Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2016 July 5

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

July 5[edit]

Category:Films shot at Pinewood Atlanta Studios[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 to delete this isolated category, but it may be fruitful to have a discussion regarding the entire tree. -- Tavix (talk) 23:21, 9 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not trying to be disruptive, but I'd like to get consensus before this goes on any further. This category was created out of a discussion now underway at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_28#Category:Pinewood_Studios_films. I had remarked that films shot at a soundstage is a shooting location, not a producer. But I also asked whether it was advisable to start a new category branch for these. Well, one seems to be starting. I won't repeat all my comments at the other Cfd, but my worry is: do people feel this is a violation of WP:OCVENUE or more generally, WP:NONDEFINING? I'm going to link to this discussion at Wikipedia:WikiProject Film, who perhaps could have been consulted before we started down this road. Thanks. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I don't see this as a violation of WP:OCVENUE and will also not repeat my comments that I've had at the other Cfd. The other cat is improperly named, and this one is following a better naming convention. As for why I started this one, some of the films that are shooting at the Atlanta Pinewood were categorized in the Pinewood Studios films cat, which is for films shot in the UK. This was just a natural extension for clarification. - Favre1fan93 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks. Also, please note that I modified my rationale somewhat: I've now put "WP:OCVENUE or more generally, WP:NONDEFINING." I'm sure that won't affect your keep !vote but just wanted to be extra clear. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 18:38, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is effectively a subcategory of an entire tree of categorizing films by their shooting locations. I do not see a problem here. Dimadick (talk) 07:31, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Lean Toward Delete There are some studios that have a clear vision/grouping of movie. I'm not sure that a soundstage for hire picked by unrelated films because of state incentives is defining in the same way. If kept, the current name is sound, per Favre1fan93. RevelationDirect (talk) 08:49, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It seems reasonable to await the outcome at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2016_June_28#Category:Pinewood_Studios_films. The outcome there should probbaly be applied here. Betty Logan (talk) 07:52, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure if that rename discussion applies to this delete discussion, even though the topic area is nearly identical. If kept, I'm open to renaming this category for whatever that's worth. RevelationDirect (talk) 12:03, 20 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm also convinced by RevelationDirect's arguments; this doesn't seem defining. ~ Rob13Talk 21:31, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the discussion should be about the entire tree of "Films shot". If that is defining, then certainly the studio is. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While the studio as an organization that provides funding and creative artistic talent for a film is probably notable, the studio as a physical location in which a film was made is not defining to the film.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:44, 27 August 2016 (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:Baseball players nicknamed Soup[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:45, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See WP:SHAREDNAME. GZWDer (talk) 18:25, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
agree I should have made a disambig Editosaurus (talk) 18:27, 5 July 2016 (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:LGBT Wikipedians[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 and rename to Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians, which received no opposition. ~ Rob13Talk 17:08, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant and confusing; they're even both mutually nested inside each other and listed side-by-side. The one with the longer name claims to be a subcategorization of the shorter one, but that doesn't make sense. "LGBT" no longer encompasses the range of these self-identifications (not even nearly), and is just a shorthand form. When it comes to article categories, LGBT should probably remain in some cases, e.g. for LGBT movement, per WP:COMMONNAME and the actual history of the movement. Internal user categories should reflect editor needs (which are minor, and do not split the hairs that the reader-facing article categories do). PS: For history preservation purposes, I would suggest moving the items in LGBTQIA to LGBT, deleting the former, then moving the latter to the less exclusionary name.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:15, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Checkingfax as I know he created the LGBTQIA category, which we also discussed over at WikiProject LGBT Studies. Funcrunch (talk) 20:39, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Update – (cc to Funcrunch and SMcCandlish). I have removed Category:LGBTQIA from Category:LGBT. I thought that had already been done. Thank you for bringing this to my attention. Editors falling under QIA will benefit from having the choice to be in a more descriptive category, while those wishing to stay in the mainstream category may also do so. Cheers! {{u|Checkingfax}} {Talk} 00:03, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think resolves the redundancy and confusion problem (indeed, the reason I nominated this was discovering this redundancy and saying "huh?" when creating Category:Wikipedians who reject a sexual preference label the same day. We should just have a LGBTQIA Wikipedians category, with all this stuff in it. "LGBT" being "the mainstream categorization" is a very temporary assumption, and not a universal one. It's also important to remember this is not an article category and has no relationship at all to question like "is 'the LGBT movement' historically a term of art in RS that could affect how we category articles for reader navigation, despite broader actual scope of the movement today?", etc. That said, I agree with the circular-nesting fix in the interim.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:06, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • While I personally prefer the LGBTQIA label as more inclusive, I think if the LGBT category were to be changed or upmerged into the LGBTQIA category, some of the people in the older category might object. This is why I linked to our extensive discussion on the issue (now archived). Regardless, as it stands now, I'm one of only three Wikipedians in LGBTQIA, and if that category disappeared I wouldn't feel strongly about lobbying for its return; I have more important Wikipedia-related concerns at the moment. Funcrunch (talk) 16:11, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have now alerted WikiProject LBGT Studies to this discussion. Funcrunch (talk) 16:18, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty clear support. I would like to see queer, intersex, and ace subcategories for the LGBT category, but this umbrella one is just useless, as it technically encompasses less than "LGBT" does Abe only works to exclude alternative identities from some "list of accepted ones". Ahem, either way, I was quite frustrated the way this discussion went last time, so I hope we can reach a practical conclusion this time. ~Mable (chat) 08:44, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:LGBT+ Wikipedians Encompasses everything without endless extension of the acronym. DavidLeighEllis (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That would work for me too. ~Mable (chat) 00:34, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just stumbled on this, and I'm not necessarily aware of past discussions of this, but FWIW, I looked at the category (as someone who would fall under the A), thinking it was using LGBT as a catch-all, but a little disheartened to find it wasn't. I would support a merge into LGBT+ as that acronoym wouldn't need to be continuously extended. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 02:51, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
        • You were not mistaken. I'm quite sure "LGBT" was being used as a catch-all, much like how the LGBT wikiproject covers all non-heteronormative genders and sexualities. LGBT+ is fine, but not necessary. ~Mable (chat) 07:07, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
          • Ah! You're right. Then I probably got the impression from the fact that the only subcats are for the L, G, B, and T. At any rate, I would support the addition of a + because, even if it's not necessary, it just seems clearer, and additional subcats in any case. ~Cheers, TenTonParasol 14:56, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to LGBT+ per DavidLeighEllis. As annoyed as some people are by the ever-expanding alphabet soup of new letters being added to LGBT, I'm old and decrepit enough to remember when even L, B and T were as contentious as the Qs and Is and As and 2s and +s now are, on the grounds that just "gay" alone was good enough to cover everyone (with a side dish of "bisexuals don't exist"). But we certainly don't need two separate categories whose only substantive distinction is people's position on inclusion or exclusion of the extra letters (a matter which has nothing to do with collaboration on improving an encyclopedia) — our best choice here would be to pick a compromise term that's inclusive without having to be renamed every time another new letter comes along, and/or redebated every three months because people on one side or the other of the alphabet soup debate disagree with the name. Bearcat (talk) 15:52, 15 July 2016 (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:Ukrainian heraldry stubs[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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13Talk 17:16, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category is half a year old, but only has one article. Propose upmerging template, and deleting category. Dawynn (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2016 (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:Ukrainian nobility stubs[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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13Talk 17:18, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty stub category. Well, it had one article, but that had grown past stub level, so I removed its stub tags. Propose upmerging templates and deleting category. Dawynn (talk) 18:08, 5 July 2016 (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:Handicrafts[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 and rename as per nom. ~ Rob13Talk 17:26, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Arts and crafts to Category:Handicrafts
Nominator's rationale: Arts and crafts is synonymous to handicraft, the latter term being used more commonly (derived from the article Handicraft). The parent categories of both original categories all apply to the combined category. CN1 (talk) 16:53, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: It's more concise, and will also help avoid miscategorization of pages pertaining to the Arts and Crafts movement (not everyone capitalizes that).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  18:06, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I forgot to mention that I also aimed at distinguishing it from the Arts and Crafts movement. CN1 (talk) 14:44, 7 July 2016 (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:Nigerian law stubs[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. Dawynn (talk) 13:14, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated, and likely will not be filled soon. Proposing upmerging template, and deleting category. Dawynn (talk) 16:52, 5 July 2016 (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:Nigerian cemetery stubs[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 and delete. ~ Rob13Talk 17:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't expect to see this hit the needed population quota any time soon. Propose upmerging template, and deleting category. Dawynn (talk) 16:50, 5 July 2016 (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:Nigeria tourism stubs[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. ~ Rob13Talk 21:05, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The only tagged article here can easily be categorized under Geography, not Tourism. The template itself reads like a Geography template. Propose retagging the article, and removing both template and category. Dawynn (talk) 16:48, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Your rationale isn't good enough. The tagged article is a tourism related subject. —Oluwa2Chainz »» (talk to me) 17:59, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, how about: this is a vastly undersized stub category, created out of process. It's been established for nearly a year now, yet does not even have a proper template for the category (the only template is for a subset of the category). If kept, this would set precedent, as no other country (not even USA or UK) have a Tourism subcategory. I would request that the category itself be deleted specifically for size and interest alone (Stub categories should be no smaller than 60 articles -- see Wikipedia stub sorting. If there was interest, this category would have more tagged articles). If the template should be kept, interested parties should reword the template to differentiate its purpose from a standard -geo-stub template. Dawynn (talk) 16:30, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. One article? Only 59 short of threshold... the template is very poorly formed too. Grutness...wha? 02:31, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and per WPSS procedure. Her Pegship (talk) 19:40, 12 July 2016 (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:Islamabad stubs[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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13Talk 21:10, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category existed for about a year. Looks like recent efforts now have this down to a single article. Propose upmerging template to the parent category, and deleting this category. Dawynn (talk) 16:43, 5 July 2016 (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:Caucasus ethnic group stubs[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 and upmerge. ~ Rob13Talk 21:14, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category has been around for a year, and only 1 article tagged. Upmerge template to the two parent categories, and delete this category. Dawynn (talk) 16:36, 5 July 2016 (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:Ethmiidae stubs[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. ~ Rob13Talk 17:34, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Although currently unpopulated, I can see that there could be some use for this category. However, both the main category and the main article are named 'Ethmiinae'. I do not see an indication of Wikipedia following a naming scheme that includes family Ethmiidae. Please rename the stub category to Ethmiinae to match main article and permanent category. Dawynn (talk) 16:29, 5 July 2016 (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:1994s hip hop album stubs[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. ~ Rob13Talk 21:17, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Another unnecessary stub category. Again, the articles should be tagged by decade, not individual year. And the decade category is well within reasonable article counts. The only tagged article was very long, nowhere close to a stub. Template redirect, please delete this category. Dawynn (talk) 16:02, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we needed it (which we don't currently), it would simply be "1984 hip hop...", unless someone can come up with a logical answer to what the "1994s" are/were. Grutness...wha? 07:22, 9 July 2016 (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:1981s horror film stubs[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: speedy delete as per WP:C1. ~ Rob13Talk 17:30, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This was an unnecessary category. Stubs are categorized by decade in situations like this, and the 1980 horror film decade category is within reasonable record counts. The one film tagged with the associated template wasn't even a stub-class article. I've redirected the template to the decade template. Please delete the category. Dawynn (talk) 15:58, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. If we needed it (which we don't corrently), it would simply be "1981 horror...", unless someone can come up with a logical answer to what the "1981s" are/were. Grutness...wha? 07:21, 9 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians with unusual usernames[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:51, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Serves no collaborative or other purpose, and has no inclusion criteria (there is no way to measure "usual").  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:55, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this unusual category ;-) POV. gidonb (talk) 03:12, 12 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians that sometimes use mobile devices[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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 21:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In 2016, this makes as much sense as "Wikipedians that sometimes wear shoes". The subcat, Category:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone, which serves a collaboration-related purpose, should be kept, and "moved up" in the category structure, but is nominated for renaming, below. [PS: If kept, the one in this CfD nomination it should be renamed to "Wikipedians who use mobile devices".]  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:46, 5 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians who edit by smartphone[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: relisted here. ~ Rob13Talk 21:21, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Just for clarity, and to be more 2016 instead of 2010; most such mobile editing, on a regular basis by logged in and thus categorizable users, is probably done with tablets, not phones. [See also CfD of parent category above; the one in this nomination would need to be recategorized to take the place of that one.] — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  15:46, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into the new Category:Wikipedians who use mobile devices, along with the previous item. gidonb (talk) 03:17, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose There is nothing unusual or controversial about editing on a tablet. On the other hand, published reports by Wikipedia experts such as Andrew Lih and WMF staffers claim that it is highly impractical to edit by smartphone. My own editing proves that this notion is wrong. It is therefore useful to have a category of editors who use smart phones specifically, to foster collaboration and best practices. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 19:15, 14 July 2016 (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:Wikipedians who deplore the use of "outside of"[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:59, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, after months, and is populated by a userspaced template (and not a User:UBX one). We don't have or need categories for every imaginable style/grammar/punctuation/spelling nit-pick, even if there's a corresponding userbox (and I've created many such userboxes). If there's a perceived use for it, we should group them all in a single category, e.g. "Category:Wikipedians with writing-style peccadilloes", but it's more collaboratively useful for such people to just participate at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style (for how WP itself is written) and WP:WikiProject English Language (for article content on English usage).  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  06:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No clear collaborative value. (I should disclose that I use this phrase though.) RevelationDirect (talk) 08:50, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom (and to counter/complement RD's !vote, since I can't stand "outside of") Grutness...wha? 02:33, 8 July 2016 (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:Nearis Green Distillery[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization; this category contains only its namesake and one other distiller. – Gilliam (talk) 03:44, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There might be some potential category here for Jack Daniel's distillery people (although we'll need to be careful about the wording) but this category is small and not accurate. RevelationDirect (talk)
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 written by Brent Mason[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Brent Mason is not primarily a songwriter. He is a session guitar player, and this is his only songwriting credit. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:13, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, per previous discussion (Songwriter is defining of the song), plus being a session guitar player does not preclude one from being a songwriter does it? Also per SMALLCAT. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:35, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose The songwriter of a song is a defining attribute of it. What the songwriter does for a living is irrelevant. Dimadick (talk) 23:18, 6 July 2016 (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:Te Whakaruruhau o Nga Reo Irirangi Māori[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. ~ Rob13Talk 21:22, 16 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category does not really facilitate navigation at all. It contains the main article, Te Whakaruruhau o Nga Reo Irirangi Māori, an image file, and 27 redirects, all of which redirect to the main article. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:56, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:07, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pretty curious, doesn't aid navigation. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:37, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This a category for a radio network and apparently someone created redirects for most of its individual stations. Unless they actually get individual articles, there is no way to populate the category. Dimadick (talk) 23:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though I can see the point of the category. If the individual stations had their own articles it would make sense - and it looks like some of them did have. As Dimadick says though, if they have no articles, the category is redundant. Grutness...wha? 02:36, 8 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there are situations where categorizing redirects can be helpful, a category that consists of just one actual article and 27 separate redirects to that same one article is not one of them. No prejudice against recreation in the future if and when somewhere between five and ten of the stations ever actually have their own standalone articles (or the redirects are somehow pointing to different places instead of back to the category's own head article.) Bearcat (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2016 (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:Artists from Park City, Utah[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Has only one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:51, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom This is a single-item category. Dimadick (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2016 (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/2016_July_5&oldid=1074816705"