Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 July 20

< July 19	July 21 >

July 20

Comic book titles by publishing frequency

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep. Kbdank71 15:21, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book limited series

Category:One-shot comic titles

These are just a category containing any series which isn't "ongoing" (i.e. these are "limited" or "one-shot"). Each is just a voluminous grouping. And essentially they are just being used only as a "bottom-of-the-page" notice. Which is obviously not what categories are to be used for, per WP:CAT, etc.

The only way that I see either of these as worthy of being "kept" is for use only as a parent category. Presuming someone is willing to sort (sub-categorise) these all by publisher (as is the current convention). - jc37 23:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete both with no prejudice against re-creation as a parent cat only. - jc37 23:05, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the question should be - is either of these a 'defining characteristic'? If the answer is 'yes' it's a keep (regardless of subcats) and if 'no' it's a delete/upmerge. Picking Damnation Crusade from the first, is 'limited series' defining? Possibly - it's mentioned in the lead. Picking Mad Love (comics) from the second, is 'One-shot' defining? I would say yes; it's mentioned in the lead and there is an article One-shot (comics). Also the second only has 68 articles so is not really unduly 'voluminous'. (There is Category:Television pilots which is perhaps analagous.) So I'd keep the second. The first seems arguable either way - pass. Occuli (talk) 11:16, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think television pilots "may" be a little different, but I think I understand your thought.

Also, the latter may only have 68 now, but it has a potential for many more.

And mentioning something in an article doesn't necessarily qualify for whether that something is "notable". In addition, not everything that may be "true" needs to be a criteria for categorisation. (See WP:OC.) - jc37 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
keep as a defining characteristic of the comics in question. The size or supposed potential size of a category is no valid reason to delete it.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Hmains (talk • contribs)
Defining characteristic? That's incredibly hard to believe. Let's take The Man of Steel (comics) for instance. Is the fact that it was a limited series a defining characteristic for it? Or by extension, that being an "ongoing" series is defining for Superman: The Man of Steel? Of course not. Indeed, we don't have categories for "ongoing series". We have Category:Comics titles by company. And there are also more words like "limited series": "quarterly", "bi-monthly", "annual", and a horde of other ways to describe the publishing frequency. Are all of those defining characteristics? Of course not. - jc37 07:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are some series such as Crisis that are notable as limited-length series. And, all of these would just be upmerged to Category:Comic book titles doing nothing to address the original nom's issue with the size of the category (which I think is a non-valid reason for deletion, as above). No issues with subdividing them, and creating a new hierarchy; but, that is an issue with the articles in the category and not with whether the category should exist or not. Neier (talk) 05:56, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just as I noted about about The Man of Steel (comics), Crisis isn't notable because it was a limited series. And it definitely wasn't a "defining characteristic". As a matter of fact, I think I could probably list several "defining characteristics" about Crisis, none of which would we categorise it by (per WP:OC#Non-defining or trivial characteristic). But let's take this all a step further. What is a "limited series"? A series which is terminated, and is not currently "ongoing"? So are we talking about 2 issues? 4? 6? 8? 9? 10? 12? How about 52? Was that a limited series? Why yes it was. Yet, how many "ongoing" series last with far fewer issues? This is simply not a good sub-division of "titles". These should be upmerged to Category:Comics titles by company (which should then be sorted by publisher), and deleted. - jc37 07:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Incidentally, as for "one-shots", that's simply dealt with by Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Arbitrary inclusion criterion. Why 1, and not 2? Is there something so unique about "one-shots"? Famous Funnies was a "one-shot" by those terms. And would this also include an ashcan copy? How about an Annual publication? And then of course, there are those series which started out as a one-shot (or even a limited series) which, mid-way through, were determined to be "ongoing". - jc37 07:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There may be a better way to categorize these, but until then we need these cats. Being a limited series is a defining characteristic, and we need to be able to categorize comic series based on this. The Man of Steel (comics) being a limited series is a defining characteristic. Why isn't it? "The Man of Steel was a six-issue comic book limited series released in 1986 by DC Comics," is the approprtiate way of starting the article. What would be more appropriate? - Peregrine Fisher (talk) (contribs) 08:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Just because something is true (or in an article), that doesn't make it defining. Superman is drawn having black hair. Is that defining? Most of these limited series have staples as their binding. Is that defining? Most comics are printed. Most have art. Most use the colour black at some point. Some are sold on newsstands, or others at specialty shops. Or how about dimensions? Should we categorise based on the l x w of the comics? Most comic books of the 1950s were larger in dimension than the modern comic book. How about page count? Most comic books of the 1950s had a higher page count as well. Should we categorise based on these?

But ok, since 4 editors are calling this defining, let's fall back on policy: anyone out there have some references showing that this is a "defining characteristic"? And further that this is "notable" characteristic? Since, after all, we as Wikipedians don't determine such, we identify what others determine as such. (WP:OR, WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NPOV, etc.) - jc37 08:42, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic for any comic book series involved. Dimadick (talk) 12:05, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments
- There is a distinction between series type and publication frequency: "irregular", "annual", "quarterly", "bi-monthly", "monthly", "bi-weekly", and "weekly" are how often issues are either come out or are solicited to come out. This is not necessarily related to if the publication is slated for a finite number of issues or not.
- I'm not sure "<Publisher> limited series" would help since it would sub under bot "Comic book limited series" and likely "<Publisher> titles.
- If "Comic book limited series" is lifted from Category:Comic book titles, it seems more proper to move "One-shot comic titles" to a sub of limited series, not split it off as a parent unto itself. The one shots that are being listed are essentially 1 issue limited series.

- J Greb (talk) 11:02, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - as has been said this isn't a "publication frequency" but we could use this as an analogy - given the fact that most comics are monthly it is not really defining to use that as a category, but we do have Category: Weekly comics. Equally here we don't have an "Ongoing series" category as it is safe to assume it is ongoing unless otherwise mentioned. Note that {{Infobox comic book title}} now allows the format to be assigned with the switch between ongoing, limited series and one-shots and these automatically generate the category, so once everything is updated there is nothing hardwired and we can change things easily. J Greb is the expert but as we have the subcat field which is currently assigning it to "X titles" (i.e. subcat=Marvel Comics gives "Marvel Comics titles" then, if subcategorisation was thought to be a good idea I assume we can use the subcat field to generate "Marvel Comics limited series" and "Marvel Comics one-shots." So given the template changes that have been done we can rapidly update and recategorise things if need be. I'd support splitting things by company as it isn't that useful having everything lumped together. (Emperor (talk) 19:16, 22 July 2008 (UTC))[reply]

Comment - Given that Emperor has shown that sorting by publisher should be easily possible by template (and presuming that this will be accomplished soon?), and given that "one-shots" can be merged/subcategorised to "limited series" (per J Greb), and even though I still dispute that this is a "defining characteristic" (and also note that no references appear to be forthcoming), I'll defer to a speedy close as withdrawn, should anyone wish to close this. - jc37 07:43, 23 July 2008 (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:R. Antwerp F.C.

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 all. Kbdank71 15:20, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:R. Antwerp F.C. to Category:Royal Antwerp FC

Propose renaming Category:R. Antwerp F.C. matches to Category:Royal Antwerp FC matches

Propose renaming Category:R. Antwerp F.C. players to Category:Royal Antwerp FC players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the club's main article. – Pee Jay 21:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football related page moves. – Pee Jay 21:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. - Darwinek (talk) 21:02, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to match parent article.--Lenticel ^(talk) 23:54, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to match main article. пﮟოьεԻ 5 7 08:09, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support as per nom and general football naming consensus. --Jimbo^[online] 12:36, 23 July 2008 (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:Entities which received funding from the Unification Church

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. Kbdank71 15:38, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Category seems to have no purpose. According to talk page, "there are already categories for UC sponsored organizations." There were originally 3 articles in this category, now none. Exucmember (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from nominator - I'm not sure how to see what those 3 articles were. One was University of Bridgeport, which now has no category related to the Unification Church. If someone wants to make the argument that readers would benefit from this kind of categorization they can do so, but the University of Bridgeport article already has a substantial discussion of this issue in the text, which seems sufficient to me. -Exucmember (talk) 18:36, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have restored the 3 articles + the parent cat of Category:Entities which received funding from the Unification Church. My own suggestion would be - upmerge to Category:Unification Church affiliated organizations (this seems to work for 2 of the articles; the 3rd, University of Bridgeport, ought to be in some Unification Church category but was perhaps never affiliated). Occuli (talk) 19:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I took this category off the articles. For one thing the word "entities" sounds like something from a conspiracy theory, or maybe Star Trek. Besides that there is also the affiliated organizations category, which is used on many more articles. The Washington Times had both categories. The University of Bridgeport could just have the Unification Church category since there is a relationship between them but one is not the affilate of the other. Steve Dufour (talk) 23:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

American Freedom Coalition also has both the "affiliated" and the "entities" categories. It will probably soon be merged to List of Unification Church affiliated organizations anyway since it has only one source.Steve Dufour (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've put University of Bridgeport in the Unification Church category and now agree with 'delete' ... emptying categories should be done after the cfd rather then before. Occuli (talk) 11:21, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can easily be covered in the "related entities" section of the article. Johnbod (talk) 16:37, 22 July 2008 (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:Pokémon soundtracks

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. Kbdank71 15:39, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Only one article in the category, and it will probably be merged too. Judgesurreal777 (talk) 17:43, 20 July 2008 (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:Yishuv haYashan

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. Kbdank71 15:19, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Yishuv haYashan to Category:Old Yishuv

Nominator's rationale: Rename to the usual English name. --Eliyak T·C 17:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. —Eliyak T·C 17:44, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, IZAK (talk) 13:09, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per WP:ENGLISH. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 17:32, 27 July 2008 (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:Quebec communities with important anglophone populations

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 as to the solution. However, there is a clear consensus that whatever's done with it, the current name is problematic. Accordingly, I'm going to invoke admin discretion and rename this — in light of Otto4711's sensible point, I'm going to go with Category:Quebec communities with significant anglophone populations. Bearcat (talk) 01:07, 30 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

rename to

The use of the word important in the context is a Gallicism (in French important can mean large). Suggest renaming to a correct English word. This has already been discussed on the category's talk page, with everyone in agreement. --Countdown to oblivion (talk) 13:09, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, either Category:Quebec communities with large anglophone populations or Category:Quebec communities with major anglophone populations. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think you want the normal WP:CFD, instead of WP:uCFD. -- Ned Scott 05:20, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from UCFD. VegaDark (talk) 16:40, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - "Important" is completely subjective, but so are "large" and "major". How does one objectively determine what constitutes a "large" or "major" population? Whatever number or percentage population selected is inherently arbitrary and unsuitable for categorization. Create a List of Quebec communities with anglophone populations and source it with census data to confirm the size of the anglophone populations. Otto4711 (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify as per naming suggested by Otto4711 Mayumashu (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Either Listify as per above or change scope very slightly by making that "predominantly" or "majority", thereby making the far less arbitrary 50% mark the cutoff point. Or possibly do both the above. Grutness...wha? 01:19, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or listify and majority English speaking population is not necessary for an important population in either the English community or the anti-English community. 70.55.84.212 (talk) 05:17, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know what the right solution is, but here are a couple of examples that may be helpful in this discussion:
- Category:United States communities with African American majority populations
- List of U.S. cities with large African American populations
  Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 26 July 2008 (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:Watership Down locations

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, empty. Kbdank71 14:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: LISTIFY this within the Watership Down article. This is a category that serves no logical purpose since it could only contain the six entries it already contains and presumably to qualify for the category, each entrie's article references it as a Watership down location. Embedding this list of six articles in the Watership down article seems much more appropriate.--Mike Cline (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't think we even need to listify in this case, due to Template:Watership Down, per WP:CLN. However, should (for some unknown reason) the navbox be deleted, then, yes, the list should be made. - jc37 21:54, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or upmerge to Category:Watership Down. We seem to be losing sight of the point of categories - per WP:Categorization, nutshell, 'Categories are for defining characteristics'. An article on a Watership Down location has to be in a Watership Down category (or at a stretch a Richard Adams category), unless it can be argued that 'Watership Down' is not a defining characteristic of a Watership Down article. (WP:CLN says at the beginning that lists, templates and categories are supposed to be complementary, synergistic no less.) Occuli (talk) 23:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, WP:AADD#Notability is not inherited. That said, I would think that your comments about "notability" would have more to do with whether those location pages should be kept, than the category which has them as members.

Also, "complementary" doesn't necessarily mean that there must be a category, a list, and a navbox for every topic. Yes, it's possible, when useful. But while a list, a category, and a navbox are all useful for navigation, sometimes it's better to have all three, sometimes it's better to only have two out of three, and sometimes it's better to have only one. In this case, the navbox would seem to be the more useful navigation tool. (With the possibility of merging all the novel-based information to a list.)

This especially since several locations (including two rivers, and Watership Down, Hampshire) are actual places merely used in the novel.

I also note that the other three location articles are more plot summaries than descriptions of the locations. (One of which only exists in the TV series, and not even in the novel.)

So to summarise: This is likely too small for a category (3 novel-based locations; 3 "real-life" locations); This is a disparate group of "locations", which need explanation by media-type; the novel-based information from each member could conceivably be merged into a single list page.

So, no. I don't believe that this is a good example of "what categories are for". - jc37 01:28, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As it happens I had looked at the first 3 (fictional) but not the last 3 (actual places). I agree entirely that actual places should under no circumstances be categorised by fictional works that happen to mention them. London would disappear in a welter of 1000s of categories. Definitely not defining. Efrafa in contrast does need a 'Watership Down/Adams' category, just as Mordor has to have a Tolkien/Lord of the Rings cat of some sort. Occuli (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Which leaves us with 3 items, which could be placed well enough in the article (and are already in the navbox). And yes, the three fictional locations could be upmerged to the parent cat. Though (again) as an aside, I honestly wonder if they wouldn't be better as merged to a list. (Though I'll agree that Efrafa appears to be the best of them.) - jc37 21:57, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and purge. There's no excuse for real-world locations in a fictional category. However, the rest need a home, and this is it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:35, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well actually, they could/should be upmerged to Category:Watership Down, which isn't an incredibly large category. (And should be able to absorb the three here which would remain.) - jc37 07:43, 23 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The three real-life locations don't belong in any Watership Down category at all (they are, as someone pointed out, already in the navbox). The three fictional locations should be merged into their respective articles (or just deleted—they are largely just plot anyway) or, if the articles are kept, sent into Category:Watership Down. Mr. Absurd (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I've PRODded two of the articles, Darkhaven and Redstone (Watership Down). Mr. Absurd (talk) 19:06, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Being bold, I've redirected Darkhaven and Redstone (Watership Down), moved Efrafa into Category:Watership Down, and removed the other three articles from the aforementioned category as well. The category is now empty, and IMHO can be deleted without further discussion. Mr. Absurd (talk) 18:08, 26 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Leslie Satcher

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: keep, accepted scheme. Kbdank71 14:07, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Requesting deletion for the same reason that I requested deletion for Songs written by Anthony Smith (which was deleted as an underpopulated category). Satcher has only written a fairly small number of singles according to a search (I count fewer than ten that were released as singles, based on my extensive chart knowledge), and of the few that were singles, only one — "Troubadour" — has a page. Most of her compositions were not big chart hits, and therefore this category seems very unlikely ever to grow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:21, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "For These Times" by Martina McBride, which was written by Satcher, did have a page, but it got redirected as it was a permanent stub. I don't see it ever growing beyond stub class. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 17:26, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of wider scheme Category:Songs by songwriter. -- roundhouse0 (talk) 20:53, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why bother if only one song fits the category, though? Category:Songs written by Anthony Smith had two songs in it and it got deleted as overly narrow. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 03:52, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overly narrow scope. If there were even just a few songs I'd likely keep it, but one is getting kinda ridiculous. Wizardman 21:40, 17 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Note that I've decided to relist this. As roundhouse0 points out, this is part of a wider scheme. Ordinarily that wouldn't be an issue, but a lot of those categories have very few members - of the first 20 subcats, 6 have only one member and a further 4 have only two members. Therefore I think there should be further discussion before setting a precedent for all these. Should they be counted as "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" similar to Category:Songs by artist as described at Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Small with no potential for growth? the wub "?!" 12:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea. Category:Albums by artist also permits single entry categories. A rename to Category:Leslie Satcher songs is another possibility (the 'written by' scheme is not well-developed - but writing a song seems a more significant achievement than singing it). Occuli (talk) 12:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, everything in Category:Songs by artist is ambiguously named 'XXX songs'. Does anyone have a tame bot that would tag all these for a rename to 'Songs recorded by XXX', as stated in the intro to the category? Occuli (talk) 11:46, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

(copied from The Wub's talk page) I agree with your suggestion regarding the CfD for Category:Songs written by Leslie Satcher. Based on my extensive knowledge of chart history, I know that Satcher has written more than a dozen hits, but none of them were really big chart hits (a #8, a #12, and a handful of mid-30s). "Troubadour" is probably the only one out of her catalog that would deserve a page (except maybe Martina McBride's "When God-Fearin' Women Get the Blues"). Some people may be very notable per WP:MUSIC outside of their writers' scope, but only have a very small number of songwriters' credits. For instance, Keith Stegall has produced almost everything with the name Alan Jackson on it, and he's charted a handful of singles of his own, but I only see a couple songs (neither of which were cut by Alan) that have Stegall as a co-writer. Therefore, there would be no need for a Keith Stegall category either, as it would have little to no potential for growth. Writers generally get less recognition than the artists who sing the songs, so I would think that a writer would have to have a more extensive catalog to deserve a category. (For instance, if "Chrome" and "I'm Tryin'" had their own pages, I probably wouldn't have listed Anthony Smith's category at CfD, as that would have put four songs in the category instead of just two.) Ten Pound ~~Hammer~~ Farfel and his otters • ^{(Broken clamshells• Otter chirps)} 03:47, 23 July 2008 (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.

Cancelled & unreleased media

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 to Category:Unreleased works by medium. Kbdank71 14:05, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal: Merge and/or rename (to be determined).

Rationale: These categories are somewhat redundant to one another, and in addition, neither is properly named relative to their contents. I'm thinking that we might want to merge them into one category, along the lines of Category:Unreleased works by medium or Category:Unreleased works by genre. But there may well be a better solution. Notified creators with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 15:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

When I say that they're not properly named, the point, very simply, is that it's not the media themselves that are cancelled or unreleased, it's particular works (creative works) -- sorted by medium. Cgingold (talk) 23:22, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and untangle - there's a difference between for example a "cancelled" book (for instance, a contracted sequel to a novel that didn't sell) and an "unreleased" book (completed but unpublished manuscript). This is a useful distinction IMHO. But the two cats should not be subcats of each other. Otto4711 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I spent some time looking more deeply into these cats & sub-cats, and discovered that it's even more of a mess than I realized. With perhaps one exception (for cancelled films) it would not make sense to maintain separate and distinct categories. I'm short on time right now, so I'll try to come back later and discuss this in more detail. Cgingold (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to sketch out the problem, which essentially revolves around the issue of cancellation versus all other reasons for creative works not to be released. I would agree in principle that there can be a distinction. But in actual practice the lines are very blurred and -- with the perhaps notable exception of cancelled films -- it's very difficult, if not impossible, to make a determination as to the exact reason that something wasn't released and how best to describe it. (You may remember the recent CFD that ended up merging Category:Civil rights and Category:Civil liberties into the new Category:Civil rights and liberties, because we agreed that, in practice, it was simply too difficult to make those distinctions.)
More on this later, I'm out of time right now... (Please relist if necessary.) Cgingold (talk) 23:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 11:50, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I basically agree with both. I think the head-cats should be merged as Category:Unreleased works by medium, the films have "cancelled" as a sub-cat of "unreleased", the books have first "Unpublished books", then the current "Unpublished novels" as a sub-cat. I think that covers it. Johnbod (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I guess it's merge both into Category:Unreleased works by medium. There's more work to be done, but that can be dealt with later. Cgingold (talk) 11:41, 26 July 2008 (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:Brahmins speaking Hindi and its dialects

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. Kbdank71 14:03, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization.See : Wikipedia:Categorization#When to use categories. There are Brahmins all over India speaking almost all Indian languages. Ravichandar _{My coffee shop} 02:45, 11 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest Rename Category:Hindi-speaking Brahmins, to contrast with "Bengali-speaking Brahmins", "Tamil-speaking Brahmins" etc. However, I leave open the question of whehter it is necessary or desirable to categorise by caste. I am English, not Indian. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so that consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, the wub "?!" 11:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the Indian project has decided not to categorize by caste, and there is some precedent against "by language spoken" cats & anyway "Hindi and its dialects" is too vague. Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (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:Places in Gujarat

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, empty. Kbdank71 14:02, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Geography of Gujarat Eastmain (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom - there are a few more Category:Places in XXX (see index) some of which are redirects to Geography (eg Category:Places in Gibraltar). Occuli (talk) 10:10, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

NB All these 3 are empty. I see Bahirgachi was in one but was moved (20 July) by Eastmain ... Occuli (talk) 11:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all these ones Johnbod (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for this and next two items -- Categories of this kind are widely used for other countries, I would have expected them to be subcategories of Category:Geography of Gujarat, which would also include general articles on aspects of the geopgraphy of the state, and on articles on other aspects of it, such as rivers, mountains (if any). In any event do not salt: we may want it one day. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2008 (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:Places in India

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, empty. Kbdank71 14:01, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Geography of India Eastmain (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all these ones Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (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:Places in West Bengal

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. Kbdank71 13:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary duplicate of Category:Geography of West Bengal Eastmain (talk) 05:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all these ones Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 21 July 2008 (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:Afghan porn stars

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: move article to correct category and delete as empty. Kbdank71 13:55, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains only one article for Silvia Lancome, who is Slovakian and only of part Afghan heritage. Category name suggests porn stars from Afghanistan. PC78 (talk) 01:51, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Create Category:Slovakian porn stars and put Silvia in that category instead. If no other "Afghan porn stars" have articles, the above-nominated category will be deleted as empty, but likely not for any other reason as it is part of a firmly established occupation-by-nationality structure (see Category:Porn stars by nationality). There is a precedent to keep analogous sub-categories with at least one member (see Category:English popes). "Afghan porn stars" can be kept (or undeleted in the future) if an article belonging to it is found or created. — CharlotteWebb 10:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment on "Slovakian porn stars" suggestion: Category:Slovak porn stars already exists; no need to create afresh under a different name. No opinion on need to delete or keep. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:53, 21 July 2008 (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:African religions

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 to Category:African traditional religions. Kbdank71 13:51, 28 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:African religions to Category:African traditional religion

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proposed name parallels both the name of the main article African traditional religion and the category Chinese traditional religion. Also makes it clear that this category is not for articles that belong in the category Religion in Africa. Caerwine Caer’s whines 01:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename - but should it not be pluralized to Category:African traditional religions? While they undoubtedly share common features, given the diversity of African cultures, there clearly are many distinct religions, so I don't believe it's entirely comparable to Chinese traditional religion. Let's see what other editors have to say on this point. At any rate, renaming will hopefully help keep out articles like Zionist Churches, which I just removed from the category. Cgingold (talk) 06:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Since religion can be used as both a count noun and a mass noun, I have no preference on whether it should be plural or not, but if the plural form is used, the associated article needs to be pluralized as well. Caerwine Caer’s whines 23:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African traditional religions per Cgingold. Occuli (talk) 10:13, 20 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African traditional religions per Cgingold. Plural more correctly reflects the obvious diversity, and is unambiguous. Associated article should be pluralized. Also, without the modifier "traditional" what would be the basis for excluding Islam and Christianity? -Exucmember (talk) 02:44, 21 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:African traditional religions per Cgingold for the reasons he provides. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:34, 21 July 2008 (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.