Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 December 18

< December 17	December 19 >

December 18

Category:Sweet

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Sweet to Category:Sweet (band)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I propose renaming to match Sweet (band). Sweet is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:22, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this category and all of its subcategories too. Karppinen (talk) 23:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and Karppinen. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:36, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As creator of the category, I have no objections. I was not aware that it is necessary to disambiguate a category when there is no contenders to the name. But, looking at an equivalent example, indeed the category for Queen (band) is Category:Queen (band). – IbLeo^(talk) 04:49, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't say it's required, but it's helpful when we are dealing with categories to make the name of the category the same as the name of the lead article. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:31, 21 December 2010 (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:Literary works by Pierre Schaeffer

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Literary works by Pierre Schaeffer to Category:Works by Pierre Schaeffer

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The standard categorisation is "works by..." as per Category:Works by author, and there are no other "literary works by..." categories. Tim! (talk) 19:42, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. -Stepheng3 (talk) 08:38, 19 December 2010 (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.

Eponymous categories for musicians

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:16, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Agnetha Fältskog

Category:Brian Setzer

Category:Crazy Loop

Category:Curtis Mayfield

Category:D'Angelo

Category:Deborah Cox

Category:Diana Krall

Category:Dieter Bohlen

Category:Gigi D'Agostino

Category:Gin Wigmore

Category:Graham Bowers

Category:Héctor Delgado

Category:Hizaki

Category:Hussain Al Jassmi

Category:Hussein Fatal

Category:Inna

Category:Işın Karaca

Category:J.Williams

Category:Jermaine Jackson

Category:John Mayall

Category:Ludacris

Category:Lumidee

Category:María Isabel

Category:Rebbie Jackson

Category:Shankar Ehsaan Loy

Category:Skye Sweetnam

Category:Vanilla Ice

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Creating categories named after individual people can be reasonable sometimes. These categories, however, are unpopulated (each category has less than five articles in it) and have little chance of growth. Karppinen (talk) 18:34, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If a category contains "songs" and "albums" subcategories, that's justifies it enough for me.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep all these categories are populated: they have entries and more than one. Better justification must be advanced for deletion. Hmains (talk) 19:37, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – a category with non-empty subcats is certainly populated. There are many very large categories with few articles at the top level, eg Category:People. It's a little difficult to see why the nom has chosen these particular categories from the 250 or so in Category:Categories named after musicians. Occuli (talk) 20:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

But rename Category:J.Williams to Category:J.Williams (singer) per J.Williams (singer). Occuli (talk) 20:55, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I chose these particular eponymous categories because these are the ones with too few articles in them. After all, a bunch of small, eponymous categories like these were discussed over a year ago and deleted. Keeping these categories would contradict the outcome of those discussions. Karppinen (talk) 23:18, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some are small and others are not small (articles in subcats automatically belong to the parent). Some have 1 subcat (in which case I might well agree), others have 3 or 4 (in which case I do not agree). Occuli (talk) 03:28, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree with that standard. If it has one subcat and no other non-head articles, it should probably go. Other than that, I'm cool with it. (Per the precedents, most of the drum-banging against eponymous musician categories came from User:Otto4711, who has been banned indefinitely for sockpuppetry. So those discussions might turn out very differently today.)--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:14, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shankar Ehsaan Loy and Category:Hizaki should go, in any era. Category:Skye Sweetnam would have gone in the era of Otto (but seems perfectly reasonable to me). Category:Ne-Yo would have been fiercely contested but probably kept in the era of Otto. Category:GG Allin should probably go, or more content found. Most of the above have 2 subcats (songs and albums): the nom is correct in thinking these would have been deleted last year. Those with 3 or more subcats have been no-consensus keeps for some years. Occuli (talk) 11:50, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nom, by lumping all these numerous cats together, is not giving each one a fair chance to be examined individually. When it comes to a musician, there is often good reason to have a category, even and especially for those with a few albums and/or songs. Many times, it is a good way to put all their works together in a single place and make them easy for others to find. Shaliya waya (talk) 23:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All as a means of organizing subcategories. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, nothing wrong with these categories, especially as container categories. Headbomb {talk / contribs / physics / books} 17:54, 21 December 2010 (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.

Southside Johnny & The Asbury Jukes

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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:41, 31 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Southside Johnny songs to Category:Southside Johnny & The Asbury Jukes songs

Propose renaming Category:Asbury Jukes members to Category:Southside Johnny & The Asbury Jukes members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. matching the head article Southside Johnny & The Asbury Jukes and Category:Southside Johnny & The Asbury Jukes.--Mike Selinker (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2010 (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:Wikipedian Chicharito fans

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:21, 27 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - "Wikipedians by individual" category, which have unanimous precedent to delete as being too small to sustain a category for collaboration. See here. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's all well and good having a userbox saying you like this person, but to have a category is a step too far! – Pee Jay 05:37, 19 December 2010 (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:Wikipedians who read zines

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 12:08, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale - Delete - "A zine is most commonly a small circulation publication of original or appropriated texts and images. More broadly, the term encompasses any self-published work of minority interest usually reproduced via photocopier." Not helpful to categorize, essentially the same as a category for users who read "magazines" or "books" or "newspapers". None of these general terms are capable of supporting collaboration, and I'd guess the vast majority of zines are non-notable. VegaDark (talk) 06:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. So who cares what sort of media Wikipedians read! Lets build WP and not set up a social network!. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:34, 19 December 2010 (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:2010 in Christmas Island

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 all except keep Category:History of Christmas Island.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:11, 28 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not likely to be populated and it can easily be covered by the Australian category. Also, it is the only sub-cat of its type and one of a much lesser importance than categories about 2010 by state. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 03:14, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also nominating for deletion for the same reason:

Category:History of Christmas Island

Category:Decades in Christmas Island

Category:Years in Christmas Island and

Category:2010s in Christmas Island

I am adding them here rather than as a separate matter, as the issue is the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and upmerge into Category:2010 in Australia. Lugnuts (talk) 11:03, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:2010 in Australia per nom and then delete Category:History of Christmas Island, Category:21st century in Christmas Island, Category:Years of the 21st century in Christmas Island, Category:Decades in Christmas Island, Category:Years in Christmas Island and Category:2010s in Christmas Island (all of which only hold the one 2010 article). One might consider keeping Category:History of Christmas Island and putting Christmas Island boat disaster in it, but the others are overkill (some over-overkill). Occuli (talk) 12:10, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge all these to Category:Christmas Island. The island has a resident population of 1403 and is constituted as a shire. We have a plethora of articles and categories about this small island, quite a number of which need to be merged. History of Christmas Island is a redirect to Christmas island, so that we probably do not need a hisotry category. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep Category:History of Christmas Island as part of an overall category structure in the history field. Hmains (talk) 19:24, 26 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a record of Christmas Island history. Also keep Category:History of Christmas Island as well. Scanlan (talk) 20:59, 26 December 2010 (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.