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. I checked a handful of articles and they are in in the pop song tree through other categories. If any do fall out they can manually be fixed. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. 5 of the 7 categories listed were previously nominated in 2009 (the 2010s categories didn't exist at the time, of course) and the discussion ended with a lack of consensus. This just seems like overcategorization to me or, at the very least, will lead to overcategorization once everyone wants their favorite genre to be categorized similarly or in an attempt to be consistent across genres. Should every category in Category:Songs by genre be diffused by decade? In the article for "Price Tag", it says the genre is pop, R&B and reggae, so in addition to being categorized in Category:2010s pop songs, should the categories Category:2010s rhythm and blues songs and Category:2010s reggae songs be created as well.
Other than a recent push of populating the 2010s rock and pop categories, this scheme hasn't garnered much traction since they were created in 2006 and there still isn't a large number of articles in them. If there is consensus to keep these categories, I would suggest something be added to WP:SONGS#Categories to clearly define and encourage their use. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:00, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This might be so much of an aside as to be irrelevant, but the argument "this scheme hasn't been implemented much/well/at all" is just as much an argument for using it a lot more as it is for deleting it. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:55, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We are saying the same thing. That's the point of my last paragraph. If the categories are to be kept, their use needs to be encouraged because the scheme hasn't entirely caught on. My argument against has to do with overcategorization that could also lead to further genre editing wars, which is already a problem on many song/album articles. One of the reasons we categorize Bruce Springsteen songs as Category:American rock songs is so each article on his songs doesn't have to be. Now we want to go in and categorize each song with Category:1980s rock songs, Category:1990s rocks songs, etc. If we're going to do that, why not just diffuse Category:1984 songs into Category:1984 rock songs, Category:1984 pop songs, etc. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I think the guidelines say something along the lines of just because category A is defining and Category B is defining it does not follow that A by B is defining. Genre relates to arrangement and performance, not to song, anyway. --Richhoncho (talk) 17:03, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep and encourage use in appropriate guidelines/cat headers. It's not unused as a scheme, it's just perhaps way underused. I think classifying a song by decade and nationality is fine, and since we have so many decade split is reasonable.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:52, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Before we all vote keep I think a quick trip to see what is at Pop song and Pop songs might be In order. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:56, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete I've changed my mind. Instead, encourage categorization of all songs by artist, by year, by nationality, and by genre (and in some cases, by nationality+genre). We could then use category intersection to calculate the rest if we like - visit my userpage if you want to see how that might work. based on the result of this discussion, we should also kill Category:Ballads_by_decade, I agree that we don't want to get into a by-decade-or-year + genre categorization, its a bit far and unlikely to ever be filled completely. artist/year/nationality/genre is more than enough.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:27, 26 July 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:reverse merge following RM. – FayenaticLondon 17:23, 9 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]
do nothing for now, turn Category:Technische Universität Darmstadt into a redirect. Then, see if you get consensus to move the article. If you do, then all is well. If you don't, then you should speedy Category:Darmstadt University of Technology to rename to Category:Technische Universität Darmstadt, as cats should match article titles in most cases. In any case, a redirect category should be left at the remaining title. No need to merge, as there's nothing in the first cat for now. In the future, please don't empty a category like that.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:23, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
May I expand your advise by please don't perform a potentially controversial move without further discussion and please don't create a redundand and sparsely populated category, then? Don't want to sound all too miffed, but I consider it an accommodation not to have left this redundant category empty and ready to be deleted. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 18:35, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry you're miffed; I think the point is, you should not empty a category before nominating it here for deletion. In some cases, membership in that category is important for the discussion, and something you think is redundant may not be, for whatever reason. I've made that mistake before, and just wanted to pass on that advice. Dupe cats get created all the time, people aren't supposed to, but it happens by mistake a lot.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 18:49, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose nom. Reverse merge back to where were. There is an open WP:RM, which is strongly opposed except by the nom here. Ultimately close according to outcome of RM. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
So two people, with one just backing the other's claim, can form a strong opposition? Interesting, didn't know that. Seriously: I still don't see the need for the harsh tone exercised here. And I certainly won't perform the recategorizing, which is the kind of work I would usually do under different circumstances. You seem to think that I had merged all the articles from one category into the other. That's not the case, just take a look at my contributions. still shaking my head, --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 10:16, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Peter - it is unwise to do a category move if there is an open RM. Next time, do the RM on the article title first, get consensus, then you can speedy the category. In this case, if consensus is to keep at TUD, then we should reverse merge as PKI says.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 20:06, 25 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's no need to tell me again and again what I should have done. I just didn't, alright? Technically, I totally agree with you. Yet, I'm expected to do things others aren't expected to do, and even if I do (having been told so in a commanding tone), all you tell me is "you should have done that in the first place". Yes, I know, that's why I'm doing it now instead. And there just is no need to perform a reverse merge as the vast majority of articles in the Category:Darmstadt University of Technology hasn't been recategorized by me in the first place. Such biased choice of words is what really pisses me off. Being right and being right can be two very different things. --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 08:14, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry if you took my tone the wrong way - I apologize. It was not meant to be commanding, it's just I haven't seen you here so perhaps you aren't used to conventions, but I could have phrased it more appropriately. If the article stays at the German title, reverse merge is needed to move them all over to the German-titled category.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, never mind, and I certainly don't feel any need to stretch this whole issue any further. Yes, I'm only an occasional contributor (at least in the English Wikipedia), and this time I just got the whole processing order wrong - I should have checked the article's name in the first place. So I apologize for the unnecessary fuss I've created. I still insist on reverse merge being an inappropiate term considering that the categories Technische Universität Darmstadt alumni and Technische Universität Darmstadt faculty haven't been created yet, but, whatever... --Axolotl Nr.733 (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Closing comment. I don't believe that this should be closed before the discussion about moving the article which is here. If that discussion is closed, then a note on my talk page to make me aware and I'll try and close this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 6 August 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.
Category:Films in The Lord of the Rings (film series)[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:26, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Middle-earth films, now there is a fourth based on The Hobbit. The nom's target is cluttered with a lot of files, which should perhaps go into a new subcategory. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:32, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This is too specific of a name. While I sort of see the other view, that small categories are helpful for accuracy, I tend to think that since we can have multiple categories we should go for an optimal balance between too many categories on articles and too few articles in categories, and thus generally not create categories that by their nature will not exceed 5 articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:36, 27 July 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:Listify. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:25, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The contents of this category are mostly redirects and dab pages (e.g. Ponga and Tutu). Some articles in the category are about plants (e.g. Kōwhai and Pittosporum crassifolium), but not about plant names. That there's a word in a particular language for a particular plant isn't a WP:DEFINING characteristic of the subject (a plant, not a word). This category appears to be an attempt to create a list of Māori plant common names (inappropriately) in category space. This is similar to a previous CFD. DexDor (talk) 05:04, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose incorrect cat contents is no reason to delete. There is a whole tree of Category:Words_and_phrases_by_language. Also, there's nothing wrong with categorizing redirects, especially in cases like this. It may need to be purged, but there's nothing inappropriate about a category of words in a given language - we have hundreds of such categories.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:20, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's nothing inappropriate about a category for articles about words in a given language, but this category doesn't currently contain any such articles - the pages are redirects, dab pages, articles about plants (not about names) and articles that have nothing to do with plant names (e.g. Hutu - which shows the category creator had little/no understanding of categorization). I.e. to purge this category would be to empty it. Emptying a category and then CSDing it tends to lead to accusations of "emptying out of process" - hence this CFD. DexDor (talk) 20:02, 23 July 2013 (UTC) P.S. Redirects like those in this category are usually categorized by adding a {{R from alternative language}} tag. DexDor (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "the article is about a word, not a topic" is a bit flexible and not really enforced in practice. In any case, dab pages should obviously be removed, but again I don't see anything inappropriate about this category, it's actually quite interesting. I think the one edge case is the redirects - for example, if there's a plant called Apple, but a few people who speak maori know it as Xyz, then we create a redirect and categorize accordingly, that wouldn't work if Xyz isn't commonly known in NZ. So I think any redirects that aren't in common usage should be simply deleted - but that's really a job for experts who know this stuff. I wouldn't want, for example, a redirect from chinese to every known english word - that doesn't make sense - these redirects in Maori only make sense if there is some way that they are known to english speakers in new Zealand. Obviously, sometimes the plant itself is at a maori name and that is also the commonName, but even in cases where the maori name is less common but still somehow known, I think it's ok. I don't know enough about NZ english to know which redirects are going too far however. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 22:39, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's "the article is about a topic, not a word" practice (i.e. categorize by article subject rather than by article name) that's relevant here - and it is normally followed (e.g. articles like House and Tree aren't in an English words category). The Pittosporum crassifolium article mentions its Māori name, but thats not a good way to categorize articles - for example an article like Orange (fruit) mentions several languages, but it shouldn't be categorized under Sanskrit/Dutch/German languages. DexDor (talk) 05:20, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per DexDor's example of it not being at the Maori name -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
listify The clincher for me is that a number of the targets are specifically disambiguation pages of the Maori name, where there are plants in two different genuses given the same (Maori) common name. I would agree that it's interesting and useful to have an index of plants by their Maori names. The problem is that the relationships are a bit too complicated without explanatory text, and I think pictures would be useful in such a list as well. As a side note it seems to me that some of these plants should be moved from the scientific to the Maori name, taking the latter as its common name, if that's what the plant is commonly called by English speakers. Mangoe (talk) 12:39, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Listify we generally do not categorize things (plants) by what they are named.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 27 July 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Having received an award is not normally considered to be a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person (see WP:OC#WARD). For info: There is a list at Herzl_Award#Recipients (which shows that most recipients of this award are not sufficiently notable to already have a WP article). DexDor (talk) 04:52, 23 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
delete along with parent whose only members are the main category and this subcat. Mangoe (talk) 12:45, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Yet another award category, which we do not allow. I assume we have a good enough list already. Peterkingiron (talk) 23:34, 24 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another example of an unneeded award category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 27 July 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.
