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 renameWP:C2B. – FayenaticLondon 08:35, 1 August 2018 (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:Keep. Timrollpickering 12:37, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Having a "Towns in X" category under a "Populated places in X" category is normal in en wp (e.g. Category:Towns in Albania) and the nom doesn't explain why Malaysia should be different. Note: Category:Towns in Malaysia was empty (I've just placed one article in it). DexDor(talk) 13:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. It is not difficult to find articles about towns in Malaysia. {{Selangor}} lists about 50 towns in one state. Oculi (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Towns" apparently have some legal significance in Malaysia, thus categorizing them separately from populated places makes sense and is consistent with how this is treated in WP for the rest of the world. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:30, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
keep and populate. Not too much work. Much benefit for WP Hmains (talk) 03:19, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Some years ago, we moved from having categories for cities, towns and villages to having a single "populated places", because of the difficulty of determining where the boundaries between these lay. If we are to have a "towns" category for any country, there has to be a robust definition of what makes one place a town and another a village. My dormitory village has a population of 6500, which is considerably more than several places in the same county that are undoubtedly market towns. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 4 August 2018 (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:Language and nationality disambiguation pages[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. ℯxplicit 05:39, 7 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is afaik the only remaining category (after CFDs such as this) that disobeys the "Do not include this category manually in articles" notice at CAT:DABP. This category includes pages such as Lao which disambiguate many different things. Note: The category page includes the text "This includes disambiguation pages ... that do not have a language specific to that country or group, but which note the absence of such a language where one might be expected to exist." which is a bit strange (dab pages such as Andorran don't mention language). This is also, I think, the only "X and Y" dab category which categorizes dab pages for having at least one X and at least one Y (we don't have, for example, a category for "place and ship" dab pages). DexDor(talk) 05:50, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category collects pages that share a specific problem in order to make it easier to check for instances of that specific problem. Although there are exceptions, most of the pages in this category have the characteristic of the two most common meanings of the term being an ethnic/national description, and the name of a language (for example, Japanese, French, German, Telugu, Swahili, Persian, Vietnamese, Russian, Chinese, Romanian). Disambiguation pages with this characteristic are highly likely to receive incoming links due to the substantial number of articles describing people by their nationality of origin or citizenship, and by their languages spoken. For nationalities without languages by that name attached, it is still common for some editors to mistakenly assume that there is a language, and therefore to link to nonexistent languages. Perhaps the solution is to specify that it is a maintenance category. bd2412T 12:42, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the detailed reply. I can see how it might be useful, but I think it would work better as a list. A list could explain the scope better (e.g. Mancunian is neither a nationality nor language), could contain notes (e.g. about how to go about fixing inlinks, when the inlinks to each page were last checked), could include things that aren't dab pages (e.g. someone fixing inlinks like this might also want to check inlinks to pages such as Khoisan). I suggest listifying (and linking to the list e.g. from WP:DPL). DexDor(talk) 06:46, 30 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a valuable category which is underpopulated. Narky Blert (talk) 22:36, 31 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment many of these pages are not being used as disambiguation pages or are, but including topics that are rarely if ever referred to in the abstract by the name of the page. Take Armenian, e.g., - how often, if ever, is the Armenian Genocide referred to as the "Armenian" in the abstract? Many of these pages are just substitutes for "Pages that begin with..." Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:15, 1 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I have boldly edited the Armenian page. Even so it remains a valid disambiguation page. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Of the options on that page, there is little doubt that the primary source of incoming links will be between editors linking the nationality or ethnicity, and editors linking the language. bd2412T 12:50, 6 August 2018 (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:Delete. Timrollpickering 12:36, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Categories are for grouping articles about similar topics - not for grouping articles whose title has a particular characteristic. For example, the article about Sousaphones should be, and is, in Category:Brass instruments, but does not need to be categorized with articles such as Mozart effect and Elvis impersonator. See also previous CFDs (e.g. for eponymous cities). Note: this category is massively incomplete/inconsistent (e.g. articles such as Bach festival aren't in it). DexDor(talk) 05:06, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep but clean up. Although the category itself needs cleanup and a refinement of purpose, which should specify terms that are used to describe musical things (Beatle boot is an article of clothing, not a thing in music). Eponyms are their own category of study within the field of linguistics, and categorizing eponymous terms is reasonable for this purpose. bd2412T 16:22, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Future Listify We generally don't categorize items by their name per WP:SHAREDNAME and this seems like a similar "shared name type" category. Now certainly we allow list articles like List of streets named after Martin Luther King Jr. and I think a list article would also work better here, but I'm not going to make that a pre-requisite to deleting the category. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:38, 29 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NON-DEFINING. Also a WP:NOTDICTIONARY problem. The latter says that the topic of an article is the thing that the title denotes, not the title itself. The former says that we categorize based on defining characteristics of the article's topic, not trivial characteristics like whether the name of the thing is eponymous.--Srleffler (talk) 02:36, 30 July 2018 (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:Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering 15:46, 3 August 2018 (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:Cover art of album and single releases by CeCe Peniston[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. Timrollpickering 12:34, 5 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories appear to have the same scope (currently, they share 42 members), and the target name follows the established naming convention of Category:Album covers by recording artist. We do not, as far as I can discern, distinguish covers of albums and singles. (Category creator not notified due to retirement.) -- Black Falcon(talk) 05:00, 29 July 2018 (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.
