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.
I think so - don't we already? "This is a maintenance category. It is used for maintenance of the Wikipedia project and is not part of the encyclopedia. It contains pages that are not articles, or it groups articles by status rather than content. Do not include this category in content categories." it says on the head cat. Johnbod (talk) 19:59, 22 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The subcategories of Wikipedia Sources contain Wikipedia articles (not talk pages) about encyclopedic topics and (currently) place them under Category:Wikipedia administration which (IMO) doesn't make much sense and is the sort of anomaly that I'm trying to remove (to make category intersection more workable). Currently the categories are under Category:Reader help (which isn't correct) and they wouldn't belong under Category:Wikipedia editor help either (that says "should not be used to categorise articles"). Three options: (1) leave unchanged, (2) re-parent these categories (e.g. so they are not under Category:Wikipedia administration etc), (3) delete these categories. Option 3 is the cleanest from a categorization perspective. Another reason for not categorizing articles in this way is that if an article is placed in an "abnormal" category and not placed in any "normal" article categories then it won't be flagged up as an uncategorized page. If these categories were being used in some sort of editor workflow then that could be a good reason to keep them, but afaics (e.g. by looking at what-links-here on a sample of the categories) that isn't the case (i.e. I haven't found any WikiProject instructions that involve these categories). I guess these categories have been created because it's easy to include a bit of code in a template to populate what is in effect a "template tracking category" - regardless of whether the resulting category provides benefits that outweigh its costs. DexDor(talk)05:20, 23 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete. Upmerging isn't applicable because the parent categories are only relevant for the eponymous article. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:13, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- I am asked if I have changed my mind. The answer is "No". There has to be a limit on how small a place justifies having a category, and I still think this is too small. I note there are now an article on the place, a church and a battle, together with a subcat for people from it (which should also be upmerged. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
@RevelationDirect: (1) I agree, matching to parent category looks like a no-brainer. (2) I am a blues fan, and IMO your second thought was correct. Blind musicians exerted a major influence on the development of blues (which is OC my opinion, and OR etc etc). Narky Blert (talk) 02:27, 5 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed to Stand-Alone Deletion I'd be strongly opposed to deleting just this genre of blind musicians without also deleting the classical and parent categories. Note that this is my 2nd vote. RevelationDirect (talk) 13:32, 14 August 2015 (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.
