Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 June 16

< June 15	June 17 >

June 16

Category:Chamber music, other

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was it's already been renamed by the time I got here. Deleting the empty category. --Kbdank71 15:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Redundant category with no purpose other than being a place for articles that do not quite fit one of the other chamber music categories. Articles in this category should be placed in one of the other chamber music categories or the parent category, Category:Chamber music. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 23:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Chamber music, which I think is what the nominator is suggesting, to allow for appropriate recategorization thereafter. Bencherlite 23:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Chamber music. We don't need "other" categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Chamber music. Chamber music compositions that don't fall under the more precise string quartet, etc. categories can be placed within the more general chamber music category until/unless other categories (sextet, octet, etc.) are created in the future. --Kyoko 00:17, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as suggested by earlier posts.Support Johnbod's first alternative proposal below posted at 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC). I.e a new category Category:Chamber music compositions with string quartets as sub categories that do not cover all of the new category (at least for now.)--Peter cohen 20:45, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Mowsbury 16:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both. Two main categories exist: Category:Compositions by musical form comprising compositions and Category:Musical forms comprising descriptions of the various forms etc., but not compositions. Before the change Category:Chamber music was a confusing mix of both and in my opinion not adding value to users. Those looking for compositions would need to consider a high number of descriptions and vice versa. Lumping together the 15 compositions (and the number will undoubtedly be growing fast) with 25 descriptions etc. is in my opinion not helpful, but references between the categories is. I am not sure this distinction has been clear to all commenting above, and I hope you will reconsider in the light hereof. I agree that movement of compositions to specific categories (sextet, octet, etc.) over time is preferable but considering the many combinations of instrumentation within chamber music I believe that there will always be a need for an "other" category; otherwise it will be extremely difficult to click yourself through to a composition with an unusual instrumentation. (Classickol 16:45, 17 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
Keep and rename/reorganise Classickol has explained a clear need - the nominated merge would not be a good idea. One possibility is to create Category:Chamber music compositions with the 4tets & 5tets as sub-cats, & this lot as loose in the main category. ~~Or to find a better name - Category:Non-standard Chamber compositions ? Keeping as it is would be better than the nom, although the title should include "works" or "compositions"~~ Johnbod 17:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename/reorganise I support Johnbod's first alternative as being quite consistent with the overall category structure. It will keep the many articles related to compositions separate from other articles (cross reference is still possible), articles already in subcategories (string quartets, quintets etc.) will remain there, and those now categorized as "other" will appear as separate pages. (Classickol 20:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

In view of the way the voting is going, I would set-up/reorganise the categories not directly involved in this nomination now, and if this then closes as merge, the nomination & votes above can I think fairly be taken as approving a merge to the new Category:Chamber music compositions Johnbod 20:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am fine with Category:Chamber music compositions being the top category for chamber music compositions, with subcats like trios, quartets, etc., but the non-standard forms should just go in the parent category, be it "Chamber music compositions" or just "Chamber music." That's how it generally works, and Category:Chamber music, other just looks odd. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 06:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, "loose in the main category"; as I put it above. Consensus seems to be emerging round this. This could I think be achieved by renaming the current category as Category:Chamber music compositions , then adding the sub-cats, or by merging to a new category. Johnbod 16:00, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but there's nothing wrong with that. That's what parent categories are for. I don't see a category for operas like Category:Operas, other. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As far as I can judge we are all in agreement. By following Johnbod's proposal the "other" category will disappear and the pages hereunder will be part of Category:Chamber music compositions. Hence I suggest that Johnbod proceeds as proposed. (Classickol 21:16, 19 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Ok, I have set up Category:Chamber music compositions with 4 sub-cats for string 4s & 5s, plus piano 3s & 5s (duets etc I leave for others). Closer please note: if my suggestion is accepted as the decision, the close should be to merge this category into Category:Chamber music compositions & delete the empty old category. Johnbod 23:37, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For my part agree that you should now merge Category:Chamber music, other into Category:Chamber music compositions and the subject should be closed. (Classickol 19:00, 20 June 2007 (UTC)).[reply]

I agree. I've now done this. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Asian people by occupation

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Ethnicity / occupation categories are almost always a bad idea, and this one is being used to parent national cats ... which often leads to surprising results. -- Prove It ^(talk) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. It is not clear from the names whether these are ethic categories (as in British asian) or geographical categories referring to the continent. Whatever the intended meaning, these categs are a bad idea (the parent suggests they are intended as ethnic categories). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:05, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep These categories were created to help maintaining. These are supposed to be geographical categories. Monni 06:48, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Reparent "main" category directly to Category:Asian people to make more clearer this is for geographical categorisation and make note in category page. Monni 09:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: Prove It changed the scope to justify deletion of the category as per possible WP:OC. See diff between unvandalized original and current version before nomination. Monni 11:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since it is a parent of Asian Americans by occupation, I reasoned it that couldn't possibly be a geographic category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:13, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - That category also has Category:American people by occupation as parent and that is categorized the same way as Category:Asian people by occupation before getting vandalized. It is clear that Category:American people by occupation is sub-category divided by geography (country) because there is several unrelated ethnicities in United States of America. Monni 13:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - accusations of vandalism are not civil and is a failure to assume good faith. Please refrain from such accusations. Otto4711 17:05, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - I only say what is the truth... It is important that voters know all the relevant facts. I didn't say Prove It did vandalize the page, but only mentioned that the category was vandalised and implied that vandalisation wasn't properly reverted before category was tagged for deletion. Monni 17:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

- ~~Actually, what you did was provide a diff of ProveIt's edit - your implication that ProveIt was the vandal was perfectly clear. Bencherlite 18:00, 17 June 2007 (UTC)~~ striking comment as I had missed the "32 intermediate revisions" point. Bencherlite 18:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Since when saying "rescope" has been considered as accusing someone being a vandal? I could have taken any possible combination of two revisions of that page, but I decided to pick two most relevant ones. Monni 18:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    - Even if these were intended as geographic categories, it makes no difference to their fate; they are redundant layer above the national categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:OC#Non-notable_intersections_by_ethnicity.2C_religion.2C_or_sexual_preference Doczilla 08:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all redundant to national categories. Mowsbury 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom & Doczilla. Carlossuarez46 21:49, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nominator's reasoning is incorrect and amusingly U.S. centric, but these categories are not needed. Perebourne 23:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
These categories are not redundant, as these are used as starting points for sorting stubs using StubSense. Monni 04:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The stubbing system should not drive the main category system. Osomec 10:34, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, "Asian" isn't even an ethnicity, and includes groups as diverse as the Turkic peoples and Dravidian peoples as well as the stereotypical (in the west, at least) notion of Category:Peoples with epicanthic folds, which, I suspect, is more-or-less what was intended here. As a continental category, this is unnecessary, and as anything else, it is misleading and inappropriate and fails to reflect an international POV. Xtifr _tälk 00:28, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Lets get rid of all of these categorizations. Please nominate all other such categories you come across. Clean-up time. Bulldog123 04:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Video games developed in Japan

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 15:27, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not necessarily a defining characteristic as the location of development may or may not influence the direction or content of a video game. Furthermore, we have categories by company and developer which are all sorted by region so I would also think that this might be redundant to some degree as well. Though, it might not be as specific with larger publishers such as Nintendo who have developer studios based in other regions such as North America, but again, is it really needed? Combination 22:56, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As part of a wider system. It may not necessarily be a defining characteristic, but it very often is. Creative works of all kinds are sorted by country, because each country has its own culture, albeit that there are similarities between works produced by different cultures. Osomec 10:36, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep: I vote keep, but weakly becuase most games are developed in Japan, or by companies based in japan. very few companies are neither based there or from there. I'd say keep it if we had categories such as "Video games developed in Europe", "Video games developed in the United States", and "Video Games developed in Canada" to go along with it. I suppose these categories would become mutually dependent on each other since they are areas where games originate. RingtailedFox • Talk • Stalk 00:14, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Members of the United Kingdom Parliament

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Rename as minor point of pedantry. Members of Parliament (MPs) in the United Kingdom are described as MPs for a constituency; the word "from" could be misinterpreted to mean an MP born in a constituency, rather than the person elected to represent that constituency in the British House of Commons. Please note that the slightly clumsy use of the phrase "United Kingdom" in the category titles is needed to clarify that these MPs were elected to the Parliament of the United Kingdom (established 1801) rather than to the earlier Parliament of Great Britain (1707–1800) or the pre-Union Scottish and English Parliaments. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:38, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - as BrownHairedGirl states, the current terms could easily be misinterpreted. Warofdreams talk 00:22, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename--Peter cohen 13:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Mowsbury 16:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, and thanks to nom for a careful and precise explanation. Xtifr _tälk 23:03, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for the sake of clarity. It is not uncommon for MPs to represent seats hundreds of miles from their place of origin. Abberley2 01:25, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Pro Football players for 20 seasons

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:23, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, for Arbitrary inclusion criterion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The difference between 19 and 20 seasons is arbitrary. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:58, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OC#Arbitrary_inclusion_criterion. Doczilla 08:19, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Buildings and Structures in Pontardawe

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Neath Port Talbot --Kbdank71 15:24, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Please choose one of the following:

Merge into Category:Buildings and structures in Wales

Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Glamorgan

Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Neath Port Talbot

Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Pontardawe

Someone skipped a lot of levels here... -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Glamorgan. County-level is sufficient. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:57, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Buildings and structures in Neath Port Talbot, as part of Category:Neath Port Talbot and to match the equivalent sub-category of Category:People from Neath Port Talbot, which is a sub-cat of Category:People from Glamorgan, ~~so create new parent for this category after naming of~~ and make Category:Buildings and structures in Neath Port Talbot a sub-category of Category:Buildings and structures in Glamorgan. Bencherlite 23:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- That'd be fine by me. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:19, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  - Excellent. I boldly created the structure of Category:Buildings and structures in Wales by county, to group together various existing county sub-cats in the way that we have Category:Welsh people by county, and needed to create Category:Buildings and structures in Glamorgan anyway, hence change to !vote. Bencherlite 00:12, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Golden Team

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - redundant to Category:Hungary national football team. Otto4711 18:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Hungary national football team. The players can all be listified in the article Golden Team. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Individual teams/squads are list or template material rather than category material. This is essential to minimise category clutter. Osomec 10:37, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A merger is not required for the biographical articles, which are in Category:Hungary national football team already, and is not appropriate for the other articles. Casperonline 21:55, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Ferenc Puskás

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - category is not needed to organize this material. All of these articles are easily interlinked through the eponymous article. Otto4711 18:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people. This is an eponymous category for a father and son, containing only 4 articles which can be easily interlinked. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:25, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and ample precedent. Carlossuarez46 21:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:40 Glocc mixtapes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest mergeing Category:40 Glocc mixtapes to Category:40 Glocc albums

Nominator's rationale: Merge - redundant. Otto4711 18:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both to Category:40 Glocc releases in order to avoid the mixtape vs. album controversy. There aren't enough articles (4 in all) to warrant this much detail in subcategorization. -Andrew c 20:23, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:40 Glocc albums per conventions of Category:Albums by artist. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment ok, I can understand the convention for naming categories "albums". My concern now is with Category:Mixtape albums. If it is a valid distinction to separate albums from mixtaps, then I would support keeping the current scheme. However, most of the subcategories of 'Category:Mixtape albums' are blank (I'm going to mark for speedy). Maybe putting an article about a mixtape in some sort of category relating to mixtapes is appropriate. There seems to be well over 200 articles on "mixtapes". But I do not think having Mixtapes by artists is the best solution (because we get fairly small resulting categories). Before I make up my mind on what should happen to the 40 Glocc categories, does anyone have any input on the current mixtape categorization tree? Is there any precedent when it comes to them?-Andrew c 21:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My feeling is that there is little value in subdividing an artist's albums by what type of album it is or in subdividing the mixtape albums category by artist. A mixtape is still an album, just one distributed by means other than record stores. We don't create a separate category for an artist's "greatest hits" albums, nor do we subdivide Category:Greatest hits albums by artist, and there are artists who have multiple greatest hits albums (Cher has a half dozen or more). Category:Bootleg albums has only one subcategory, for The Beatles, and there's an actual The Beatles bootlegs lead article. Otto4711 22:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I agree with Andrew that there is little utility to "mixtapes by artist". Tewfik^Talk 03:37, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge after some thought, I still think we may need to break up the mixtape category (but it needs a major cleanup first) perhaps settling with a by year breakdown (similar to albums/songs/singles), but not a by band breakdown. While that issue isn't decided in my mind, it has become clear to me that there is no reason for this specific category to exist by itself, and I see nothing wrong with grouping the mixtapes with the studio albums as we mix albums of different kinds for other artists as a rule.-Andrew c 22:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 Hockey League broadcasters

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:48, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - improper performer by performance categorization, similar to a number of other categories for other sports broadcasters by network or league that have been deleted. Otto4711 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This in not a performer by performance category, it is the main career defining category for many of these people. Osomec 10:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Osomec... Ranma9617 02:24, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.

Horseracing in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:47, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose rename / merge

Nominator's rationale: Horse racing in Great Britain is governed by the British Horseracing Board, whereas both Northern Ireland and the Republic of Ireland are covered by Horse Racing Ireland. In the International Code of Suffixes indicating the country where a racehorse was foaled, the International Federation of Horseracing Authorities recognise the two regions as GB and IRE. Therefore, the terms United Kingdom and Republic of Ireland should not be used for horse racing. -- Zafonic 15:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to match the structure of the sport. However, please note that care will be needed in selecting parent categories to ensure that the categories are not orphaned from the other relevant categories for the countries involved. I also suggest that the category text of each category should clarify the scope, to remove any ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:55, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Alex Middleton 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Definitely to align with the structure of horse racing in Great Britain and in Ireland. Bcp67 20:02, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom & Bhg Johnbod 22:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lil' Mama

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, contains only Lil' Mama, and a template. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:49, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - totally unnecessary eponymous category. Otto4711 15:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:OCAT#Eponymous_categories_for_people. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above Bulldog123 04:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Other musical groups

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, due to unclear inclusion criteria. Intended to be a catch-all for Musical groups by genre, but it's not needed. Not every band needs to go in a genre category. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 17:08, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to avoid it being used as an inappropriate "genre dumping ground" for groups where article editors can't find (=can't be bothered to look for?) the appropriate genre in 100+ genre sub-cats... Bencherlite 23:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete vague catch-all cat per above. Doczilla 08:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mowsbury 16:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: if you can't find a genre category, you can at least use children of Category:Musical groups by nationality, and leave it up to others to diffuse to even more specific subcategories if/when necessary. Xtifr _tälk 22:51, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Congressional districts of Georgia

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:44, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Congressional districts of Georgia to Category:Congressional districts of Georgia (U.S. state)

Nominator's rationale: Rename Georgia is disambiguation. U.S. state article name was Georgia (U.S. state).Japan hoosess 08:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Question Is this really necessary? Georgia (country) does not have a Congress, and all the articles in the category are named without the disambiguator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match the other categories in Category:Politics of Georgia (U.S. state) and virtually every other category and subcategory of Category:Georgia (U.S. state). Consistency is not always a virtue, but here it can help. Hmains 18:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- Sounds persuasive. -BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
Rename per nom, for consistency. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:04, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Consistency may not always be a virtue, but I think it's frequently a good idea, especially for categories. Xtifr _tälk 22:56, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
rename for consistency. 132.205.44.134 21:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Popular episodes

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:43, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Popular episodes to Category:Popular (TV series) episodes

Nominator's rationale: Rename - to match the article Popular (TV series) and to reduce ambiguity. Otto4711 04:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. It still looks like Popular is an adjective, but the rename is an improvement. Doczilla 09:33, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom to reduce ambiguity. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:26, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:The Saint

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - following major cleanup to remove a couple dozen improperly categorized actors and directors, the enormous navtemplate links together everythng and then some. The category is not needed for navigational purposes. Otto4711 03:13, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as there is enough content here , I'm not sure why there only has to be one way to navigate between articles. Please do not remove articles from categories under discussion such you did here [1] as this gives a false impression of whether the category is worth keeping. Tim! 08:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the article in question was recategorized as part of a general category cleanup involving some two dozen miscategorized articles, done over the course of some 25 minutes before I nominated the category, and which cleanup is noted in the nomination. Please do not accuse me of wrongdoing as it gives a false impression that cleaning up a category prior to nominating it is improper. Otto4711 15:20, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
- I did not accuse you of wrong-doing. I'm just asking you to be more careful. Tim! 08:55, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary category. All the categorized articles are already linked. Doczilla 09:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This one seems big enough to be useful. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, This is a good one. -- Prove It ^(talk) 21:07, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bhg & Tim Johnbod 22:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but also a vote of support for Otto for cleaning up the category before nominating.--Mike Selinker 01:09, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the creator of the category. Another editor removed a line explaining the criteria for inclusion; I have put it back. 23skidoo 01:14, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Normally I agree with Otto on most of his eponymous cfds. This one, though, I think I'd err on the side of keeping it around. It looks like the category covers a pretty wide swath of media types including books, films, television and radio articles. I would say it's somewhat comparable to Category:Sherlock Holmes in that it houses a large number of articles about a character that appears in many, many types of entertainment format (although Holmes is obviously more pervasive). And while the main article probably can point the reader to most of the articles, there is enough here that I think the category would be useful in conjunction with it. Dugwiki 17:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Quebecers of French descent

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:39, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: That is also a duplicate category based on the category Category:French Quebecers. This category Category:Quebecers of French descent are looks the same from the other category. I want the category Category:Quebecers of French descent to be deleted. If any of the articles have a category Category:Quebecers of French descent, transfer the category to Category:French Quebecers. In the category Category:French Quebecers got the most article in that category. So, please make the category Category:Quebecers of French descent to be deleted. Thanks. Steam5 03:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:French Quebecers (which appears to be the nominator's intent), as a duplicate category. --08:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep both. Like below, this isn't a simple duplicate. The categories clearly have their distinct purposes marked. Category:Quebecers of French descent is a category to group the individuals who only have partial French linage. Because the larger "French" category already has 200 people, it makes sense to split off individuals who are not fully of French descent (which is the expressed purpose of this article). Also, it makes no statement on the language used by the individual, while the main "French" category does. Having one giant category that would include everyone in Québec who speaks French (the francophones) along with everyone that has full or partial French linage would create a category with well over 200 people. The scheme makes sense in breaking down the groups into more manageable categories. -Andrew c 20:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Quebecer of French descent is more clear than French Quebecer when linguistics needs to be taken into account. Rename instead Category:French Quebecer into Category:Quebecois people, per Canadian federal government recognition of the Quebecois people as an ethnic nation. That way non-Quebecois people from France can be properly categorized separately. 70.55.90.138 04:27, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

For your proposal, please provide a source for the federal government recognition. The term "Quebecois" should be avoided considering the long arguments at Talk:Québécois that reject its implication of ethnicity. –Pomte 05:18, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please do not rename both categories Category:French Quebecer and Category:Quebecer of French descent, but Category:French Quebecers had the most articles. I still want Category:Francophone Quebecers and Category:Quebecers of French descent to be deleted. This category to be merged to Category:French Quebecers. Steam5 05:31, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment - why do you want to get rid of francophone Quebecer into French Quebecer, when they don't even mean anything like the same thing? You can be a French Quebecer who only speaks English (and there are such people around), while any francophone must be able to speak french. 132.205.44.134 21:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as per Andrew c. I created the page and the scheme of keeping separate partial and full ancestry category pages. Many users support having "Fooian(-)Canadian", "Fooian-American", etc. category pages but including someone of 1/2, 1/4 or less ancestry in such lists is problematic and to lessen this (but admittedly not eliminate it altogether) I set up having partial and full descent separated but linked as the later the sub-category of the former. perhaps maintaining the partial/full descent divide is unnecessary? if so the single cat page should be Category:Quebecers of French descent again as those of partial descent can not rightly be termed "French Quebecer" Mayumashu 14:32, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is distinctly possible to be of French descent while not being francophone. (It's rare in Quebec, certainly, but it does still happen on occasion.) Hence, there's a distinction here that isn't adequately reflected by collapsing the categories. Keep. Bearcat 22:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Having these descent cats merely fragment a good category and turn it into 3-5 bad ones. In response to andrew, it is much better to sift through 200 last names (not hard) than go thru 5 different hula hoops to even understand a complicated category system that totally fogs up the whole purpose of categories. Delete per WP:OCAT.Baka man 05:56, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Francophone Quebecers

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was keep --Kbdank71 14:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: That is a duplicate category based on the category Category:French Quebecers. This category Category:Francophone Quebecers are looks the same from the other category. I want the category Category:Francophone Quebecers to be deleted. If any of the articles have a category Category:Francophone Quebecers, transfer the category to Category:French Quebecers. So, please make the category Category:Francophone Quebecers to be deleted. Thanks. Steam5 02:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:French Quebecers (which appears to be the nominator's intent), as a duplicate category. --08:04, 16 June 2007 (UTC)
Keep both the categorization scheme, once I looked into it, makes sense. The parent cat of Category:Francophone Quebecers is Category:Francophone Canadians, so having the modifier "francophone" instead of "French" makes sense. It references the language they speak. On the other hand, Category:French Quebecers is there to categorize descent. People who speak French, live in Québec, and have direct linage to the country France are in this category. It is a subcategory of the Francophone category, which covers people from Québec who, while speaking French, may not have direct ancestral ties to the country France. Having the Category:French Quebecers be the parent cat wouldn't make sense because it would call someone who isn't related to the country "French". That's like calling Mexicans "Spanish" just because of the language they speak. While some Mexicans (such as the creoles) would be Spanish, others such as the Indigenous peoples in Mexico are clearly not Spanish, even if they speak Spanish. Also, the "French" category is getting large (200 people) so splitting off the non-French makes sense.-Andrew c 20:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is not a duplicate of francophone Quebecer. francophone is a linguistic categorization. I hardly see how a Haitian Quebecer is the same as a Parisian Quebecer. 70.55.90.138 04:24, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as not a duplicate. The linguistic distinction is useful within the categorization structure. –Pomte 05:20, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Please do not rename both categories Category:French Quebecer and Category:Quebecer of French descent, but Category:French Quebecers had the most articles. I still want Category:Francophone Quebecers and Category:Quebecers of French descent to be deleted. This category to be merged to Category:French Quebecers.Steam5 05:33, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a linguistic category Mayumashu 14:41, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Steam5's suggestion does not make sense, as French Quebecer is a country-of-origin category, while francophone Quebecer is a linguistic one. 132.205.44.134 21:35, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It is distinctly possible to be a francophone Quebecer while not being of French descent. To name just seven examples off the top of my head: Michaëlle Jean, Aki Shimazaki, Alexis Wawanoloath, Dany Laferrière, Luck Mervil, Lara Fabian, Régine Chassagne. Hence, there's a distinction between language and ethnicity that isn't adequately reflected by collapsing the categories. Keep. Bearcat 22:38, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Stealth computer games

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Rename to Category:Stealth video games --Kbdank71 14:34, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Stealth computer games to Category:Stealth games

Nominator's rationale: Not limited to just computer games (a subset of video games). This category includes all stealth (video) games. --- RockMFR 01:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Stealth video games per the grandparent Category:Video game genres and great-grandparent Category:Video games. Other subcats should also be renamed with the word "video" as not having it creates ambiguity. Otto4711 02:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds fine to me. --- RockMFR 21:10, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Stealth video games per Otto4711. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, as nominator. Combination 11:02, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.