Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 28

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 27 October 29 >

October 28[edit]

Category:Adele (singer)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: Adele. If this passes, the subcategories would be speedy renamed. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note that, during that discussion, the main article was named "Adele (singer)" and it's now "Adele". RevelationDirect (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy/Expand Per WP:C2D. Since Adele has gained greater fame and none of the other items in Adele (disambiguation) seem plausible, the name is unambiguious. The subcategories should also be renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and merge the target back, leaving it as a cat-redirect. Sometimes it is necessary to have a disambiguator for a category, where the article has none. The classic case is Birmingham, whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands to keep up articles related to Birmingham, AL. In the same way, this category needs one, to exclude articles on other people called Adele. I am sure that there will be many, though none as prominent as the singer. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Unlike with Birmingham, "Adele" appears to be a valid mononym for only a few people, and aside from the singer, they're all mediæval people; everyone else on the Adele (given name) page has a surname, and we don't need a disambiguated category just because someone might put something related to Adele Megann into the singer's category. What's more, we're not going to need a subcategory for any of these mediæval ladies (it's not like we have tons of articles related to either one of them), so we really don't need to worry about disambiguation in the first place. Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 2 November 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.

Category:Wikipedia files for deletion[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:Wikipedia files for deletion to Category:Wikipedia files for discussion. Retain Category:Non-free content review requested until it is naturally emptied; once all of the discussions at WP:NFCR are closed and the category is thus emptied, it may be nominated for speedy deletion based on this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per rename of associated process, as decided at WP:Village pump (proposals) - see this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
To change "deletion" to discussion is something I am always in favor of, but why the same category for both? If that is the gist of the discussion, then that too is okay we me. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename -- The D in AFD and CFD had a different meaning. CFD is often not about deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename the first one. This probably should have been moved without a CFD, since it's essentially a C2D case. No opinion on the second; of course we'll have to merge a bunch of things, but as I'm not that familiar with the details here, I don't know whether the proposed merge is best or whether something else would be better. Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 2 November 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.

Category:Ships in Norwegian history[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) 23:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Besides, in the end, all ships are or become part of history. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- Why is it in a legendary category? It sounds as if it was a real ship. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point. Presumably it's because the ship appears in a legend-like song of later date, but I don't think we should keep the legendary category for that reason, I've removed it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 1 November 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.

Category:Kven history[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. I don't think there is a need to merge to anything, the one article is abundantly categorized already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/upmerge per nom. DexDor (talk) 07:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although recreate of course if someone comes up with other articles that would fit into it. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 2 November 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.

Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand[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. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 03:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. gadfium 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm easy on which way the merge goes.-gadfium 05:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or Reverse Merge Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. No preference on target name. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep They are not duplicates. One is a "by nationality" category while the other is a "by place served" category. Admittedly in the case of NZ, there may may be a high degree of overlap (i.e. most NZ nationals will serve as bishops in NZ itself). However, this is not necessarily the case for other countries. Ireland, for example, has a long history of 19th-century emigrants rising to the episcopacy in their new homes. So while they are Irish bishops, they are religious leaders in Australia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep parts of two different category trees as can be seen by reading the two categories; Laurel explains it well. Hmains (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • REverse merge -- If there are Kiwi religious leaders serving abroad, they can go into a separate but appropriately named sibling category. However I doubt that it will be a large category. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Laurel Lodged. I planned to vote for merging, but LL's argument explained quite well why there are two categories; deleting one such category out of many would be a horrid idea if there are a lot of other countries with two separate categories like this. Nominator may wish to start a discussion on whether the current setup is good, although it seems worthy of keeping, as far as I can tell at first glance. Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 2 November 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.

Category:Subdistricts of Karo Regency[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: When this was created we did refer to them as subdistricts, but 4 years ago the parent article was renamed to Districts of Indonesia as a better translation of the actual Indonesian term. While most of the others of this type are eligible for speedy renaming, this one probably isn't because strictly speaking it doesn't have an article of the same name -- it goes Region -> Regency or City -> District, and our article structure is organised only by region. They're mentioned on Districts of North Sumatra instead. For accuracy and consistency with our naming style, this should be renamed. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 10:35, 28 October 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.

Category:Songs from We Will Rock You (musical)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are original songs by the band Queen and thus none are defined by their use in the We Will Rock You musical. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (assuming that the nom is correct that these are all Queen songs). The text at Category:Songs from musicals (which currently says "Articles about songs that are part of a musical.") should be changed. DexDor (talk) 07:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We Will Rock You is what's called a "jukebox musical", meaning that it did not comprise original songs written for the musical per se, but simply took songs that already existed and then recontextualized them in a new setting. Each song here is already categorized as Category:Queen (band) songs, which is the appropriately WP:DEFINING characteristic on which they should be categorized. And as a point of comparison, we do not have a similar category for songs which appeared in Mamma Mia! — we categorize them only as Category:ABBA songs, and do not redundantly categorize them as "Songs from Mamma Mia!" alongside that fact. And neither do we categorize songs for their having been featured in Moulin Rouge! — we just list them in the film's article, and don't categorize them as such because being used in that film doesn't constitute a defining characteristic of the songs. Original musical theatre songs should certainly be categorized by the musical from whence they came — but pre-existing "jukebox musical" songs should not. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 1 November 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.

Category:America's Got Talent[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 for the purge portion of the nomination; discussion on that can continue on the category talk page if desired. No consensus to delete the main contestants category, either, but a consensus does support deleting the Pennsylvania intersection. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT, WP:SEPARATE and WP:G5
According to the article, the show consists of "a group of acts ranging from only a Top 20..., to as many as 60" contestants on each live episodes and some of those contestants also appeared on earlier audition episode. This is not like Big Brother where the cast is on screen for a full season. Including the showbiz hosts in the parent category is also non-defining because they were hired because they were famous rather than famous because they hosted the show. I do think the 12 winners are defined by the show so I created Category:America's Got Talent winners, and the 2nd and 3rd place for each season are in the template but this is overkill. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Note:The the category creator is blocked as a sock puppet but this discussion has been included in the Reality television task force. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 28 October 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.

Category:Electors of Baden[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. Even in discounting the multiple !votes, I think there's a trending here towards a consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 25 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: delete as a pointless category since Baden existed as an electorate for only three years, from 1803 to 1806. Before 1803 Baden was a margraviate, while after ending the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Baden became a grand duchy. Likewise for Württemberg which became an electorate in 1803 and a kingdom in 1806. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • For further clarification, the elector of Baden during these three years is also classified correctly in Category:Grand Dukes of Baden, Category:Margraves of Baden-Durlach and Category:Margraves of Baden-Baden so there is no loss of information. The same applies for the other two nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I still say delete -- This was a briefly held title. I suspect that the holder was also a margrave or duke at the same time. At worst retain as a cat-redirect; it is a credible search term and this should also prevent officious re-creation. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • (In relisting, I'm not expecting users to reconsider their previously stated opinions and to try to work out a consensus among themselves. Ideally what we're looking for is the participation of more editors to supplement the views we already have.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the Elector of Baden (or at least the category thereof) and throw the sole holder of the title into Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, and ditto for the Elector of WÞrttemburg. Simply trash the Electresses category, since its only article is List of consorts of Baden (odd title; it sounds like it's people who were married to Baden, not married to its sovereigns), and that article's "Electress of Baden" section says that there weren't any. When there's not a single article that rightfully belongs in a category, the category shouldn't exist. Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, Württemburg, not WÞrttemburg. Hit the wrong alt code, 0222 instead of 0252. There's a hazard to knowing the codes instead of picking them from a list, especially when you're touchtyping on the keypad :-) Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the last proposal. The target ought to be a container only category (or container and lists). An explanation of the appearance of these two electors probably needs to be included in the headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Uh, Peterkingiron—you realise that you don't get to !vote every time the discussion is relisted, right? You've posted three !votes above, all of which essentially advocate for the same thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 9 November 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_October_28&oldid=1144553426"