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. — ξxplicit 04:08, 2 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No need for the disambiguator, plus this category is for the media franchise. One article is a film not a TV series. Category:The Bund (franchise) is also acceptable. Timmyshin (talk) 23:39, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would think some sort of disambiguation would be appropriate since this category is not about The Bund. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
oppose as proposed this is not about the region in Shanghai, since this is not a geography category; use the alternate "Category:The Bund (franchise)" instead -- 70.51.46.39 (talk) 05:40, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Fine as it is. The Bund is generally understood as an area of Shanghai, not a TV series, so the category obviously needs the qualifier. But the current qualifier is fine. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:21, 31 March 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:merge per WP:NONDEF, "source" is not a defining characteristic of archaeological sites, art and literature. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:08, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom These are mostly empty container categories. Unnecessary level of categorization. Dimadick (talk) 09:22, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- The content does not seem to be about "sources". Peterkingiron (talk) 15:26, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
keep The content is all about sources, primary sources. It seems there is no understanding here of this category. To obtain an understanding, look at Category:Primary sources and its main article Primary source. And container categories are not empty as can be clearly seen. Hmains (talk) 19:41, 26 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In order to determine whether it's a defining characteristic, the Primary source article is not relevant. We should instead have a look at e.g. Art and see whether or not "primary source" is a defining characteristic of "art". It's a characteristic for sure, but it's not in any way defining what Art is. Marcocapelle (talk) 00:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The purpose of categories is to provide navigation to articles. These categories serve that purpose for WP readers. Hmains (talk) 01:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can think of another dozen non-defining characteristics in this context. But creating categories for them that would only lead to category clutter in the articles and would not facilitate easy navigation. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You are not looking at ALL the parent categories, but are only looking at one and ignoring the others. Also, in previous discussions at the location, I asked for the meaning of 'defining' and was told 'defining' only means that this discussion page accepted the category as 'ok'. So to argue that a particular category is 'not defining' is to argue nothing at all. Hmains (talk) 18:15, 27 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence of which says "In disputed cases, the categories for discussion process may be used to determine whether a particular characteristic is defining or not". Which is just another way of saying the definition of 'defining' means nothing; the only meaning is what is decided here by whatever methods are employed here. Hmains (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The last sentence is redundant and does not mean anything because in case of a dispute there will always be a discussion. In order to apply the guideline, we should check whether the category satisfies what's written before the last sentence. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:20, 29 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What is really going on here is that the entire category Category:Primary historical works is being called into question. That is fine, but this should be discussed at that level, not here, several levels down. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 29 March 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This used to be a WP:ENGVAR fork of Category:Argentine sportspeople, however I can see a use for this as a container category for a nation's participants at one of the numerous sports events, in line with the also existing and currently isolated Category:Canadian competitors by sporting event. Now if this category is kept (and possibly renamed), we should expand the concept across all nations. I think I would prefer that approach, but can also live with deleting this particular category and merging it up. Now I'm interested in your arguments, sportspeople! :) PanchoS (talk) 20:16, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Rename prefer (a). This is a parent for competitors at four international sporting event series. matching the Candian case seems appropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:30, 26 March 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:Delaware Fighting Blue Hens basketball venues[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) 08:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sports stadiums etc should not be categorized by their tenants/users (of which there may be many over the lifetime of a stadium). Categories based on sports (e.g. Category:Basketball venues in Delaware) are sufficient for categorization of stadiums and even these can put some stadiums in many categories (for different sports, music etc). The connections between stadiums and teams should be covered by links in the article text; it doesn't need categorization. DexDor(talk) 07:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
For info: Many of these categories were created by the (now blocked - example ANI) User:Levineps and a search of CFD archives shows many comments like "created during User:Levineps's hey-day of category creation", "deal with the mess User:Levineps created", "User:Levineps, who is community sanctioned for issues related to unrestrained recategorization", "the mess Levineps made of the category system as it pertains to NFL venues", "Thanks to Levineps, we already ridiculously overcategorize U.S. college football venues". DexDor(talk) 07:10, 25 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Both items are multi-purpose sports arenas. This thus fails OCVENUE. If a venue is wholly or mainly used for one sport, it would be appropriate to have it in a category for that, but if it is regularly hosting multiple sports, it should not. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:35, 26 March 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: More eponymous categories with only specific-topic related subcategories (songs and albums) - requesting deletion per numerous precedent and WP:OCEPON. With the lack of other content, those with discography pages can be downmerged. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 03:38, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, every musician or band that exists does not automatically get one of these — there must be a sizable volume of spinoff content, well beyond "main article + albums category + songs category", before one of these becomes appropriate. Delete all per nom. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 25 March 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.
