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.
Comment: the member pages are already otherwise categorised as marathon runners by nationality & gender. – FayenaticLondon 12:01, 14 February 2020 (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.
Comment: the member pages are already otherwise categorised as marathon runners by nationality & gender, except for Mike Pierce whose article does not mention it. – FayenaticLondon 11:39, 14 February 2020 (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:delete per WP:NONDEF, some of these articles are about a disorder, others are about identity problems, but none (except the main article Identity disorder) are consistently are about identity disorders. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The suggestion to delete this category stems from this section. I don't have a strong opinion on whether to retain this category. I will alert WP:Med to this deletion nomination. Flyer22 Frozen (talk) 21:41, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support - categories don't seem that useful to begin with, but if we're going to have them, we should at least have coherent categorization. - Mark D Worthen PsyD(talk) (I'm a man—traditional male pronouns are fine.) 23:12, 14 February 2020 (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.
Comment, of the articles that just have been added to Category:Rock oboists, none actually uses the term "rock oboist". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While that's true, all play oboe in a rock context. All are mentioned as such in the articles (e.g., "Davies would later use his woodwind skills on some tracks with his band Icehouse, playing oboe on several albums...", "While in school, [Stevens] studied the oboe and English horn, which he also plays on his albums."). None of the articles in Category:Rock violinists use the phrase "rock violinist" within their text, either. Similarly, the term "rock guitarist" is not used in articles of The Edge, Eric Clapton, or Noel Gallagher, to name just three examples of people who are clearly rock guitarists. Grutness...wha? 02:30, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then aren't these trivial intersections? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:12, 14 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Possibly quite the opposite. If something is so obvious that it's not mentioned directly in an article but can be directly inferred from it, it may well be that it's a major category. Take the Eric Clapton example above. It's never mentioned that he's a rock guitarist, but if you asked 100 people to describe him in two words, that's exactly what a large number of the would say. Grutness...wha? 00:53, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes more sense to divide musicians by the sort of music they pay than subdividing by nationality. I'm happy to keep Category:Rock oboists now its better populated, but I think Category:Rock oboists by nationality and its one subcategory should go. Rathfelder (talk) 12:16, 16 February 2020 (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. If anyone wants to selectively add the members of the category to a different category (D'Oyly Carte Opera Company members), a list of the current contents can be found on the talk page(non-admin closure)DannyS712 (talk) 00:18, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Categories that fit into a wider structure (e.g. Category:20th-century British opera singers) are the way articles (especially articles about people that can accrue a crazy number of categories) should be categorized. DexDor(talk) 12:30, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This is ultimately a WP:PERF category. However, a past D'Oyly Carte company had sufficient longterm stability for its members to be allowed a category as such: Category:D'Oyly Carte Opera Company members. Some members may need to be selectively moved there. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:29, 16 February 2020 (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: Brand new category. (Almost) not WP:DEFINING – I could see theoretically that if there were some article(s) specifically about the investigations themselves, that might work, but none of the things put in here fall under that. Just about any incident involving a death is going to involve a coroner (or medical examiner). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:10, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Please also nominate the sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:23, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Assuming this CFD closes as delete (and the siblings aren't at CFD) then it would be reasonable to purge the sibling categories and CSD them if empty. DexDor(talk) 12:36, 13 February 2020 (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. MER-C 17:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom but please also nominate all other "Defunct trade unions of" sibling categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:11, 20 February 2020 (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:People associated with Gilbert and Sullivan[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 consensusTimrollpickering (Talk) 00:14, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Valuable information would be lost, for the sake of the application of rigorous logic to the highest degree imaginable. AtticTapestry (talk) 14:29, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How is this "valuable information"? This is just an indiscriminate collection of people who are somehow possibly connected to G&S, without any definition of the nature of the relationship. Categories like this are exactly why we need to follow WP:OCASSOC. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 15:56, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is not indiscriminate. Inclusion criteria are described in the category. -- Ssilvers (talk) 17:13, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's too loosely worded to be definitive inclusion criteria, which in itself is a good example of the problems of trying to define inclusion outlined in WP:OCASSOC. 212.135.65.247 (talk) 10:10, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. If you don't like it, change the guidelines. buidhe 17:20, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Gilbert and Sullivan is a specific body of work and a defining specialty, not a casual association. This category helps readers to find biography articles about people who were important in the lives and careers of collaborators W. S. Gilbert and Arthur Sullivan and important to the background and history of the Gilbert and Sullivan operas. Persons who were best known as performers or conductors of Gilbert and Sullivan are NOT included in the category. -- Ssilvers (talk) 23:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: important category that makes information more readily available Dreamspy (talk) 00:03, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - as per Ssilvers above. The category provides useful links between biographies Jack1956 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify, and delete the category. That way we can add information about exactly what the association is, rather than just having a collection of names. Far more useful to the likes of @Ssilvers, Dreamspy, Jack1956, and AtticTapestry: et al, I would think, and gets round having an unnecessary category. Grutness...wha? 01:44, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Ssilvers. Why delete something that works? CassiantoTalk 07:31, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: per the above. - SchroCat (talk) 08:24, 13 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify then delete "Associated with" is highly subjective: in an article, it is possible to explain what the association was. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:31, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete category per Peterkingiron. —EncMstr (talk) 05:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per above. The place for information about who was associated with G&S is in article text (where it is in context and can be referenced). The category text "... and/or ... also ... but ..." indicates that it's trying to combine several things. DexDor(talk) 19:22, 20 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "Gilbert and Sullivan" is a body of work and an association of two people, not at all like Beethoven et al. Doug butler (talk) 04:04, 3 March 2020 (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:upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, it currently only contains a redirect and a subcategory. Note that the subcategory is technically referring to marriage in general, but it emerged only while gay marriage became more of an issue (see e.g. the book Against Equality: Queer Critiques of Gay Marriage). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oposse Not helpful. Having the two topics in the same parent category aids navigation. I would appreciate it if Marcocapelle waited until a consensus had been reached before making a bunch of drastic changes that might very well affect how anyone seeing these discussions view the categories. Pretty sure "SMALLCAT" could end up applying to any category if you remove it from several places before the discussion has ended.★Trekker (talk) 17:01, 21 February 2020 (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 (WP:NAC). DexDor(talk) 14:40, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Match name of the article (Schutzstaffel), actual name. The current location should be preserved as category redirect to avoid breaking any incoming external links. buidhe 02:24, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I am surprised about the article title. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - this name was chosen at cfd. Schutzstaffel is not generally understood in English (speaking for myself, anyway). A similar rename was also roundly rejected at cfd in 2007. Oculi (talk) 13:33, 12 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:Common. This is the English wiki. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Few English people will know what SS is an abbreviation for. Most of those searching for that main article will probably arrive via a redirect, such as Nazi SS. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:38, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
oppose for the 3 well stated reasons above and as previously rejected for good reason then and which have not changed Hmains (talk) 22:55, 16 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. What's wrong with simple Category:SS? Common name. Easily the primary topic for the term. I honestly think the previous Cfd reached the wrong conclusion. There's also no reason for the article title to be as it is. But in any case, article and category titles should match. Anything else is illogical. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:19, 19 February 2020 (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.
