Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 May 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 24 May 26 >

May 25[edit]

Category:Hotel Babylon[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. – Fayenatic London 22:19, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for a TV series and the book on which it is based, both articles already well linked. Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 22:47, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories that will only have two articles are generally not needed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:40, 28 May 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.

Holy War (Boston College vs. Notre Dame)[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. – Fayenatic London 06:30, 3 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No need for a category for a single article. Upmerge to all parents per WP:SMALLCAT. Tassedethe (talk) 22:08, 25 May 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.

1954 establishments in Ghana[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 as Category:1954 establishments in Gold Coast (British colony). – Fayenatic London 22:10, 3 June 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:Williamsburg Legacy 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: merge. – Fayenatic London 12:52, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. per WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 21:53, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 21:54, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to reflect current institution name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - one team which changed its name, no need for seperate categories. GiantSnowman 13:24, 28 May 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.

Virginia Beach Piranhas[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. – Fayenatic London 12:53, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. It's the same franchise. WP:OVERCAT. – Michael (talk) 21:40, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related page moves. – Michael (talk) 21:44, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom - one team which changed its name, no need for seperate categories. GiantSnowman 13:23, 28 May 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.

Hiplife[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. – Fayenatic London 12:45, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No need for a category for a single article; upmerge to both parents. Tassedethe (talk) 21:21, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge for now. I'm not that familiar with Ghanaian music but this cat might be developed in the future.--Lenticel (talk) 00:22, 29 May 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:Tor Hidden Services[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: do not delete. It can be renominated immediately for a renaming proposal. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:12, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Do we need to categorize websites by the site they are hosted on? If kept it should be renamed, something like Category:Tor-hosted websites. Tassedethe (talk) 20:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
keep this is not about being hosted on Tor, it is about using the TOR protocol to host a website, making it (somewhat) anonymous. This distinguishes these websites from all other websites, so I think it is defining, and the current name is fine. There's a reason silkroad is on here - that site deals in illegal drugs, so if it was on the web, the police could easily find it - since it's a TOR hidden service, it can't be found. But TOR isn't hosting anything, technically speaking, and even TOR doesn't know where silkRoad is or who is running it. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:02, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - as above.--Seerus (talk) 11:14, 7 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment but we do categorize hypertext sites "hosted" on the Internet accessed via HTTP in Category:Websites, and these are hypertext sites "hosted" on the Internet accessed via tunneling through TOR on HTTP; though I notice we don't have category:Gopher sites; hypertext hosted on the Internet accessed via Gopher -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:51, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
if there were notable gopher sites, a category would make sense IMHO for them too. But TOR especially is not about protocols it's about anonymity, so people choose to create TOR sites often when they're doing something they don't want others to find, like Silk Road or various political activist websites.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 12:53, 31 May 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:State cabinets of Germany[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:10, 10 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same scope ELEKHHT 07:56, 25 May 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.

Songs performed by Foo[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. There are over 5,000 categories in the "(artist) songs" format, and we're not going to change that by nominating two categories. This needs a much higher-level discussion if change is desired.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge.

All the songs have recently been moved from the more established Category:James Taylor songs and Category:Carole King songs to the nominated categories. There are two problems here with the new category names, one is that the title is a little too encompassing, it includes a snatch of song whistled while walking down Broadway and a solitary performance on a wet Wednesday in Waco. Secondly, the XXX songs category tree is well-established with over 5,000 members. I am sympathetic to the creator, insomuch that "XXX songs" is not the best category title, but this suggestion is not an improvement. Richhoncho (talk) 06:49, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • I don't think remerging would be helpful as "XXX songs" is less clear than "Songs performed by". If the concern is with the title, perhaps the solution is to find an appropriate title and suggest that? Would "Songs recorded by" be more fitting? SilkTork ✔Tea time 09:13, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – "XXX songs" is for songs recorded by XXX. Splitting Category:Carole King songs into Category:Songs performed by Carole King and Category:Songs written by Carole King implies that she did not perform the latter, which is unlikely. Oculi (talk) 10:58, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. "Foo songs" categories have long been established as part of the "Songs by artist" categorization scheme, which states the category is for "songs by recording artist". That still works for me. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:16, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (response to Starcheer..) I don't know, Fever (Little Willie John song) is categorized as Category:Rita Coolidge songs, Category:Beyoncé Knowles songs, Category:Amanda Lear songs, Category:Peggy Lee songs, Category:Bette Midler songs, Category:Madonna (entertainer) songs, Category:Elvis Presley songs. The real problem is that "XXX songs" implies ownership rather than performance of the song. Not even Little Willie John *owns* the song!--Richhoncho (talk) 11:33, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
When I think of "Marvin Gaye songs", I would expect to see "I Heard It Through the Grapevine" among them. If someone asked me my favorite Madonna song, I might say "Crazy for You". Neither of which was written by said artist, but to me seem appropriately categorized. I don't see how it implies ownership. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:00, 26 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reverse merge -- The target would cover songs written by her as well as those performed by her. This probably needs a much wider nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:21, 27 May 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:Norwegian-Canadian culture[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. It's a compound adjective; see WP:HYPHEN. – Fayenatic London 22:16, 2 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: the hyphenated form is not seen in the main article Norwegian Canadian or in other categories relating to same or of the same kind re "FOO Canadians".Skookum1 (talk) 04:14, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Category has been tagged as speedy but listed here. The category is correctly named, see Category:European-Canadian culture. Tassedethe (talk) 05:33, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge -- Tassedethe is correct: the hyphen is needed in the catefory, but not for the ethnic group. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:19, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Um, speaking as a Norwegian Canadian, it's totally unclear to me why in that usage "Norwegian" is not an adjective there, also. I see no difference at all between the two usages; I'm Canadian primarily, "Norwegian" is only adjectival in any construction. And a while back WPCAN got rid of all the hyphenated forms from all other categories.Skookum1 (talk) 06:57, 28 May 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:Reichstag (legislative body)[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. Is there any reason why Category:Reichstag can not become a regular category with Category:Reichstag (legislative body) and Category:Reichstag building‎ as the only members? That should not require a new CfD discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 8 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category:Reichstag is not in use because it is apparently ambiguous. However the two categories which were needing disambiguation are Category:Reichstag (legislative body) and Category:Reichstag (building); since August 2011 the latter has been a subcategory of the former, which also contains four articles legislatures that have been called Reichstag and a members category. Could we not have a scenario where Category:Reichstag is used instead containing Category:Reichstag (building) together with the members category and the four articles as well as the dab page at Reichstag? Green Giant (talk) 02:18, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support -- The Reichstag is the legislative body, not the building in which it meets. I am a little surprised that we need a category for the building. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:25, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose categories should not be ambiguous. For all too many people, it means the building, and not the legislative body. Further, Reichstag is a disambiguation page, and categories should not be created using disambiguation page names for non-disambiguatory purposes (unless they are container categories for that listed on the dab page). -- 65.94.76.126 (talk) 05:54, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Reichstag (German legislative body). The existence of the Austrian body with this same name suggests we should rename the category. Reichstag is a disambiguation page, so it suggests it is not a good name for a category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:22, 5 June 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:To My Surprise[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. – Fayenatic London 13:00, 4 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previously nominated on 26 November 2010, I believe the same rationale then still applies. One album article and navigation amongst the contents is easy enough to not require eponymous categorization. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:12, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. These eponymous categories for less than universally known musical groups serve no purpose whatsoever. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:25, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. There seems to be a perception among some editors that every band automatically gets one of these, but that's not the case — they're created only for exceptionally notable bands (e.g. Category:The Beatles, Category:The Rolling Stones) which generate a significantly larger-than-normal volume of related content. If all we have is the band's main article and an album, then we don't need an eponymous category. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 31 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per bearcat. --Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:55, 31 May 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:Nice Girl Project![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. Since both articles are in Category:Japanese singers, they appear to be in the correct tree. I did not see a better place to 'relocate' these, but if there is one, feel free to add it. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:05, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. No article for the group, which is what I assume this is. No mention of "Nice Girl Project!" in either of the articles categorized here. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:02, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If we don't know what it is about, why would we need the category? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:27, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another Suggestion. Relocate the two articles into a broader category. It's kinda strange that you brought this up, chap. Do what you can. Maybe I can remake it in the future. Komitsuki (talk) 15:01, 25 May 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:McClain Sisters[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:07, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Only 3 songs (2 of which are redirects), already categorized in Category:McClain Sisters songs, and the topic article. Doesn't offer additional aid in navigation. WP:OC#Eponymous. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:56, 25 May 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:HKT48[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:08, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Only 3 articles each easily linkable to and from one another. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:43, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Totally superfluous to WP requirements. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:51, 25 May 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:FC Kahuna[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:09, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unneeded parent category to Category:FC Kahuna albums with 1 album in it. Only other thing that could possibly go here is the main article. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:35, 25 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Totally superfluous to WP requirements. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:51, 25 May 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_May_25&oldid=1136102701"