Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 23 November 25 >

November 24[edit]

Category:Faroese priests‎[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, as these are small duplicate categories serving no navigational purpose, and there are more members in the target categories. Lutheran categories mainly use "clergy", see Category:Lutheran clergy by nationality; although Category:Lutheran priests says some parts use "priests", this can be considered separately as the nominator says. – Fayenatic London 16:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per actual usage of these categories, these categories are all used for (Faroese resp. Greenlandic) Lutheran priests. If some people feel that we should rename the categories as well (to Lutheran priests instead of Lutheran clergy), then I would suggest let's do that after this merger proposal has been concluded. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 24 November 2014 (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:Religious leaders from Cincinnati, Ohio‎[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: do not rename. (I suppose that even if someone is "from" place A, once they move to place B to be a religious leader there, they can be said to be "from" place B as well, so this doesn't have to be a problem or something that requires two separate category trees.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To make clear that these categories are about the location of the activities as a religious leader, not about the location of descent of the person (like location of birth). 16:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)
  • Oppose, to be consistent with other "People from... " categories, which often contain both people born or brought up in the place and people not born there but strongly associated with the place. "People from... " categories are the common way of categorising people by location (there will no douvt be editors here who think religious leaders should be categorised by denomination etc. rather than place). I haven't checked the "from" categories nominated here, but I suspect they also contain people who are no longer "in" the places. Sionk (talk) 17:16, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I checked quite a couple and they were alright in this respect. However - maybe hypothetically - if they would not be active as a religious leader in the place, then they shouldn't be categorized as a religious leader associated with that place either, and the proposed category names make that exact point clear(er). Marcocapelle (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose On the basis that this seems to change the intention of the categories. One of the first articles I checked in Category:Clergy from Portland, Oregon (Garner Ted Armstrong) is distinctly not about a person being clergy in Portland. I think it a good idea to (a) maintain general religious categories in the "from" tree (e.g. clergy) and (b) attach the "in" tree specifically to geographically designated occupations only (bishops, etc). It's unlikely that lower level clergy will warrant categorisation by assignment as local workers generally won't warrant an article (or will have done something very different to warrant one). I also think the religious leader city categories are needlessly specific at this time and would be better upmerged to state-level, with subcategories by prominent position (e.g. Category:Roman Catholic bishops of Pittsburgh) as direct children of the state categories. SFB 18:20, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – subcat of Category:People from Cincinnati, Ohio etc. Oculi (talk) 15:58, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per Sionk....William 15:45, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I created the Louisville category. It really is "from", as being from Louisville -- they aren't all necessarily leaders in the city. Also, it's a subcat of "People from..". Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 20:55, 6 December 2014 (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:BSkyB[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:58, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. The company name has changed from BSkyB to Sky and a new category has already been created for it. Bbb2007 (talk) 16:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if it happens The entities are one and the same but it should be noted that Sky plc doesn't technically exist yet. Shareholders will need to approve this change formally next week. SFB 18:23, 24 November 2014 (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:BSkyB television channels[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 to Category:Sky plc television channels to match parent. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The company name has changed from BSkyB to Sky. Bbb2007 (talk) 16:30, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support if it happens The entities are one and the same but it should be noted that Sky plc doesn't technically exist yet. Shareholders will need to approve this change formally next week. SFB 18:23, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose clearly ambiguous. "Sky" has no indication this is for "Sky plc", as there are many other "Sky"s. This category is not for Sky Television (New Zealand), and the proposed name is therefore ambiguous. Neither is it for categorizing any other Skys found at Sky_(disambiguation) which are television channels. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 08:56, 25 November 2014 (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:American religious leaders of Jamaican descent[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article, maybe also WP:NARROWCAT, and it's hardly a defining characteristic of the one article that is in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge A very narrow intersection indeed. This is not a topic of study as far as I am aware so it is not warranted. SFB 18:41, 24 November 2014 (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:American Vodou priests[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: delete. – Fayenatic London 16:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article, not part of a wide established tree. Note: if this merger goes ahead, Category:Vodou priests and Category:Vodou religious leaders will become empty and can be deleted. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:29, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge The parent category is very small as it is and the navigational benefit of all the mentioned categories is unclear. SFB 18:43, 24 November 2014 (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:Airport and Aviation Services[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 to Category:Airports in Sri Lanka. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:54, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename Merge. This category has been created to contain airports run by (?) a Sri Lankan company. However, there is no Wikipedia article for this company and the purpose for this category is not transparent. Because both airports currently in the category are in Sri Lanka, it would make better sense in my view to rename the category in line with other "Airports in FOO" categories and widening its scope in the process merge. Sionk (talk) 14:52, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Company article is non-existent so it's hard to claim it as a defining feature. Conditional support on the basis that Sionk amends the nomination to merge to Category:Airports in Sri Lanka, which appears to be the original intention, despite the wording. SFB 18:47, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support merge per SFB, to Category:Airports in Sri Lanka; the current name is highly ambiguous, as it could be a title-cased name for a container category for services for aviation and airports. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 09:00, 25 November 2014 (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:Religious leadership roles[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 consensus. – Fayenatic London 16:40, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories seem to have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:15, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment @Marcocapelle: I think there's more to this nomination than first appears. I realised the role/occupation problem in the tree a few months ago. Essentially "occupation" is synonymous with "job", in other words a work activity which takes up the majority of their working time and is probably remunerated in some way. "Role" on the other hand is broader and means simply something that a person does or is. The latter concept better matches the content of the roles category (see Mushi-dokugo for example). I think "role" would actually be a better parent of many parts of the current occupation tree. For example, many people in the sportspeople tree are non-professional and have a different occupation (same goes for any person from the pre-professional sport era). Similarly, many in Category:Theologians will not have been theologians by occupation. SFB 19:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Definitely agree with your analysis. However, in this particular case the distinction is currently being made based on faith: Christian and Jew "roles" are in Category:Religious occupations while "roles" in all other religions are in Category:Religious leadership roles‎. I doubt if this distinction coincides with the distinction between jobs and roles that you rightfully make. If it doesn't coincide, we should still go on with the merger, while realizing that the category may be split later but by different criteria. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Then move Abbot into the category for leaders. Monks and nuns, however, are religious workers. IMHO these levels are both fine and useful. The merger that is needed is of clergy categories into the tier for religious leaders, see Category talk:Religious leaders. – Fayenatic London 10:24, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, but I meant it merely as an example. The distinction between the two categories isn't clear based on the current contents. That applies even more to the child categories as the distinction is currently being made based on faith: Christian and Jew occupation and leadership roles are in Category:Religious occupations while occupations and leadership roles in all other religions are in Category:Religious leadership roles‎. And, just generally, I'm starting to doubt if 'leaders' are really so well definable. For example, missionaries and evangelists mostly don't start as a leader but may become a leader in the course of time while they get followers. Military chaplains are also a case of doubt. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Missionaries as such are not leaders, nor are chaplains. If an individual missionary becomes a leader then s/he will be categorised as both, but the pages in these categories are not biographies, so they should either be categorised as leaders or as workers. I already agreed that the sub-cats need to be moved, but am leaving them there for now in order to respect this discussion. – Fayenatic London 14:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the difference explained by Fayenatic London doesn't seem to hold in the actual content of the categories. I would assume that an abbot remains a monk, and therefore becomes both an occupation and a leader. A local Protestant minister is an occupation, but write a few books, become a megachurch guy, get a radio or tv show, call yourself bishop, and now you're a leader. How do we OBJECTIVELY tell one from another? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this doubt. I also think that we do not even need to use a leader category at all, in our category names we should rather stick to occupational terms per common language, which leader is clearly not. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:16, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Leaders should be subcat of workers/occupations. WP:SUBCAT says abbot should not be in both (it's a diffusing sub-cat). Church leaders have much more in common with each other whether they are called priests, clergy, ministers, pastors or something else, than other workers e.g. monks, artists or religious political party leaders. Therefore a local Protestant minister is a leader, not just a worker/occupation. Religious leader is the neutral term used in categories for all religions. See Category talk:Religious leaders for a proposed overall category structure. – Fayenatic London 23:45, 3 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • The thing that religious leaders have in common in this definition of religious leaders is that they are all clergy. Other definitions of leaders could be that they have a more-than-local reach (so exclude most priests and ministers) or that they have followers (so include most evangelists and missionaries). I'll happily agree with defining religious leaders as clergy, but then I would also suggest that we keep 'clergy' as category name instead of 'religious leaders', at least at the highest level of the tree - so if it's irrespective of faith or denomination - and use more specific occupation terms once we get lower in the tree. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:54, 4 December 2014 (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:Recorders[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. If the article name ever changes from Recorder (musical instrument), the name of the category could be revisited. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:53, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As the base name is ambiguous (main article for this topic is Recorder (musical instrument)), I think the category should be disambiguated: otherwise it might refer to legal position-holders, sound recording equipment, etc. PamD 14:04, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - makes sense to me, per nominator's arguments, to clarify that the category is for articles related to musical instruments rather than the judiciary. Sionk (talk) 15:03, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, so far As the creator of the Category, I mostly want the category to survive. But... at the non-cat page Recorder the first entry is the musical instrument. But the proposed category is a bit long. And has the problem of the article being in the singular but the new cat would be in the plural. On the other hand Category:Recorders (judges) would be shorter. I mean, doesn't first-come first-served apply? A short cat is better than a long one, and Category:Recorders (musical instruments) is longer than Category:Recorders (judges) or whatever. I'm happy to continue discussion here, but so far I think Category:Recorders isn't so bad. -- Evertype·✆ 21:57, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't make sense at all. I don't understand why you don't like the plural when you named it as such. And if the article needs disambiguating to Recorder (musical instrument) then surely the category does too? Sionk (talk) 22:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I named it Category:Recorders because the parent category was Category:Internal fipple flutes, and the parent to that was Category:Fipple flutes, and to that Category:Fipple flutes and to that Category:Woodwind instruments. The name Recorders on its own needs disambiguation because people type "recorders" into the Search Box. Nobody much types "Category:Recorders" in the search box. I really don't think this is all that "extremely" ambiguous. -- Evertype·✆ 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Nobody has needed categories for legal position-holders, sound-recording equiment, etc. before now, Why not leave this one short and sweet as it is and use parentheticals for the other categories as needed. I doubt people are going to be genuinely led astray by this category. Noqever, the comment above that Category:Recorder makers is ambiguous doesn't make sense, because "it is not about those who make records" -- well, no, it's about those who make recorders. That isn't likely to be legal position-holders, and for the other we could have Category:Makers of sound-recording equipment or whatever. -- Evertype·✆ 14:49, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note that at Tape recorder the categories are Category:Audio storage, Category:Sound production technology, Category:Sound recording, Category:Sound recording technology, so there seems to be no ambiguity. At Recorder (judge) the categories are Category:Legal professions and Category:Judiciary of England and Wales. I don't think there's a problem with the current category Category:Recorders or any genuine need to change it to Category:Recorders (musical instruments). -- Evertype·✆ 14:56, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter where those are currently categorized, it only matters whether they can be categorized here or not. And this is not the primary topic of "recorder" so should not occupy this category name, as any other recorder has just as much right to it. If you dispute that, move the musical instrument article to recorder. Otherwise, this will be a maintenance hog, requiring the category to be constantly patrolled for miscategorized recording equipment. HOTCAT doesn't show you the category description, and the musical instruments are clearly not going to be the primary meaning most editors come up with first, so miscateogrization will be a given with this. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 03:20, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support—When we look at the term objectively, to some, myself included, the musical instrument is the primary meaning, while to others a mechanical instrument for capturing sounds or sights, and to yet others it is a job-title for a person who makes a record of an event. As a result there is no single primary meaning and thus it needs disambiguating when used in a category name. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I would not have a problem moving the article Recorder (musical instrument) to Recorder, and having the current disambiguation page move to Recorder (disambiguation). None of the other articles about things called "recorder" seem to attract categories called "recorder". Perhaps that is the simplest. -- Evertype·✆ 20:28, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not even convinced that the musical instrument isn't the primary meaning. The word "recorder" by itself is the only way that the instruments are described. Other devices are described usually with an attribute (tape recorder, videocassetter recorder, court recorder (> court reporter most often). -- Evertype·✆ 14:01, 30 November 2014 (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:Recorder makers[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: withdrawn. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:04, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

:* Propose renaming Category:Recorder makers to Category:Recorders (musical instruments)

Nominator's rationale: As the base name "Recorder" is ambiguous, I think the category should be disambiguated: otherwise the category could be Legal position-holders, sound recording equipment, etc. PamD 14:02, 24 November 2014 (UTC) Sorry, accidentally nominated wrong category PamD 14:06, 24 November 2014 (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:International Civil Aviation Chaplains[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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:48, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, only one article and I couldn't find any other article that would fit in this category. Note: the one article is already sufficiently parented, no need to upmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:42, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Title doesn't match the stated organisation and it lists a place of worship as a chaplain. I've created Category:Airport chapels which should cover this topic better. SFB 19:09, 24 November 2014 (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:Monks and nuns[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. – Fayenatic London 21:35, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The two categories have the same purpose. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Completely agree on the general problem. The solution, I think, should be to rename Category:Muslims by occupation into Category:Muslim religious workers and so on for every faith, and then to purge the categories from anything that is not religious workers. As for monks and nuns in particular, however, I do not quite follow you, as I would regard all members of religious orders to be religious workers (i.e. primarily occupied with religion). Marcocapelle (talk) 19:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would not support that rename, but instead let's split "Muslims by occupation" partly into a new "Muslim religious workers" as most of the sub-cats would belong in it, excluding some e.g. comedians, historians, philosophers. The latter are defining intersections so deserve to be (a) kept and (b) collected together, alongside Category:Buddhists by occupation, Category:Christians by occupation etc. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sounds like a good suggestion but that would be a different nomination. Let's first discuss the current one :-) Marcocapelle (talk) 19:50, 26 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as part of Category:Monasticism. Not all religious orders are monastic, e.g Jesuits as pointed out above. – Fayenatic London 19:02, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • On the other hand, the subcats could be put into that parent. I would support a merger of this category, if the sub-cat Category:Monks and nuns who committed suicide was nominated for splitting to two new separate categories (monks, nuns) at the same time. If you agree, please add it to this nomination. – Fayenatic London 19:23, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wouldn't mind rearranging Jesuits into an immediate child category of Category:Members of religious orders (instead of as a child cat of monks) if that might help solving the Jesuits problem.
Neither would I mind splitting Category:Monks and nuns who committed suicide and parenting the new categories to Category:Monks and Category:Nuns, I just wonder if this has to become part of this nomination or can we simply make it a fresh separation nomination per today or tomorrow? It seems a bit confusing if I would add an extra nomination here three days later. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:26, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OK. – Fayenatic London 22:57, 28 November 2014 (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:Children of Paradise albums[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 to Category:Children of Paradise (band) albums. I am then going to redirect that to Category:X-Dream albums, but if anyone disagrees I suggest they use WP:BRD and discuss on the article talk page (I will not be watching it). – Fayenatic London 21:20, 23 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same act, different name (splinter group): cf. X-Dream and Children of Paradise (band). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:53, 24 November 2014 (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:Madonna recordings[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: withdrawn Snuggums (talk / edits) 18:04, 5 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: There isn't really a need for a DAB in the category titles- there are no categories for a collection of recordings by anyone else known as "Madonna". Snuggums (talk / edits) 08:56, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. It's standard practice to name categories after the main article and to carry through any disambiguators to the subcategories. Hence Madonna (entertainer) → Category:Madonna (entertainer) → Category:Madonna (entertainer) songs and Category:Madonna (entertainer) albums. This is helpful in terms of predictability and it avoids the burden of having to debate the merits of disambiguation for all such categories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:06, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – as Good Ol’factory says. Oculi (talk) 09:11, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per long-standing precedent. Although I would definitely think of the pop star if I read "Madonna songs" I can easily imagine someone thinking they are compositions about the Madonna. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:54, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there was no consensus when this came up for full discussion in 2006. [5] It was moved to its current name as a speedy nomination in 2009. [6] – Fayenatic London 10:11, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. It such a standard practice to category name to article name that there is a speedy procedure. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 1 December 2014 (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:Nora Aunor films[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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Classic overcategorization of films by actor. See WP:PERFCAT. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per many previous CfDs not to cat films by an actor who appears in them. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 18:25, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This idea would mean any major film would be subject to a vast array of categories for each actor. Lists and filmographies are a much better approach for grouping this material for readers. @Good Olfactory: nomination of the parent wouldn't go amiss either. SFB 19:24, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete performer by performance, or performance by performer in this cat. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:27, 1 December 2014 (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:Metatheory of religion[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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:46, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Main article has been deleted, most (all?) of the members of this Category are not "theories about theories of religion", just religion-related beliefs Editor2020, Talk 03:51, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • But frankly, whatever you would call the category, it wouldn't be a defining characteristic anyway. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:54, 28 November 2014 (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:Employees of the Alabama Legislature[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: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:42, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: per notability and WP:NON-DEFINING. I'm sure there are many notable politicians that, for a time, worked or interned for the state legislature but this isn't defining or of itself notable. The only article in the category is notable for being a mayor and being a state representative. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:58, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Notified the category creator and this discussion has been included in WikiProject Alabama. – RevelationDirect (talk) 03:08, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep McDowell Lee served as Secretary of the Alabama Senate for 47 years before retiring and serving for that many years is an example of public service. State legislators also served in their legislatures as clerks, sergeant of arms, etc. and they should received some form of recognition for their service in that way. Categories are used by the reader to find topics of interest and there should be some flexibility in their use. Thank youRFD (talk) 12:48, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categories are to aid navigation and without other content the category does not fulfil that function. No opposition to including him in the parent category as an alternative, although he seems to be well categorised in other strands of the Alabama tree already. SFB 19:35, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SMALLCAT. With only entry the category doesn't help with navigation at all....William 15:53, 29 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete smallcat or non-defining. Also, isn't an employee of the Alabama Legislature legally just a state employee - like the guy who works for the roads department, the head of which reports to the governor, not an "Employee of the Governor of Alabama", but an "Employee of the State of Alabama"? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 03:30, 1 December 2014 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_November_24&oldid=1089087399"