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 -- Black Falcon(talk) 00:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is nothing defining about happening to have played in Toronto. Musicals play in dozens or hundreds of cities and categorizing by them is unworkable. Harley Hudson (talk) 23:07, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the precedent of Chicago musicals (endorsed at DRV). Including a category every venue for such musicals is not the way forward - it is not defining of "Cats", for example, that it played Toronto, and it will lead to category clutter. BencherliteTalk 23:40, 22 June 2011 (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:Batman: The Animated Series characters[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:Speedy keep. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:20, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It's extremely unlikely that any iteration of any character specific to this series is going to become independently notable. The two actual articles are not specific to this series and they and the single redirect don't need this permanently small category. Harley Hudson (talk) 22:53, 21 June 2011 (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 as nominated. If the article name changes, we can speedily rename the categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 08:42, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: OK, but I would have started by nominating the article for renaming with a space after J dot. Although the J.Williams format follows Myspace, a lot of external websites/news media have a space instead of a dot, or both. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment we should get on consensus on whether J. Williams (singer) or J.Williams (singer) is the better format before we move the cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2011 (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.
Rename. This is an especially ambiguous title because there is another singer who goes by Misia, making these categories likely to attack works by both singers unless renamed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2011 (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 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: Per main cat: Category:Musical groups. There is an apparently random scheme of using "musical groups" and "music groups" at times. Others are simply "Category:Foo groups", which might make sense for musical genre groups, so I haven't bothered suggesting them. It seems advisable to have a common scheme for these and since the main category and its immediate subcats are "musical groups" then I am proposing implementing this naming scheme on all sub-subcategories. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 20:50, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Ample navigate is provided by the by year and by century categories and their associated navigation templates. This level of categorization does not add any value. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:25, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This categorization by decade of the group is just an open invitation to overcat. We generally categorize by when things were founded, not be when they existed. For this reason we have Category:Musical groups established in the 1790s and so forth when there are too few by year. This is especially relevant because many of the 19th-century established musical groups we currently have articles on are still funtioning today, meaning that they could be put in 15 or so of these musical groups by decade category. That is clearly an example of a system that will cause over-categorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:19, 28 June 2011 (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:Justice League (TV series) episodes[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:Merge. Single-entry category with little likelihood for expansion. Already in its other parent through a sub-category. Harley Hudson (talk) 20:18, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. It has been a week since this nomination was made and this is still a single entry category. No clear reason to keep it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 28 June 2011 (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:Used Orissa per main article, create redirects from Odisha, revisit if the main article name changes. Timrollpickering (talk) 07:26, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm really not sure what's going on here, but some categories are named Odisha and others Orissa--there is apparently some conflict about the proper name of the state. Either way, there is no need for two separate categories with either name and wherever the main article is (presently at Orissa), then all of the categories associated should be named as such. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:19, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment What happened is that the name Orissa was officially changed to Odisha very recently. Akkida (talk·contribs) decided to just duplicate the entire category tree and manually empty out the old categories. The result was a complete mess. I did bring up the issue with him [1] but he was not exactly open to the idea that maybe this wasn't the right way to do things [2]. So I just went the "ah screw this" route and forgot about it. My two cents is that every subcategory should match the current title of the article (Orissa) and that they should all be moved to Odisha once the main article is moved. This will happen eventually since the official name change has taken effect but until then, the categories should match the article. Pichpich (talk) 22:35, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I guess we need to move everything back to Category:Orissa until the article name is changed. That includes all of the subcats. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:39, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
It may be also wise to keep category redirects to avoid a repeat. Pichpich (talk) 14:00, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Orissa. Official name changes do not guarantee that we will have to change the article name. The general rule is to use the common and expected name of a place, not the official name. Maybe in 20 years it would make sense to change the article name, but I would oppose it at present.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 28 June 2011 (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: The Boston City Council web site uses "city councillor" as the term rather than "city council member" for these officials.[3]OCNative (talk) 07:41, 21 June 2011 (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.
Support per nom. This also agrees with most precedents. One exception is senators, but that term is almost always used, I have never heard the term "senate members" and only rarely "members of the senate".John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:26, 28 June 2011 (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 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:OC#EPONYMOUS. Recent consensus has directed that eponymous categories are unnecessary for musicians when there are only subcategories of songs and albums to populate it. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 06:14, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I've added some files, which should probably be placed in a new subcategory if the category is deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:49, 22 June 2011 (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.
Yes it can, but the radio organization is considered the primary topic for that title, which is why the article is at the non-disambiguated title NPR. Compare with Category:BBC, for example. Also, the organization is just called NPR now, not National Public Radio. Jafeluv (talk) 08:24, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
But I think NPR is not widely known. I had no idea what NPR was, or what it stood for, until I clicked on the article.Curb Chain (talk) 05:04, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
SuggestCategory:NPR (USA) or Category:NPR (Radio) instead. Seems the name National Public Radio was dropped for the obscure abbreviation a year ago. The main article name should also change to something more unique, as we frequently disambiguate 'National' in titles. Ephebi (talk) 08:40, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I prefer NPR (USA), as we often disambiguate "National". But NPR (radio) would work too, as Nevada Public Radio is not a major article, per Jafeluv, and there is little chance of confusion. Ephebi (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also don't like th idea of changing it to an acronym that can easily be confused. --Kumioko (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like their idea either! But unfortunately the organisation didn't ask us and has already taken the decision to drop its former full name for an abbreviation. The question is therefore how to resolve that ambiguity. Ephebi (talk) 07:47, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak support Looking at the NPR (disambiguation), it's pretty clear that the chance for confusion is minute. If we decide to disambiguate, Category:NPR (radio) is my preferred option. Pichpich (talk) 14:09, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose NPR is ambiguous NPR (disambiguation) . Categories should not be ambiguous, unless you're going to personally patrol this category for the rest of eternity (or until Wikipedia shuts down, whichever comes first). Category:National Public Radio (US) is fine by me though. 65.94.47.63 (talk) 04:26, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Disambiguation is a bigger issue in category names. National Public Radio is not an overly long or cumbersome title, and they say it regularly on National Public Radio, so it is not like many people are likely to know the abbreviation and not recognize the full form.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2011 (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 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: A few reasons for the rename:
MIDI is an acronym. It is incorrect to spell it in lowercase.
Even though MIDI can handle non-musical information, I would expect that all MIDI files on wiki contain musical data. Hence, the word "music" is redundant.
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. There's no groundswell for "listify," but a list article is certainly plausible.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:00, 30 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Appearing on a radio programme to give some personal opinions on music selections is not defining. It's a variety of "performer by performance" overcategorization. We wouldn't create Category:This Is Your Life subjects, either, which this is similar to. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:57, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is far from trivial. DID has a significant role in British culture. Each programme is dedicated wholly to the guest, and it is considered an honour and a mark of recognition to be invited to participate. Guests do not merely "give some personal opinions on music selections", but are invited to relate them to, and reflect on, their achievements. An appearance is very much "defining". Furthermore, the entire archive of programmes, going back to World War II, is available on-line. Andy Mabbett (User:Pigsonthewing); Andy's talk; Andy's edits 09:38, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You've explained how the programme is notable, but not how it is defining for those who appear on the programme. People who appear on the programme are always notable for some other reason, which is why they are invited onto the programme. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:23, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as per Pigsonthewing's rationale. Desert Island Discs is a significant achievement for many public figures and having a category for participants in the show is a useful way of finding notable and often extraordinary people. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:49, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - regardless of how notable the radio show is, appearing on it as a guest is not a defining characteristic of the people. This is overcategorization of performer by performance and/or venue. Creating List of Desert Island Discs castaways allows for anyone interested in the information to find it. Harley Hudson (talk) 00:16, 22 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete per WP:OCAT#AWARD and / or WP:OCAT#PERF. Yes, it's an honour of sorts to be invited onto the programme but it's not exactly a CBE. You'd read about so-and-so having won a BAFTA or an Oscar, or being decorated for services to music/culture/sport/the arts/politics etc, but it'd have to be a pretty long profile or obituary of someone to make great play of the fact that they appeared on D.I.D. (unless for the trivia of what they chose as their luxury item, such as John Major choosing The Oval cricket ground, if I recall). As Harley Hudson says, it's categorisation of performer by show as well. BencherliteTalk 12:01, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The arguments to keep this basically boil down to "this is like-unto an award". We do not categorize people by awards recieved, so we should not categorize people by this either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as overcategorization of performers by performance. The characteristic is not defining: people are not known for their appearance on D.I.D.; rather, people who are known for other things are selected to appear on the programme. There is no need to listify the category, as the episode lists already contain this information. -- Black Falcon(talk) 17:44, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the comments above. The program is notable, but it is far from established that we need to categorize this as defining for the guests. Their appearance is the result of them establishing notability by other means. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:13, 29 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep membership of this category indicates that a person is notable over and beyond those in more routine categories. Think of it as a "Lifetime Achievement Award" to get the idea. S a g a C i t y (talk) 07:45, 30 June 2011 (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:United States Senate elections, 2011[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:Deleted as C1. After Midnight0001 18:13, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Empty. Maybe someday there will be a special election to the U.S. Senate in 2011, but so far none are expected. —Markles 00:47, 21 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - We shouldn't be creating categories like this until they are actually needed IMO. --Kumioko (talk) 17:41, 22 June 2011 (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.
