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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:01, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Parent category is small enough that we don't need to split this by state. Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:43, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge There's only one article here and 31 in the parent. This is probably below the imaginary threshold, but we should probably establish some standard (say 200, where there is more than one page in the parent) where splitting by state is appropriate per WP:OC#LOCATION to avoid battling over each of the occupation by state categories. Alansohn (talk) 21:06, 11 December 2013 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:06, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Small category holding only a redirect for a non-notable album. No chance of expansion. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Arthur Loves Plastic albums. Don't need a category for a single redirect whose target offers no info about the topic except that it was released; not sure the redirect of a nonnotable topic needs to be categorized at all. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:12, 16 December 2013 (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:merge category, but keep template. There was a weak consensus to upmerge the category, but persuasive argument that this category might be viable in the future. Keeping the template allows that to be done easily. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Unnecessary subcategory. An attempt was made to populate this category, but the corresponding stub tag is already on EVERY film in Category:1900s drama films, and there are only 51 articles, so the category cannot be expanded further. This category should be deleted, and the stub tag upmerged to Category:Silent drama film stubs and Category:Pre-1910 film stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 15:47, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 51 is close to the 60 self-impossed minimum for stub cats (can anyone tell me why it's 60? why not 50? Or 75? Or 37, etc?), so this could easily be populated with 9 more articles. Hell, if it's deleted, I will create the nine, just so it can be re-created. Bigger and more important things to worry about here. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 19:04, 11 December 2013 (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 category and template. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:49, 18 December 2013 (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 category, merge template. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:54, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. At best, things have been created out of order here. There is no article titled Sabahan, no permanent Category:Sabahan. Only one article merges here using a template that doesn't match the focus implied by the category title. Propose upmerging template {{Sabahan-activist-stub}} to Category:Sabah stubs, and deleting this category. Dawynn (talk) 13:49, 11 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. No reason to capitalize magazine for this category. Dawynn (talk) 13:42, 11 December 2013 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Category for personalities associated with a local radio program on a single radio station in a single media market; pretty clear WP:OC#PERF violation. Delete. Bearcat (talk) 05:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a performacne category, which we do not allow. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2013 (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:Upmerge both. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:09, 28 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. As agreed in a discussion of similar categories at CFD 2013 November 16, it is not relevant to the career of an actor that they come from one particular borough of New York City rather than another NYC borough. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:59, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
speedy merge and salt to prevent recreation.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:16, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I created the male actors one, but only for orthogonality with the actresses one - happy for both to go Icarusgeek (talk) 09:08, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge, of course per nom and precedent. But the nom's statement "it is not relevant to the career of an actor that they come from one particular borough of New York City rather than another NYC borough" is insightful, because it is equally applicable to whether someone is from NYC or Yonkers or Newark NJ, or anywhere in the metro area, etc. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:10, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Which of the 5 boros an actor is from is probably non-defining. However the targets are so fat that they need splitting, but how? Peterkingiron (talk) 15:06, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As I indicated, boroughs will not be a satsfactory split. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:15, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge This goes against the spirit of the recent decision to upmerge similar categories from 3 other boroughs.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 23 December 2013 (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:NO CONSENSUS. It seems impossible to discern a decision from this discussion, although I have some sympathy with the (in)significance argument in favour of deletion. -Splash - tk 22:38, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Arthur Loves Plastic albums. There is no established scheme for "remix albums by artist". The established scheme is for Albums by artist. Not every music act needs diffusion by a subdivision of albums by type, and it's definitely not needed for a single redirected article with zero info about it beyond a listing in a discography page. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 15:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response@Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars: I'm confused by your statement above, as there clearly is a scheme for remix albums by artist. Also, if you upmerge, you would have to do it to all parents, not just one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The "albums by artist by type" should only exist for certain artists who have released numerous albums where a diffusion is beneficial (The Who, The Beach Boys for example). It may be a scheme but not an established scheme as it is not "part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" nor is it mentioned in WP:ALBUMS, which only states to diffuse albums by type by year (Category:1990 remix albums for example). Not every artist who has released remix albums has a Foo remix albums subcategory (or needs one). --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:01, 16 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response Diffusion by artist also serves to diffuse by other schemes (e.g. genre or artist nationality). This is an extensive and well-worn scheme. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 17 December 2013 (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. It's long-since empty and lingering only because of this CfD. -Splash - tk 22:41, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Contains only one sub-category which is itself empty following my redirect of its only article based on the outcome of an AFD. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SMALLCAT (as above). Also, I categorized the redirects per WP:ALBUM and standard practice. It's generally not recommended to empty categories yourself and then nominate them for deletion. If they are to be emptied per some kind of process, then they can be nominated per speedy deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:46, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, I am aware that it is generally bad form to empty categories and then nominate them, however that is not what happened here. I redirected an article that per the outcome of an AFD was to be merged and redirected, which emptied the sub-category, not the nominated category. Maintaining two categories for a single redirect is nonsensical. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:14, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge this and other child cats of Category:Electronica soundtracks to parents The electronica category has only 31 members; each of the subgenre categories has a single member. It seems excessive to split these out, especially since I get the impression that the four cases can only be so distinguished because they are single band/group recordings rather than containing works from multiple artists. Seyasirt (talk) 14:34, 13 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response@Seyasirt: Why would you upmerge to only one parent category? Is this an oversight? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:50, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I said parents. It did not seem to be necessary to defend upmerge into the parent style category. Seyasirt (talk) 03:43, 16 December 2013 (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:KEEP. Though it sounds very much as if some serious work is needed if this is not face another deletion nomination before too long. -Splash - tk 22:43, 27 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. With the exception of Liza with a Z none of these are exclusively performed by Liza Minnelli, none of them are composed by her and several of them are cast recordings rather than soundtracks. None of the articles are about the albums themselves and several of them don't discuss the music in any detail. Categorizing soundtracks based on the artists who perform on them is problematic because usually a dozen or more people record songs for a typical production, which if fully implemented would result in more "soundtrack by" categories on film articles than film-related categories. There is a broad Category:Soundtracks by artist which IMHO should be looked at but regardless this category doesn't belong. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 01:34, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and remove cast recordings An album which isn't credited to her but simply features her amongst many other performers should be removed. If Lisa with a Z is actually a soundtrack album recorded by her as a solo performer (and it evidently is), then keep it and the category itself per WP:SMALLCAT: it's part of an established scheme of soundtracks by artist. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:49, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue that Category:Soundtracks by artist is not a well-established scheme based not only on its size relative to the available material but also its confused and confusing scope. It is unclear whether the scheme is intended to capture articles on soundtrack albums themselves, articles about films with soundtracks or some combination, or whether it is intended to capture articles based on the composers of soundtracks or the performers of them or again some combination and, in either, it opens questions of how articles with multiple artists performing on the soundtrack should be categorized. Is one song on the soundtrack sufficient and if so how does that not contribute to untenable category clutter for an article like for instance Thank God It's Friday which has well over a dozen artists on its soundtrack and at least that many composers? Regardless, SMALLCAT merely allows for small categories; it doesn't mandate them. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 16:23, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Scope The scheme is small only the extent that it's part of diffusing categorization of 200,000 album articles. It's well-established and while SMALLCAT doesn't demand extensive categorization, it defends it in cases such as this. Categorizing various artists compilations per the individual artists has always been struck down as a bad idea and this would be no different. If an album is credited to a particular performer, then it would be categorized as such. If someone just appears on one track, that isn't defining for categorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:25, 17 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The point still remains that these are not articles about the albums themselves. They are articles about the film/show/play which discuss to greater or lesser degrees, and in some instances not at all, the music in what may or may not be an article section entitled "Soundtrack" or "Music". This category is not diffusing any of the 200,000 album articles because none of these articles are about the albums. The entire soundtrack categorization scheme is flawed in its conception because the scope is completely unfocused.
Regarding the assertion that one track on the album is insufficient for categorizing, by what objective criteria can we reach that result? Objectively at what percentage other than 0 or 100 do we say that a soundtrack is or is not "by" a particular artist? If a soundtrack is mostly by Artist One but Artist Two also appears on at least one track, at what point objectively speaking does the soundtrack stop being an "Artist One soundtrack"? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 21:14, 30 December 2013 (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.
