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.
Keep - exemplary case of perfect categorisation of useful redirects. An upmerge to all the parents would be an alternative. Oculi (talk) 10:29, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would oppose removing that section from the guideline. The examples given there are persuasive to me: categorising is an easy way to sort the same info in a different sequence, i.e. alphabetical, which complements e.g. a chronological or analysed sequence in a list article.
upmerge A category consisting of a main article and redirects is not very helpful. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:38, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
(expansion of previous vote) Strangely as it may seem, my preference order is 1. delete; 2. keep; 3. merge. Merging does not solve the issue here of having a category filled with redirects to the same article that is already in the category. The fact that redirects may be categorized is totally reasonable, generally, (which is in agreement with Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects, generally), but it seems counterproductive when they are in the same category as the real article. Readers will expect to read something new when they click a next entry in the category and having these redirects listed in the same category merely leads to disappointment that there is nothing new at all. If alphabetic listing is a desirable feature, one should create a list article with a table that can be sorted by alphabet. Final remark, the second comment of User:Fayenatic london is a fair objection against merging, but it is not an objection against deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:00, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: my comment was intended very much against deletion, but not so much against merging. I suppose we could avoid category clutter by merging the redirects into Category:Middle-earth characters, and the article into the other two parents. – FayenaticLondon 23:16, 4 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no articles on anything except the main article, there is no need for this category at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:52, 26 December 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.
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. Splitting may be done afterwards if it looks useful; Fictional walruses, if created, should be a sub-category of Category:Odobenids. – FayenaticLondon 12:47, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seals and walruses are distinct enough that the category can be safely split into two subcategories without ambiguity. The categories above do not currently exist: (1, 2, 3). 165.91.13.99 (talk) 23:55, 29 November 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:Fictional characters who have mental powers[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.
Oppose, Category:Fictional psychics already exists as a subcategory of the nominated category. Apparently all other content of the nominated category is not about psychic abilities. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 7 December 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.
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.
Delete per nom. It has only two articles and is not a subcategory, and this genre intersection does not appear to be notable. Both films are already in appropriate subcategories of Category:Superhero films and Category:War films. 165.91.13.149 (talk) 16:05, 30 November 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.
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. I am closing all 4 of these discussions together, because they have all raise the same issues. The nominator (@Jc86035) should have nominated them all as a group (see WP:CFD#HOWTO part III), to avoid having a similar discussion replicated over successive sections.
There are clearly issues here which need to be resolved, but there is much better chance of resolution if discussion is centralised (per WP:MULTI). So if someone wants to open a group nomination, feel free to do so without delay, and include a link to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 8 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of awards by Mandopop artists[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with its parent category (could also be "Lists of awards for Chinese musical artists"). Jc86035 (talk) 15:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support renaming this category and the others nominated to match Fayenatic london's proposed names. Jc86035 (talk) 15:32, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt rename adding "received" makes it a lot clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of awards and nominations received by for Chinese musicians. The right term is musician, that is how we refer to these people on Wikipedia. The articles themselves say these are lists of awards and nominations. I have doubts as to weather these lists are really needed, but that is another issue. I know some will say my formulation with "by for" in it is odd, but I am trying to make it clear that what this is categorizing is "List of awards and nominations received by person X", where person x is a specific musician. Another big point, that needs to be born in mind, is that these people who have articles listing the awards and nominations they have recieved are categorized under category Category:Chinese musicians. Musicians is the right term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
It would be consistent with the categories nominated below if we would extend the scope of the category from Mandopop to all Chinese musicians, and also rename the category accordingly. I'm unsure about the "by for" formulation. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:28, 28 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of awards by South Korean musicians[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with its parent category (could also be "Lists of awards for South Korean musical artists"). Jc86035 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt rename adding "received" makes it a lot clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of awards and nominations received by for South Korean musicians. The right term is musician, that is how we refer to these people on Wikipedia. The articles themselves say these are lists of awards and nominations. I have doubts as to weather these lists are really needed, but that is another issue. I know some will say my formulation with "by for" in it is odd, but I am trying to make it clear that what this is categorizing is "List of awards and nominations received by person X", where person x is a specific musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Lists of awards by Indonesian artists[edit]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with its parent category (could also be "Lists of awards for Indonesian musical artists"). Should be split into a category for musical artists and one for actors. Jc86035 (talk) 15:39, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support alt rename adding "received" makes it a lot clearer. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:14, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists of awards and nominations received by for Indonesian musicians. The right term is musician, that is how we refer to these people on Wikipedia. The articles themselves say these are lists of awards and nominations. I have doubts as to weather these lists are really needed, but that is another issue. I know some will say my formulation with "by for" in it is odd, but I am trying to make it clear that what this is categorizing is "List of awards and nominations received by person X", where person x is a specific musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: and add "s" as with the others, or no "s"? (I would support "lists of awards received by musical artists".) I believe not adding an "s" would mean it'd be a list of "awards received", not a list of "awards" "received by musical artists". Jc86035 (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I would imagine that "by" is always followed by singular, but I don't have a strong opinion about it. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:10, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Most of the actual article names are "awards and nominations received by". Should that be accounted for since the category contents are not necessarily just for "awards received". Also, what about using "music artist" instead of "musical artist"? Thanks. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:17, 23 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The right term is musician. There may be a rename needed, but we should stick with the term musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:56, 26 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: As stated in the nominations, the categories include lists of awards for musical groups, and groups cannot usually be a musician (person who plays music). Have you never seen the terms "music[al] artist" or "recording artist"? Jc86035 (talk) 08:47, 27 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
neither of which is the term used on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia CAtegory:Artists is not for musicians. Groups can be musicians, at least as easily as they can be artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:16, 28 December 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:Historically segregated white schools in the United States[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.
Nominator's rationale: This category, were it to be complete, would comprise a majority of public schools in the U.S. that existed in 1954. It is unlikely that verifiable references could be found for each entry. The alternative is what we have now, a small sampling that by its nature has an NPOV problem. Rhadow (talk) 12:11, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as I also voted in the previous discussion. On top of that, I checked a number of articles, and while some of the articles mention the desegregation process in the history section of the article (obviously), it does not seem like the schools in this category are any different from all other previously segregated schools that are not in the category. So I'm not convinced of User:Orlady's arguments in the previous discussion to keep the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:52, 3 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is essentially schools in the American South founded before 1954. Segregated academies needs to survive and have a new parent. Pre-1954 integrated schools in the South might be a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 3 December 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.
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: Not a valid category since Mongolians do not have surnames.Johnsoniensis (talk) 12:16, 1 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Note: the nominator Johnsoniensis entered the rationale on the category page, not in the CFD log, so I have belatedly added it here, and re-dated the CFD template on the category page. – FayenaticLondon 09:31, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
delete per WP:SMALLCAT: one disambig does not a category make. I am confused by the claim that there are no such surnames, however. Mangoe (talk) 15:12, 30 November 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.
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 & delete. – FayenaticLondon 12:58, 7 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, just one article per category. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Iceland is a modern country, which began as a kingdom in 1918 and turned Republic in 1944. Previous mentions of Iceland are therefor anachronistic and should use contemporary descriptors (Icelandic Commonwealth, Kalmar Union, Danish Iceland, etc).GreyShark (dibra) 09:12, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agree that it is anachronistic to speak of an Icelandic state before 1918 per Greyshark09. It is possible to speak of Iceland as as island prior to that date. However, islands do not establish things, only states establish things. Much like the island of Great Britain as opposed to the Kingdom of Great Britain (of short duration). Laurel Lodged (talk) 19:58, 30 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Neither islands nor states are able to establish things. It is their populations who establish things. Notice that the categories use the term "in", not "by". Dimadick (talk) 20:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- I am not convinced that the year target would not be better "1208", rather than 1208 in Europe, but that is for another day. As a large island with a continuous history there is no need to fragment its history by constitutional status. Laurel Lodged's desire to split GB and Kingdom of GB is equally inappropriate. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 3 December 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.
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.
Delete per nom. And they're both empty as of typing this, so super speedy delete. LugnutsFire Walk with Me 08:45, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: for the record, the former members can be seen via Special:Contributions/21agoodaker. The categorisations were promptly reverted by user:NinjaRobotPirate. Normally, that would not be the right way to do things, but I make no criticism in this case, as the categories are plainly not WP:NPOV. – FayenaticLondon 09:38, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (and no objection to a speedy delete if that is permitted). I have previously tried to explain to the user who made these categories that they were on the wrong track when editing List of films considered the worst along similar lines. Sadly they seem to have decided to switch venue instead of changing their underlying behaviour. I'm sure that there are many places on the internet where people can go and share their subjective lists of least favourite movies without regard to encyclopaedic standards. This is not one of them. --DanielRigal (talk) 20:14, 29 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no objective criteria for defining the Worst films, nor have critics and audiences evaluated all available films to determine this. The "rip-off" category seems to be accusing the creators of these films, and could be a BLP violation. (Note: I initially assumed that "Rip-off films" had something to do with Rip Off Press, the long-lived underground comix publisher). Dimadick (talk) 20:40, 1 December 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.
