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.
I'm not sure what outcome you're recommending here, and I'd appreciate clarification. I oppose simple deletion of the category if the basis is just the number of entries. As you can see from the article on Bill Gold, there are likely more than 100 film posters already uploaded that could be categorized by their artist (Bill Gold). Enlarging the category's number of entries is just work that hasn't yet been done. I do not object to renaming the category as "Film posters by Bill Gold". The policy regarding the naming of categories seems unclear to me. Please clarify if that was the outcome you're seeking.
Also, see the "Bill Gold" category at commons. It should also be enlarged, but transferring the images from English Wikipedia is a lot of work. Each case has to be individually scrutinized to verify that copyright expired. Most pre-1963 US posters have expired copyrights, and are incorrectly tagged as "fair use" on the English language Wikipedia.
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:deleted per C2E/G7 (author's request). The BushrangerOne ping only 08:39, 18 October 2013 (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: Unnecessary, because the album article will list all the songs. Category:Lady Gaga songs constitutes a sufficient level of categorisation. SuperMarioMan 21:25, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete category. "Lady Gaga song" category is fine. --Another Believer(Talk) 21:48, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Existing scheme of songs by artist is sufficient. No need for categories for songs from specific albums. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 18:01, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We really don't need a categorization based song from album. I note that the category is now empty, naughty, but nice! --Richhoncho (talk) 21:46, 24 October 2013 (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: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:14, 17 October 2013 (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: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:55, 17 October 2013 (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:no consensus. Part of the problem here is that a user has created a category but has not made the effort to fully populate it. In general, users that choose to create categories should attempt to populate them as best they can. This practice of creating categories and expecting other users to properly populate them is kind of bad form and leads to obvious credibility/quality problems with WP.Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:57, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
oppose my understanding of current consensus is that we split certain categories (like actors) into gendered subsets, leaving the parent empty.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 17:49, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Support the parent Category:Actors in Tamil cinema is not empty, so are we to assume its members are neither male nor female (if both, they could be in both categories, I suppose). That's a rather tall assumption in light of WP:BLP. To comply with WP:BLP, actors are male, actresses are female; the alleged wisdom of dividing these by gender is quite thin to begin with. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The parent is not empty because people have not gotten around to emptying it yet. The decision of the discussion of this about a year ago was to have Category:Actresses and various sub-cats, and Category:Male actors and various sub-cats. The fact that we have not fully emptied these because there are 25,000+ articles on actors in Wikipedia should not be used as evidence that the schema we are moving towards is a bad one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:58, 19 October 2013 (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: This is the official writing of the financial group (with the capital C). Everywhere the name should be written in the same way. --Luckyz (talk) 08:37, 17 October 2013 (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; upmerge redirect to Category:Harlem Shakes albums. If there is ever a non-redirect article that can populate the category, it may be re-created.Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:59, 4 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one page, and a redirect at that. Not useful at all to readers or editors. LazyBastardGuy 06:33, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I can understand categorizing redirects in general; I've done it several times myself. What I don't understand is a category which is comprised only of redirects as they are not going to be of any use to readers or editors; readers aren't likely to see the categories in which a redirect is contained, and therefore will not see a category populated only by redirects. On the other hand, a category containing a few redirects would be useful, as readers are more likely to see them and follow them to where they go. LazyBastardGuy 06:56, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Diffusion It also diffuses by artist nationality, genre, etc. It serves several purposes in navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:42, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Not entirely sure which way to swing here. On the one hand, as Koavf said, this category falls under an established sub-categorization scheme (Category:EPs by artist), which could be taken as satisfying WP:SMALLCAT's requirements. On the other hand, there's only one item in the category. Since the band is defunct, it doesn't look like there will ever be more EPs to put into this category, and how useful is a category with only one member? I wouldn't have created this category myself, but since it's already here and not harming anything, I'll default to an apathetic keep. cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 17:40, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I have no objection to categorising redirects but this redirect Burning Birthdays is not even mentioned in the band article and should IMO be deleted too. Oculi (talk) 11:27, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Harlem Shakes albums. EPs, live albums, compilation albums categories are best used as diffusion categories for artists when the main Category:Albums by artist (the true established scheme) subcat becomes a little more unwieldy. A category for a single redirect is better off just included in the artist's main album category. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:36, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
At the very least, I would support that. LazyBastardGuy 01:40, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can think of a couple of categories deleted because they only contained redirects, too. On a practical level the linkage goes nowhere. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:54, 24 October 2013 (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: Consistency with the many "Places in <place>" categories. DexDor (talk) 05:38, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(If kept) it should be renamed, but should we be categorising places by river catchment in UK: I did not think we usually did so. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 21 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article the Tees Valley is "an urbanised City Region ... consisting of ... five unitary authorities". DexDor (talk) 07:13, 29 October 2013 (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:Fellows of the Australian Institute of Building[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: This category currently contains just a single article - and that article is about the AIB itself (not specifically about fellows of the AIB). Normally, I would remove that article from the category then CSD the category, but the category creator tends to revert such edits. For info: This category had a subcat that was deleted by CFD. For info: The category is currently uncategorized (incidentally, that's another indication that the category creator doesn't really understand categorization). DexDor (talk) 05:35, 17 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comments
A) Please read WP:AGF and WP:NPA, and in future keep your insults, rude comments and false assumptions to yourself, thank you. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
B) I understand categories as well as, or perhaps even better than, you do. Just because I have a different attitude to them, and a different point of view about them, to you, does not mean I am either wrong or ignorant or inexperienced. Over the last five or six years I have categorized many hundreds of articles, and created many categories and category trees. It is only recently that any problems have surfaced.
And as it happens, none of the above is of any relevance to the actual explanation of events regarding this category. Quite simply, I had embarked on a course of action, got interrupted and distracted, and did not finish the job. In the interim, the incomplete status of the task has come under attack from some over-zealous editors who have assumed they know everything and have chosen to ignore the well-defined Wikipedia process of discussion and consensus. Many of them also have very bad manners. Previously I had not included you in that group, but the rudeness (and uninformed false assumptions) of the above, are starting to make me wonder. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
C) Please provide your list of "indication(s) that the category creator doesn't really understand categorization". Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
D) but the category creator tends to revert such edits. - Also, please do not extrapolate unrelated topics into false generalizations. I do not "tend" to do anything (except breathe and go to work on weekdays), with any predictability or regularity from which anyone could make accurate generalizations. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Under the current reign-of-lack-of-communication-and-lack-of-consensus, I have neither the time nor the interest to do the job properly. Pdfpdf (talk) 14:45, 18 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The present policy is that we generally do not categorise people by memberships. There are exceptions, such as Fellows of the Royal Society, because that is evidence of notability. I do not know about this professional body, but some give out fellowships very liberally. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:51, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Some one objected to the above comment on my talk page. However, I still assert that it would be a very usual prefessional body where membership or even fellowship was notable enough to require a category. It is possible that membership is universal to senior members of the profession in Australia. In that case, those notable enough to ahve an article should be categorised as Australian members of the profession, not by the membership. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:09, 24 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We seem to have gotten somewhat off topic, but as a general principal, I strongly disagree that fellowship is not notable! With regard to membership, I would agree that it is highly dependent on a number of factors. But without exception that I am aware of, elected fellowships don't come in Xmas crackers; they are acknowledgement of significant professional ability AND significant professional accomplishment.
More specifically, your comment that I "objected to the above comment on my talk page" is a misrepresentation of what I said on your talk page, and I'm not fond of being misquoted, quoted out-of-context, or mis-represented. In fact, I did NOT "object to the above comment". To quote verbatim, I said:
I do not know about this professional body - Why express an opinion regarding something you know nothing about?
The politest way I can think of to summarise your comment is: "(Given that you freely profess to have no knowledge of the topic), Please explain how/why your opinion is a useful addition to this conversation. Pdfpdf (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2013 (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: Too little content —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 02:53, 17 October 2013 (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.
