Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 6 April 8 >

April 7[edit]

Category:Recipients of the War Merit Cross, 2nd class[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 08:24, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining, 2nd-tier decoration for meritorious service. None of the subjects included are known for having received this award (see WP:CATDEF). K.e.coffman (talk) 23:35, 7 April 2017 (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:Shama Joseph[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 eponymous cat, delete album cat, no consensus on the 2 song-related cats (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

And: Category:Albums produced by Shama Joseph, Category:Song recordings produced by Shama Joseph, and Category:Songs written by Shama Joseph. See also above.

Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a redlink. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:43, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per WP:SMALLCAT, WP:NONDEF, as well as per the nominator's rational. If some editor wants to include the fact that Shama Joseph took part in this music production on the individual articles that's fine, but at the same time we don't need five categories about this topic. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:28, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete eponymous cat, delete album cat, Joseph was NOT a significant part of the production. Keep the 2 song-related cats. Categories are for joining common notable characteristics of articles, and the songwriter and production is a significant common characteristic. There is no compunction in WP for there to be a relative article for a category. There would be many missing categories if there was.--Richhoncho (talk) 17:51, 8 April 2017 (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:Albums written by Shama Joseph[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: You don't write albums, you write songs. This is separated from the other CfD that I'm making to set a precedent. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:42, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. This silly idea for a cat needs to knocked on the head. Fast. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:45, 8 April 2017 (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:Lucas do Rio Verde geography 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: merge to Category:Mato Grosso geography stubs. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:04, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Created 2 months ago, yet the permanent category only has 1 article. Geo stub categories are rare for cities, and this one is not deserving yet. Dawynn (talk) 22:25, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I assume this will be merged to a parent. It is clearly not needed. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:23, 9 April 2017 (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:Defunct art galleries in London[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. – Fayenatic London 08:30, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplicates part of an already existing category. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to redirect For HotCat and to discourage recreation. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These are all galleries and not museums.Jllm06 (talk) 15:54, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's not a duplicate, it's a sub-category. To be precise, it is the intersection of Category:Art galleries in London and Category:Defunct art museums and galleries in London. If it was to be merged, it should be merged to both parents, not just one of them.
    If the nomination included an upmerger of the parent Category:Art galleries in London, it might make some sense, but this would just mix up current and former galleries. What's the point of that? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:29, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @WilliamJE and Koavf: The only case for merging that I see is because art galleries and art museums are perhaps not different enough from each other to put them in separate categories. But that would then apply to the whole tree, of course. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge (or reverse merge): they are much the same thing. Some galleries are concerned with selling art, others merely with displaying it, and the latter might be said to be museums, but the term "art museum" is hardly used in UK. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2017 (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:Site of Public Interest[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:11, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category was created as a Portugal-specific classification, that could be misconstrued by other users as a catchall for "public interest sites". This is a specific category for architectural classification within Portugal. Category:Sites of Public Interest in Portugal was created to serve this specific purpose, and I suggest deleting this category in order to remove possible confusion in the future.ruben jc ZEORYMER (talk) 19:37, 7 April 2017 (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:Computer science teachers[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. – Fayenatic London 08:36, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category was originally meant for professionals who have focused their career on providing instruction for students in computer science, ie writing introductory textbooks, performing pedagogical research, and creating tools for students. The term "teacher" is informally used to refer to people who perform any sort of teaching, which includes college professors who primarily perform research but teach on the side. This category contains a list of professors who may or may not have pedagogy as their primary research goal, and is therefore incomplete and inaccurate. The parent category is "Computer science education", which contains the page for the ACM Special Interest Group in Computer Science Education and its associated annual flagship conference, the Recurse Center, and the IEEE-sponsored teaching awards. It also contains pages for a number of academics whose primary research goal is computer science education. I'm proposing to rename this category to "Computer science educators" to remove the ambiguity of including academics and professionals who don't necessarily focus on pedagogy and better organize the "Computer science education" category. This is inline with practices in categories for similar disciplines - Category:Mathematics education contains Category:Mathematics educators. Thanks, Blueclaw (talk) 19:29, 7 April 2017 (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:Overweight fictional characters[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:15, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For the same reasons Category:Fictional obese characters was deleted. It's entirely too subjective, too much POV and honestly a bit silly. CHRISSYMAD ❯❯❯¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 18:40, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per previous discussions (e.g. this). DexDor (talk) 19:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete no clear or objective criteria provided for what constitutes as "overweight", and I doubt any could be given regardless Snuggums (talk / edits) 04:11, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per above, not to mention that this category seems vague and possibly WP:OR. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:29, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Also note creator is now indefinitely banned from editing. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:39, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; without height and weight, we can't generate their BMI, so we can't define overweight-or-not-overweight. Nyttend (talk) 22:34, 10 April 2017 (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:Thrips 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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With only about 35 articles in the perm cat, this category did not have enough to justify building a separate stub category. Propose deleting category and upmerging template to Category:Insect stubs. Dawynn (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2017 (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:Felipe Delgado (record producer)[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not useful. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:07, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment/Delete - would it be possible to keep this category for convenience until the files are moved to Wikipedia Commons? After the files are moved delete the category by all means. Inter&anthro (talk) 04:31, 8 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Inter&anthro: How long would it take to move the files? Marcocapelle (talk) 08:47, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: To be honest I do not know, but there several editors who specialize in it. I will ask one of them today. Inter&anthro (talk) 10:51, 15 April 2017 (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:Recipients of the Military Merit Order (Bavaria), 2nd class[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 12:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining, 2nd tier decoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2017 (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:Recipients of the Military Merit Order (Bavaria), 3rd class[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 12:23, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non defining, 3rd-tier decoration. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:59, 7 April 2017 (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:Mandatory Palestine geography 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: split to Category:Israel geography stubs and Category:Palestine geography stubs, also merge to Category:Middle Eastern history stubs and delete; also delete template. – Fayenatic London 12:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Propose deletion. As a general rule, in the Stub sorting world, we categorize geographic stub articles under the current recognized country structures. Mandatory Palestine was a historic geo-political setting, but is not a current one. I recommend reclassifying articles such as the ones currently tagged into historic stub categories, and deleting this category and template. Dawynn (talk) 14:32, 7 April 2017 (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:History of the Habsburg Monarchy by country[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: withdrawn (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:10, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge, content of this category and its single parent category aren't different enough to keep them separate. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:47, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good suggestion (done) & thus withdraw this nomination. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:45, 14 April 2017 (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:Vermont religious building and structure 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: WP:SOFTDELETE. – Fayenatic London 09:09, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Since the Vermont church articles have been given due attention, raising them to at least start status, there are only 6 articles still remaining in these two categories, not enough to justify keeping stub categories. Propose deleting both and double-upmerging the templates to the appropriate parents. Both templates can be added to category:Vermont building and structure stubs. {{vermont-religious-struct-stub}} can also be added to category:Northeastern United States religious building and structure stubs. {{vermont-church-stub}} can be added to category:Northeastern United States church stubs. Dawynn (talk) 09:46, 7 April 2017 (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:Hart family members[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's no need to create an additional layer here. We group Fooian family members in Fooian family categories. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:07, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The reason I created the category was because the regular category was getting overcrowded with different forms of articles and that it would be nice if it was more of a consistent split between subjects. I won't shed a tear if it gets deleted but I think it's more convinent this way.★Trekker (talk) 14:23, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks ★Trekker. It is indeed a big family! But there has at times been pushback over the proliferation of family categories - though at least one is certainly merited here -- and I believe a well populated single category is best. We'll see. thanks, Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:31, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Oh and I should add we have another related subcat, Category:The Hart Foundation members. If there's a clear consensus that the Hart clan and its ventures are so large that we should WP:DIFFUSE in this way, I'll withdraw. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:37, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    I definitely think the Hart Foundation members category is worth keeping since it includes members which are not related to the family.★Trekker (talk) 14:48, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is a different case. I think it and its siblings should probably be added somehow to Category:Sportspeople by club or team, via some intermediary category, but this is not my area. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:58, 19 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I am not formally voting, as I do not know the context well enough. However categories like the subject are liable to pick up people who merely have the surname Hart, which is contrary to policy. I therefore tend to support. However, I work on the principle "one franchise: one category", and thus wonder whether we might merge all to Category:The Hart Foundation wrestlers. However, if I have the wrong end of the stick, please ignore my comment. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:11, 26 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    Many of the articles in the general Hart family category are not articles about members, some people in the family are not wrestlers and some who have been in the Hart Foundation stable/tag-team are not related to the Hart family so I don't really see this working.★Trekker (talk) 07:10, 27 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 07:10, 7 April 2017 (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:Recipients of the Military Merit Cross (Prussia)[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 12:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who appears to have created a multitude of categories on obscure awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:47, 7 April 2017 (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:Recipients of the War Merit Cross (Brunswick)[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 12:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Non-defining as none of the recipients are known for having received this decoration. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who appears to have created multitudes of categories on obscure awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:39, 7 April 2017 (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:Recipients of the Order of Bravery, 3rd class[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 12:51, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two members, while the award is "3rd class" and non-defining. Created by Special:Contributions/Folks_at_137 who appears to have created multitudes of categories on obscure awards. K.e.coffman (talk) 03:36, 7 April 2017 (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:Gospel singers from Detroit[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, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:41, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge Needlessly specific intersection. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:24, 7 April 2017 (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:Musicians from Appalachia by city[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 to Category:Musicians from Appalachia (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 12:15, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: /Upmerge No need to categorize by region of the United States and then city. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:14, 7 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. A single "musicians from the USA by city" category is good, and if we have enough city categories that it needs to be divided, we should divide by state, not by region. Appalachia is a particularly bad candidate for a regional division, as some culture-related definitions (e.g. File:Appalachian region of United States.png) don't do a particularly good job of matching the topographical definition. If we had a category for "Musicians from Winchester, Virginia" (right by the northern tip of Virginia) or for "Musicians from Montpelier, Vermont", would we exclude them because they're not in the map's definition, and would we include "Musicians from Batesville, Mississippi" because it's in the westernmost county of the map? Or would we say "of course Winchester and Montepelier are in the mountains, and the mountains are nowhere near the Mississippi River"? Better to use just state boundaries. Nyttend (talk) 22:36, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question @Koavf and Nyttend: Should parent Category:Musicians from Appalachia be kept? If so, that would be the appropriate merge target. If not, what would be the alternative merge target? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:35, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd say just merge them with their states; put the Winchester musicians with Musicians from Virginia (or whatever the name is), the Batesville musicians in Musicians from Mississippi, etc. We have to be careful, however (no bot work, for example); Appalachian mountain music, especially here in Virginia (see Bristol sessions and Carter Family#History), is the original basis for country music, and there's always a chance that someone ended up here because of a cultural affiliation, not a geographic association. Nyttend (talk) 09:08, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Nyttend: The content of the category only consists of two subcats Category:Musicians from Pittsburgh and Category:Musicians from Knoxville, Tennessee‎ which are both in their respective state category already, so I'm pretty confused about your Virgina-related answer. The main question is (I'll rephrase it negatively): shouldn't parent Category:Musicians from Appalachia be simultaneously nominated for deletion or merging? If the parent category should be kept, it is the obvious merge target. If it isn't, it may be added to this nomination, but then more details are needed on what you're heading for, for the both categories: entirely delete, or merge to precisely which target. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:55, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I hadn't checked the contents of this category, and in my second comment, I thought you were asking about "Musicians of Appalachia" with its 69 articles and 3 large subcategories. Delete this category, and in all likelihood, just delete that category after ensuring that all the contents are in the right states; this won't be necessary with the WV musicians, of course. Nyttend (talk) 00:40, 16 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Marcocapelle: I think that the music of Appalachia in general can be a meaningful category rather than a totally arbitrary or capricious one, so I'm hesitant to suggest that scheme be deleted. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:12, 15 April 2017 (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/2017_April_7&oldid=1138410550"