Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< May 8 May 10 >

May 9[edit]

Category:Works by John Peel[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: relisted, see here (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 10:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: With the only content being an albums subcategory, convention has just been to place it in the eponymous category (when an eponymous category is warranted). This just adds an unnecessary level of navigation. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:44, 9 May 2019 (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:Works by Mushtaq Omar Uddin[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary level of categorization for only 1 album already in Category:Mushtaq Omar Uddin albums. "Works by" categories are typically reserved for those who have recorded albums, written books, directed films, etc., and not just one field. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:36, 9 May 2019 (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:Drug dealers[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: keep (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No clear distinction between the terms. Category:Drug traffickers is better developed. The leading article, Illegal drug trade, uses the term trafficker much more than dealer Rathfelder (talk) 21:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, as I would understand trafficking as crossing international borders, whereas dealing is a general term and would often be merely local. – Fayenatic London 07:33, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article Illegal drug trade uses drug trafficking in reference to transportation between continents, and covers the main trafficking routes. The term drug dealer refers to anyone selling illegal drugs, and could well cover local distributors. Dimadick (talk) 15:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak oppose complex set of terms there should also be Category:Drug couriers these being people who are paid the carry the drugs, we also now have drug dealers using the web who trade across borders the nuances of the whole industry should be unpacked complete with an rfc rather than adhoc single category actions. Gnangarra 00:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - The term trafficking usually connotates moving drugs between countries or states, while dealing is selling drugs to drug users. However, I agree that the term is ambiguous since the same people and organisations may be involved in both, or there may be more than a few levels between the drug manufacturer and drug user. I definitely disagree with merging in this direction; a Category:People involved in illegal drug trade might be a better solution. Daß Wölf 01:12, 13 May 2019 (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:Tina Guo[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. MER-C 10:14, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Musical artist Tina Guo only works are 3 albums which are appropriately categorized in Category:Tina Guo albums. This is an unnecessary and excessive categorization scheme for such a limited amount of and very specific content. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I have only just created these categories and I was planning to expand Wikipedia's knowledge on Guo's Albums and Songs and anything else on her to these categories in the next few weeks. What is the difference between this and Works by John Peel or Mushtaq Omar Uddin's category. D Eaketts (talk) 21:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • After having a rethink overnight, perhaps only the Tina Guo category should be kept and i can transfer my albums category within it. D Eaketts (talk) 07:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - unless the article Tina Guo is greatly defective there is little scope for anything beyond an albums category. Category:Works by John Peel is also ridiculous. Oculi (talk) 21:44, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the Albums subcategory appears to be sufficient. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:59, 12 May 2019 (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:Dublin Bus routes[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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unpopulated, except for a solitary redirect, and probably will never be in future. Ajf773 (talk) 19:59, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per nom. ww2censor (talk) 17:17, 10 May 2019 (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:Municipal councillors of Leiden[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: withdraw. I would like to apologize for my mistake of not thinking this through. Seems the issue stemmed for people erroneously adding aldermen to the municipal councillors category, which should be cleaned up of such articles that were added there even though said articles' subjects were never municipal councillors. (non-admin closure) FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 23:41, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I did not notice there was Category:Aldermen of Leiden. It appears in the Netherlands alderman (wethouder) is about the same as municipal councillor. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 19:47, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, they are not about the same, municipal councillors are chosen by local general elections, while aldermen are chosen by the municipal council. It's like MPs and ministers. Honestly I have doubts about the definingness of municipal councillor but that would be a completely different discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:26, 9 May 2019 (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.

Trade unions[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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
List of 9 more unions
This is probably speediable. Oculi (talk) 19:43, 9 May 2019 (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.

Associations[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 all. (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 00:21, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
List of 30 more associations
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:Women record producers from Latin America[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. MER-C 16:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unlike the other "Women record producers" subcategories that I listed for renaming below due to inconsistency, this is one that should just be deleted: Latin America is not a country, but parts of two full continents, and the two people who have actually been filed here are from two different countries within that region. So if subcategorization by nationality is desired here, then Argentina and Venezuela should each have their own subcategories rather than being subsumed into one blanket "Latin American" category. Neither of the entries was actually removed from the Category:Women record producers parent, but instead had this added alongside it, so no upmerging is necessary. Bearcat (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm the one who originally made this category and I think my original intention was to have categories such as African Women record producers or Asian Women record producers with subcategories by country. I just didn't get that far because it was overwhelming trying to categorize (there's a LOT of women mis-categorized as record producers when they are musicians who do recordings. Not the same thing even by Wiki definition). My thinking was that there would be a hundred categories and the majority only have one or two names. But maybe that's the norm. I could go either way - delete this category and only have by country or create larger geographical regions with subcategory by country. Actaudio (talk) 00:46, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, it is not a bad idea at all to have a by-continent category structure with the relatively limited amount of articles about Women record producers from countries other than US, UK and Canada. But then it should be renamed to Category:Women record producers from South America. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It appears someone has been doing some major categorizing (!) so there were only two women left in the category in question. I went ahead and removed them because they are also in a category for their respective countries. So, at this point I would say delete the category. Actaudio (talk) 04:18, 23 May 2019 (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:Dead or Alive (series) video games[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 move. Meets all WP:C2D criteria (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:37, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the renaming of the parent article, Dead or Alive (franchise). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (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:Dead or Alive (series) media[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 move. Meets all WP:C2D criteria (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the renaming of the parent article, Dead or Alive (franchise). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:12, 9 May 2019 (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:(Nationality) women record producers (from Country)?[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 according to the first proposal. MER-C 09:53, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OR

Nominator's rationale: National subcategories of Category:Women record producers are named in two inconsistent, conflicting formats — some are at "Nationality women record producers", while others are at "Women record producers from Country". For consistency's sake, however, these need to all be standardized on one format or the other. I believe "Nationality women record producers" should be the norm, since that's consistent with Category:Record producers by nationality, but I'm including the obverse move as an alternative option just in case there's a reason to preference that form. Bearcat (talk) 18:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the former, per say Category:Australian record producers. Oculi (talk) 18:20, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the former, also. Thank you for catching this. I created some of these categories but when I started it was already mixed up. Actaudio (talk) 00:11, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • oppose ouch irony hurts this suggests to define as Australian, while above it recommends redefining it as in Australia. Its quite possible that a person learnt their craft in Australia, got their opportunity in Australia and are notable because of that, thus they fall into the category of being from Australia, yet they maybe a citizen of Vietnam and therefore Vietnamese. They may reside now in a third place like say Nashville, are they Australian, Vietnamese, or American. When the categories are subdivided further will this become Australian Americans, Vietnamese Australians or Australian Vietnamese Americans. Then what if citizenship isnt the defining characteristic but rather the country or culture their works are made for. They could be a Record producer from Australia, equally they could be a Vietnamese record producer, and by citizenship be an Italian record producer as well. Gnangarra 02:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the former, either way nationality is not meant to be limited to citizenship, this is just a nomination about standardizing the format, and denonyms are used by default for all nationality categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the former, I agree with consistency of format and using the style default. Lyrelyrebird (talk) 16:09, 26 May 2019 (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:Dead or Alive (series)[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 move. Meets all WP:C2D criteria (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:44, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the renaming of the parent article, Dead or Alive (franchise). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:11, 9 May 2019 (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:Dead or Alive (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 move. Meets all WP:C2D criteria (non-admin closure) Satellizer el Bridget (Talk) 01:46, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per the renaming of the parent article, Dead or Alive (franchise). ZXCVBNM (TALK) 18:09, 9 May 2019 (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:Antivirus software that uses GTK[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 17#Category:Antivirus software that uses GTK

Chancellors and Vice-Chancellors[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: keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT, relatively new universities unlikely to require a category Aloneinthewild (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2019 (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:Sundara Karma songs[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: nomination withdrawn. MER-C 12:10, 17 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category only contains redirects. No objection to keeping if an article is added to the category. Richhoncho (talk) 10:31, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw. A redirect has been turned into an article. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:06, 10 May 2019 (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:Serfs[edit]

Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 June 16#Category:Serfs

Category:People by nationality and status[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: keep. MER-C 09:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is a bold request for deletion but I actually want to start a discussion on what the heck "status" is supposed to be. This could be a rename if a better title can be proposed.
If you look at the contents of this category, it ranges from "status" to "legal status" to "rank" and it seems like this is a catch-all category for a random collection of subcategories that have nothing in common with each other. If this is what is wanted (an etc./miscellaneous category), than this should be clearer and perhaps standardized for all nationalities. Liz Read! Talk! 02:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated, because this would just leave the sub-categories unparented, which would pointless.
I created this container category and some of the subcats as an intersection of the longer-establish Category:People by status and Category:People by nationality.
There was a previous discussion at WP:CFD 2018 January 1 which examined the issues and closed as "keep", because while the title may not be ideal, there was no agreement on anything better.
Fundamentally, this is way of grouping categories which are not by occupation ethnicity, locality, religion etc, but by other attributes which define their status and position in society.
I am surprised that the nominator missed the previous discussion, because it is linked both in the page history and on the talk page. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Which categories would deletion leave unparented? The subcats I've looked at all have at least one other parent category. DexDor (talk) 06:07, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as nominated - per the previous cfd. It is Category:People by status (and subcats thereof) that should be at this cfd, as the nom's remarks do not apply to the nominated category. I note that several of the country subcats are empty. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I said in the earlier discussion "We have to think what meanings will be attributed to categories who are not as obsessive as we are about them, otherwise they will be filled up with inappropriate content." and I think experience bears that out. I'm perfectly happy with Category:People by status as it now stands, but some of the country categories have a mish-mash of billionaires, award winners, sexuality etc. which dont seem to me to fit with status. If we can find a way of limiting the proliferation of subcategories which dont fit I will be happy.Rathfelder (talk) 21:42, 9 May 2019 (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:Minerals named after locations in Western Australia[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. For future reference, the contents of the WA category were Kalgoorlieite and Kambaldaite, while the contents of the TAS category were Dundasite and Heazlewoodite. MER-C 16:51, 23 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
This groups together two mineral articles because they are named after locations in Western Australia which doesn't seem defining. One is a arsenic-tellurium mineral and the other is a sodium nickel one so they aren't chemically similar. Both of the articles, Kalgoorlieite and Kambaldaite, are each alraedy categorized in another Western Australian category. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Added the Tasmanian sibling category. Same issue of two very different minerals with similar names. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I have no problems if they are subsumed into others - at one stage there was hope that there more geology/rocks minerals editors, they seem to have insert relevant metaphor for never eventuated geological/mineral editing cohort - maybe a sample? having been a geological field assistant myself once... not eventuated. JarrahTree 01:21, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Per our conversation on our talk page, I would suggest a list article. RevelationDirect (talk) 15:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the origins of names are a defining characteristic, they go deeper then just the name. They are a link between colonial history and Indigenous cultures. Many names in Australia are being used as part of greater reconciliation process to acknowledge that Indigenous cultures knew of and used these minerals long before European exploitation. Gnangarra 03:18, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of the 4 mineral articles currently in the categry mention reconciliation with Indigenous cultures or mention pre-colonial usage. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:06, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - See CFDs for similar categories (example CFD). If the origin of a name is important/interesting then it should be mentioned (with appropriate links) in the article text, but this isn't a good way to categorize (e.g. because some minerals have several names). DexDor (talk) 11:45, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME without objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:30, 18 May 2019 (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:Songs named after people[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 without prejudice to listification. I've dumped the category contents on the talk page if anyone wants to listify the category. MER-C 09:55, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SHAREDNAME
I can't imagine any reader wanting a direct navigational path between Long Live Comrade Mao for Ten Thousand Years, Bette Davis Eyes and Fuck Me, Ray Bradbury. This category groups all songs together regardless of country, artist or genre so long as they are named after someone. The category does not include songs about people when the name isn't in the title becaue it appears to be based on a shared name rather than anything defining. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I can imagine lots of reasons why people would look for songs named after people, and why they'd want to be able to cross genera because music isnt isolated it cross generations, boarders, and languages. It may be that there is a need for subcategories for each letter, and in some cases then each name, the individual names are defining characteristic Gnangarra 03:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I have to say, this is quite a stunning compilation of song titles. All the same, I don't know if this category "needs" to be kept or "needs" to be deleted. All I can say for sure is, in the event that it is deleted, it "needs" to be Listified so the info is retained in some form. Anomalous+0 (talk) 09:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a category created because a name was in the title, as it says, 'named after people' and that is pure WP:TRIVIA. Whatever next, businesses named after mountains? Computer companies named after fruit? Plus, a category is supposed to join WP:DEFINING attributes of an article together, in other words, something significant mentioned in the text. This category does not pass muster in any way, shape or form. The nominator has it right. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - it is exactly WP:SHAREDNAME. Oculi (talk) 15:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Useful cat. It was originally intended to include songs of only the name of a person, eg first name and surname only (Marvin Gaye, Grace Kelly etc.) It doesn't need to be too specific regarding country of origin, genre etc. and of course it doesn't contain songs about people whose name isn't in the title as the category is what it is intended for - to contain any song in which its title is the name of a person, either deceased or living. ~ Hiddenstranger (talk) 19:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It used to be a common courtesy to state you are the category creator when commenting. Are you too embarrassed? --Richhoncho (talk) 21:39, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good grief... Very classy, Rich. Since you invoked "common courtesy", you might, in the interest of civility, want to consider striking thru your remark. Anomalous+0 (talk) 01:19, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I made the same comment before very nicely and politely. If politeness is not working then parhaps a little sarcasm might help? --Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you saying that you've previously made the same comment to the very same editor? Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:02, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Precisely. I have made the same comment before to Hiddenstranger in a friendly and advisory way, without sarcasm and in an attempt to be helpful to them and other editors. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:43, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hmm, okay, thanks for that info. <sigh> I understand your frustration, however... Probably would have been better to ask/confirm whether they ever actually saw your previous comment, and if so, why they ignored it. Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of my recent "named after" and "hall of fame" nominations have been for edtiors that likely haven't been to CFD before. Template:Cfd-notify doesn't suggest self-disclosing that your'e the author, at least in its current form. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:42, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Interesting point... Not sure if it should, but it might be worth bringing up on the template talk page, and/or at the CFD talk page. Anomalous+0 (talk) 14:57, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it important? A keep argument should have the same weight whether it is from the creator or from any other editor, right? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:02, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Often I find it helpful to understand the original intent of the category (as opposed to stuff added later). I certainly don't discount the perspective. RevelationDirect (talk) 02:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with the nominator. The only connection between the songs is someone's name in the title. The song doesn't even have to be about the person apparently. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:49, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify - Just want to be sure that my preferred option (as discussed more obliquely above) is clearly on the table. I really do think this is an extraordinary compilation that should be preserved in List form. Anomalous+0 (talk) 01:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SHAREDNAME without objection to listification. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Hiddenstranger and others above. And again, the guideline page notifies editors that comparing categories and lists (and templates) should not be done as they are independent of each other and work in tangent. Randy Kryn (talk) 09:28, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The songs have little in common with each other, other than the fact they were named after someone. That's like having a category for songs named after places, or anything else really. --woodensuperman 10:01, 21 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For example, Spoon and The Knife are both named after cutlery, but they have nothing in common with each other that would justify a category. --woodensuperman 09:23, 10 June 2019 (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/2019_May_9&oldid=1091637772"