Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 5

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 4 October 6 >

October 5[edit]

Category:Bilateral relations of Malaya[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:18, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

See also: - Discussion Sabah–Malaysia relations 3 October 2012

Nominator's rationale: Malaya as an entity existed for about 6 years, over half a century ago. Any foreign relations it had were simply continued when it changed to Malaysia. This category will offer nothing more than a tiny duplication of Category:Bilateral relations of Malaysia. In addition, none of the current entries are correct. The three subcategories all relate to Malaysia and not Malaya, and none of them are about bilateral relations. Even before Malaysia, any relation with these entities would have been part of a relationship with the British Empire, these all being part of it.

In summary, a misleading category that has no use other than duplication. CMD (talk) 16:21, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

  • delete The three members are already being dealt with in Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 3 and are all likely to be merged into a new category. They do not belong in a "bilateral relations" category, and therefore there is no reason for this category to exist. Mangoe (talk) 17:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/rename according to outcome of recent discussion. I would have expected this category to be about the relations of Malaysia with other countries not about the internal relations between easter and penninsula states. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Support a good idea Omdo (talk) 10:15, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge/rename to/with what, and what recent discussion? The apparent bilateral relations categories have some value to do with articles related to federalism. This category, as you noted, is expected to be the existing Category:Bilateral relations of Malaysia. CMD (talk) 02:22, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 26 October 2012 (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:Football in Spain lists[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:48, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I just created this, and am unsure whether this should follow the "football" convention of the national-specific parent Category:Football in Spain or the "Association football" convention sport-list-specific parent Category:Association-football-related lists by country. Any suggestions on how to resolve these conflicting conventions? BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:09, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Merge as nominated, per the convention of Category:Association-football-related lists by country, in order to address the immediate issue of the Spain category. In general, however, I think that we ought to apply country-specific naming conventions (e.g., "Football" for Spain, "Soccer" for the United States, and so on). That being said, there must be a better title format than Football in Foo lists—perhaps we should follow the example of Category:Swedish football-related lists? -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The target is a redirect, so the action needs to be a rename, not a merge.
    I think that you make a good point about the wider convention, and a broader nomination may be a good idea. I would love to standardise all the categories on "Association football" rather than the mix of football/football (soccer)/association football ... but that would probably be too controversial. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I hadn't considered that; you're right, of course, and I've modified my comment. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:20, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- In countries that do not play (much) American, Austrialian-rules, or Gaelic football, do we need to specify "association"? If not, reverse merge. Rugby will always be so called. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:46, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    The target is a redirect, so the action needs to be a rename, not a merge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:51, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. The problems of confusion exist in all usages in the encyclopedia of football, the specific country will not save us from the confusion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:33, 18 October 2012 (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:Falkirk[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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:07, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

And all of these subcategories in the same way:

Nominator's rationale: This category is for the whole of Falkirk (council area), not just the town of Falkirk. The new name would be consistent with Category:Stirling (council area) and Category:Highland (council area) etc. Vclaw (talk) 13:48, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nominator, and create redirects after the move. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Would redirects be appropriate? They would, after all, take the place of potentially legitimate categories for the town of Falkirk. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Where town-specific categories are needed, they can be created. The existence of the redirects does not impede that. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 18:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I think they do, to some extent. Much like mainspace redirects are at times used to discourage article creation, category redirects can discourage category creation. In addition, they make it harder to detect the absence of town-specific categories: for example, an editor who adds an article to the category and sees a blue link will not know (unless s/he clicks on the link) that s/he just placed the article in a redirected category. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname all but Category:Economy of Falkirk council area etc. would be better. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 26 October 2012 (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:Politics of Madiera[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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 22:23, 30 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose upmerging Category:Politics of the Madeira to Category:Politics of Madeira
Nominator's rationale: The above title seems preferable to me, but I am open to correction if the alternative category title Politics of the Madeira is a preferred local usage. Hugo999 (talk) 12:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with U2[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 17:31, 14 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:People associated with U2 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED.
WP:OC#ASSOCIATED warns that the fuzziness of the term "associated" means that the inclusion criteria for any such category are inevitable either WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE or WP:OC#ARBITRARY. This category illustrates the point well: it includes Daniel Lanois, whose most notable career achievement is producing lots of successful U2 albums; but it also includes the broadcaster Dave Fanning, whose lengthy career is primarily notable for the rest of his broadcasting. Association with U2 is a defining characteristic of Lanois, but not of Fanning.
Relationships such as these are better handled in the text of the relevant articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC) BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:03, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. To solve this issue you just remove Fanning. Fanning's presence in a category is a not a valid reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.27 (talk) 16:17, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. "Associated with" is a weaselly term (any band/person who toured with U2 would qualify, depending on whether an attendee of that concert associates the two). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:39, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Carlossuarez. If a person's association with U2 is so defining as to merit categorization, his or her article could be placed directly in Category:U2. There is no need for a separate category with ambiguous inclusion standards. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:43, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-defining. I'd associate Homer Simpson with U2. Lugnuts And the horse 09:08, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:People associated with beverages[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. Those wishing to recategorize or listify any of the contents should check Cydebot's edit summary. (I have already made Category:Baristas.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:51, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Delete all per WP:OC#ASSOCIATED, which says The problem with vaguely-named categories such as this is determining what degree or nature of "association" is necessary to qualify a person for inclusion in the category. The inclusion criteria for these "associated with X" categories are usually left unstated, which fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE; but applying some threshold of association fails WP:OC#ARBITRARY.
These beverages are widely-consumed, so the categories are likely to be populated with people mentioned solely for non-defining characteristics such as enjoying drinking them. The impossibility of defining any clear inclusion criteria leads to disputes between good faith editors about whether to add particular biographical articles in the category.
Note that this nomination does not include the 4th sub-category Category:People associated with wine, because it consists solely of sub-categories which are neither arbitrary nor subjective. I have just tagged it as a {{container category}} to remind editors to keep it that way.
I did consider whether the nominated categories should be tagged and restricted in the same way, but only Category:People associated with beer has any sub-categories. The others have no sub-categories to diffuse to.
As an alternative to deletion, it may be possible to create specific some specific sub-categories for the beverages listed, e.g. Category:Businesspeople in tea or Category:Tea growers, and purge articles which do not fit in the specific subcats. I will support retaining any of these categories where that turns out to be a viable option. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:42, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Food and drink has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I feel associated with my morning coffee, my 4pm tea, my occasional beer, so put me in the cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:40, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- too vague to make a satisfactory category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nominator's arguments are persuasive. Miniapolis (talk) 02:06, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not delete Instead spend the necessary time and thought to create proper subcategories such as those of Category:People associated with wine. Delete is just a destructive action that loses the content association of these articles with the beveerage--unhelpful to WP and wasting the editors' time who populated these categories. Hmains (talk) 00:48, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete too vague to be a justifiable method of categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - These should at least be listified per Hmains. While the "associated with" needs explaining, which cannot be done in categories due to technical limitations, a list would allow for that. - jc37 04:41, 30 October 2012 (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:Irish politicians by century[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:21, 4 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting
Nominator's rationale: Ireland has been an independent state only since 1922, and the era of mass politics began only in the 19th century. Dividing Irish politicians in this way creates a pointless arbitrary split, and imposes a disruptive extra layer of categories which impedes navigation and complicates maintenance.
Note that I have proposed deletion of these categories rather than upmerger, because so far they contain only pre-existing sub-categories. They have been tagged as {{container category}}, so even if more sub-categories are added, there should be no need to upmerge. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:34, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:47, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I created these categories via AfC, and I'm not entirely convinced by this rationale. We have similar categories for, say, French politicians, and examples of Irish politicians of the 19th, 18th and even 17th century exist - see for example Category:Members of the Parliament of Ireland (pre-1801) and its subcategories. Now of course Ireland doesn't automatically need every category some other country has, but sorting people by century seemed a reasonable method to me which is hardly limited to just these examples. If it's considered arbitrary and useless here, why do we have Category:People by century and its subcategories? Should we get rid of all of them, and if not, where does it cease to be arbitrary? Huon (talk) 12:31, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since at least five years ago, apparently. There are other examples. 1, 2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.40.111.27 (talk) 20:49, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Poor enough examples. I see no advantage in categorising by century. No such cats in British politicians. Snappy (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this ends up being a recent/not recent split and we discourage that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2012 (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:Candidates for the Irish presidential election, 2011[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:56, 31 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging:
Nominator's rationale: These three categories were created a few hours ago through the articles for creation process. They have un-necessarily sub-divided Category:Candidates for President of Ireland, which contained in total only 17 pages. That is the total number of unsuccessful candidates for the office of President of Ireland; the 9 successful candidates are in Category:Presidents of Ireland.
Per WP:CAT#Overview, the main purposes of a category is to allow navigation between articles with a shared defining characteristic, and splitting up a small category in this way impedes navigation. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:10, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Ireland has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:44, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The difference is that the American category is part of a split of 728 articles. I agree about the French unless many more articles can be found; this may just be an example of WP:OTHERSTUFF. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:32, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - whatever else this category may be necessary for, navigation of Category:Irish presidential election, 2011 isn't it. That category has a grand total of a single article. It would hardly become cluttered by adding half a dozen or so candidates if that were considered desirable. Huon (talk) 13:28, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge - This is overcategorisation. A category of only 17 pages does not need sub-division. Snappy (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge unless there are over 100 articlesa which belong in the parent category, Category:Candidates for President of Ireland. Also, merge into respective election categories, if these exist. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:34, 15 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge these categories are just too small to be justifed, especially the 1990 one with only 3 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:41, 18 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per all of the above. One category is more than enough for 15 articles, and it's not as though any of them is going to grow in the future. Scolaire (talk) 13:41, 27 October 2012 (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 Americans in film professions[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 one, merge the other as nominated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:10, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no established scheme of American people in film professions and, with just 40 members, Category:African-American people by occupation is a long way from needing subdivision by occupational field. In addition, the 'film actors' and 'film directors' subcategories are part of Category:African-American people by occupation via other parents: Category:African-American actors and Category:African-American directors, respectively. If the category is deleted, only Category:African-American film producers‎ must be manually upmerged.
Furthermore, the general nature of the category seems to run counter to existing guidelines pertaining to ethnicity–occupation intersection categories, which state that they "should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right". This category, though currently it contains only three subcategories, invites categorization of African Americans in any film profession, regardless of whether the combination represents a topic of academic or popular interest. -- Black Falcon (talk) 05:41, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I am adding Category:African-Americans in science and medicine to this nomination. The situation is basically the same: it is an unnecessary and overly general intermediate layer between Category:African-American people by occupation and a small number of subcategories. -- Black Falcon (talk) 06:16, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support – the nom seems to have thought this through. Oculi (talk) 11:02, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support there is no need for these intermediate layers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:43, 18 October 2012 (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:The Band of Blacky Ranchette albums[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: no consensus. The nominator proposed merging, which was impossible because the target has never previously existed. The one comment does not appear to have noticed this, so I can't consider this category as having been sufficiently scrutinised to establish a consensus to do anything. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Article is a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:30, 5 October 2012 (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:Children's albums by Canadian artists[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:Children's albums by Canadian artists to Category:Children's music albums by Canadian artists. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:36, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per Children's music and parent category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose breaking this category out by nationality seems to be the way we are heading.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:45, 18 October 2012 (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:Powderfinger side projects[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:39, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per numerous other "[X] side project" categories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:23, 5 October 2012 (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:Pink Floyd bootleg albums[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. Per WP:CAT#Overview, the primary purpose of categories is to facilitate navigation. Neither of the two editors who supported keeping this category identified any navigational purpose for this category, so the strongest case is made by those favouring deletion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:59, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Entirely made up of hundreds of redirects, minus The Dark Side of the Moo and Divided We Fall (album) (the latter of which is proposed for deletion.) It's neither practical nor desirable to have categorized redirects for bootlegs and pirated albums and certainly not for Pink Floyd, who have hundreds or thousands. This is also composed of high unlikely redirects like Live in Hamburg (Pink Floyd album), Mad for F*****g Years, Electric Factory (Harvested version), and Electric Factory (album). I'll nominate the redirects for deletion pending this discussion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:32, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep within reason. I tried AfDing Pink Floyd bootleg recordings and consensus came back keep. The rationale for the AfD was that it was just a list, but thanks to Yeepsi and others, we found reliable sources for it. Some articles, such as Yeeshkul, are known enough in fan circles to be a valid searchable term, but don't have notability in their own right. Others don't belong here. However, XfDing hundreds of redirects will be an admin ballache from which I predict a "no consensus" outcome. --Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 12:57, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response What do you mean "Keep within reason"? We're discussing the category: should it be kept or deleted? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:16, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response I don't know that you understood the nomination in the first place and this is now a category with one article and hundreds of redirects (out of potentially a thousand more), almost all of which are unlikely search terms for a single main article. This is a perfect example of a category to delete. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:51, 19 October 2012 (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:Norteño[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 to Category:Norteño (music). BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:45, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article. Alternately rename both to Norteño music. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:17, 5 October 2012 (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:Ranchera music[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:43, 29 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:21, 5 October 2012 (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:Against All Will[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 09:16, 24 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:54, 5 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Against All Will has articles for its EP, two of its singles, and two of its musicians. The band is working on a debut full length album for 2012-2013. There is potential for articles about Jimmy Allen and Mark Bistany, since they both are members of at least two notable bands.--Jax 0677 (talk) 01:37, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though not due to the WP:CRYSTAL reasons noted above, but merely because it seems large enough to keep. - jc37 04:44, 30 October 2012 (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.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_October_5&oldid=1082510145"