Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 4

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< July 3 July 5 >

July 4[edit]

Category:Plumbates[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:53, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Its only member is its main article, and there do not appear to be any other articles about plumbates on Wikipedia. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 22:13, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to both parents. @The Nth User: please not that "delete" is a different process from "merge", and simply removes member pages from the category. In this case, the page would be orphaned if the category was deleted. – Fayenatic London 06:49, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not any more it wouldn't. But you're right, merging is a better proposition - with no prejudice against re-creation if someone writes articles for iron plumbate, potassium plumbate, etc. Note, though, that there are at least three existing articles which could go into this category - plumbate, plumbite, and lead(II,IV) oxide, so keeping the category is not too far-fetched. I also wuldn't be surprised if there are articles relating to plumbate-based ceramics. Grutness...wha? 08:52, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Grutness: I disagree with the other two pages that you added to the category. In a plumbite, the lead has a +2 oxidation state, not a +4 oxidation state, not a +4 oxidation state like in a plumbate. Also, I don't want to call lead(II,IV) oxide a plumbate because the structure does not have discrete anions; calling an oxide with lead in the +4 state a plumbate is like calling quartz a silicate, tin(IV) oxide a stannate, or arsenic pentoxide an arsenate. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:02, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
        • @The Nth User: Plumbite is more commonly known as plumbate(II), so not having it in the plumbates category seems a little odd, although I understand your reasons. Lead oxide was my mistake. In any case, as I said, merging is probably still the best idea, with no prejudice against recreation if any of the other plumbates get articles. Grutness...wha? 06:55, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, as the category is eponymous, it should have also been in parent categories of Category:Plumbates per WP:EPONYMOUS (especially because oxyanion categories typically contain salts with the anion, not only anions), but since it wasn't, you were right. Good catch. Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:02, 10 July 2019 (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.

Albums by genre and decade categories[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. MER-C 08:37, 14 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is not a useful way to navigate and will only result in proliferations of Category:1980s powerviolence albums. There is no consensus for this triple intersection or discussion as I can see--I noticed this when Category:2010s spoken word albums was created and there was a similar discussion for classical albums by decade and year here: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_4#Classical_albums_by_date. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:19, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are over 500 spoken word albums which suggests that decade categories could be readily populated. The existing ones have been created in the last few days and have not been fully populated as yet. Oculi (talk) 00:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- nothing wrong with Category:1900s albums. Nothing wrong with splitting 'classical' out. In fact all the classical categories result directly from the cfd cited in the nom. 'Comedy albums' and 'spoken word albums' should be a separate nom. And there should be an upmerge rather than delete. Oculi (talk) 14:33, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, these are not triple intersections, but perfectly standard subcat schemes by decade for say Category:Spoken word albums (from which 2010s have been picked out for some reason). Category:2010s albums looks fine to me; nothing excessive so far. Oculi (talk) 14:40, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep a totally value-destroying proposal. These are simple and natural subcat schemes. In ictu oculi (talk) 15:16, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:2010s spoken word albums and the other recently created spoken word albums by decade categories to Category:Spoken word albums. I don't see a need to diffuse. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:45, 5 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep I agree with In ictu oculi, this proposal is destructive. Dimadick (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Before the LP era, (surely starting in 1950s, as nom), recordings of larger works were issues as sets of records in a case. I used to have my mother's set of records of one of the Brahms symphonies conducted by Toscanni. Surely that was the equivalent of an album. It may since have been remastered on to an LP, in which was it might be classified as a 1930s album, having been recorded then, even though the LP had not been invented. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:10, 6 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, technically they were albums... it's where the name comes from. It was an analogy for a photo album, which was arranged similarly. Grutness...wha? 01:24, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep most, though I can see the advantages of merging the pre-1960 ones per Marcocapelle. Grutness...wha? 01:23, 7 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There's some overlap between this list and the list of categories deleted by Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_December_4#Classical_albums_by_date, so couldn't some of these categories be deleted under speedy deletion criterion G4? Care to differ or discuss with me? The Nth User 02:05, 10 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • "The result of the discussion was: Keep parent and decade categories." As such, a speedy keep would be a far more appropriate thing to do with the currently nominated categories than a speedy delete. Grutness...wha? 03:32, 11 July 2019 (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:Santa Clara Broncos softball coaches[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:59, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category with just one entry. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:11, 4 July 2019 (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:Annie Lennox[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 20#Category:Annie Lennox

Category:JMCG[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. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 15:03, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match the article, which I have renamed. Rathfelder (talk) 07:04, 4 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, generally we avoid acronyms in page titles. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:04, 12 July 2019 (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:DAB ensemble[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 July 20#Category:DAB ensemble

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2019_July_4&oldid=907078109"