in cities. Rathfelder (talk) 16:25, 8 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
They are categorized by city rather than in cities and only the biggest cities with a sufficient number of articles about companies based there will pop up. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:45, 9 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:People from Sainte-Edwidge-de-Clifton, Quebec
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: Single-entry WP:SMALLCAT for one person from a small town, and a parent category for its MRC (which is not the level at which we standardize categorization of people from Quebec) with no other content. As always, every town does not automatically get one of these the moment there's one person from that town with an article -- we wait until there's a reasonable number of articles already available to be filed in it, and otherwise we just categorize them at the higher county or region level in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary as soundtracks have only been around for two centuries. Also, everything in here is a by decade category anyway. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯18:12, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Categories are navigation tools, and several of them serve as bridges allowing readers to locate relevant articles through the century tree. Category:20th century is parent ti multiple subcategories on the people, events, and works of the century. In most cases, there are not enough articles to populate millennium category trees. Dimadick (talk) 00:16, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Really, there's many, many more of these kinds of categories that could be added here. If other editors wish to add similar categories, I have no objection. DonIago (talk) 15:08, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivia; the suggested targets suffer the same problems of most "about" categories; how much about the subject must the film (or whatever) be? and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 05:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Clearer scope. And once again I find Carlossuarez46's argument nonsensical. Don't you ever get tired of this drivel about "trivia"?Dimadick (talk) 16:54, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I will say some of the categories may qualify for deletion under WP:SMALLCAT...but bluntly, this request was time-consuming enough to put together without getting into that. If editors want to break out the categories for deletion, they can be my guest. DonIago (talk) 20:25, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The en dash signifying the symmetric relationship between bridge and tunnel is used in article space; is there a reason not to do similarly in category space? Same for sub-categories... Dicklyon (talk) 06:04, 2 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I made a pretty good hash of that; got it right finally, I think, but don't know if I created side-effects in the process. Dicklyon (talk) 18:44, 4 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.