Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 November 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< November 16 November 18 >

November 17

[edit]

Category:Music in the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham

[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:Musicians from the Metropolitan Borough of Oldham. Musical groups have already been split out of the category. bibliomaniac15 06:30, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: That is what the category contains. Rathfelder (talk) 23:17, 17 November 2021 (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:Lx affiliates

[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) 07:09, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Created by an obvious sockpuppet of User:SPWTulsaOK1213. No corresponding article (link leads to a section of another article). Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:53, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy delete: Wouldn't this fall under G5, owing to being created by a sock? --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:01, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually, on second look, categories probably rarely if ever qualify for G5. At least in theory, it is (in a broad sense) a potentially useful category, as not all affiliates of this service are owned by network parent NBCUniversal. That said, under the circumstances, it might be best to get rid of this. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 21:10, 18 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This category has been emptied. Yes, according to WP:BANREVERT, categories ordinarily shouldn't be tagged as CSD G5 unless they are empty, can be easily emptied or if they are vandalism but that doesn't stop some well-meaning editors from tagging them for speedy deletion. If the sockpuppet is the only contributor, they can be nominated here at CFD and if other editors have contributed to the page, they can be kept. Liz Read! Talk! 01:31, 19 November 2021 (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.

Essays by user

[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. The essays have been listed on the users' respective pages. bibliomaniac15 06:31, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There are precedents against categories by user, e.g. Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2021 October 17#Category:Rich Farmbrough's Dictionary of National Biography contributor templates. – Fayenatic London 16:15, 17 November 2021 (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:Series sidebar templates

[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:12, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Ambiguous name which adds an unnecessary extra categorization layer. Category:Film series sidebar templates should be merged to Category:Mass media sidebar templates. Gonnym (talk) 14:22, 17 November 2021 (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:Montreal Roadrunners

[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. bibliomaniac15 06:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. This is team has been defunct for 25 years and has only the article, its logo, and its players category as contents. User:Namiba 14:39, 9 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It is doubtful whether the stadiums in which they played should be included. Is it defining of the Montreal Forum that they briefly hosted this small time team? Regardless, there is no potential for growth as the team is long defunct. WP:SMALLCAT still applies.--User:Namiba 17:07, 10 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- "Stadiums used" categorisation (unless a dedicated facility, only used by them) fall foul of OCVENUE. The category includes an owner and a coach, besides the main article and subcategory. Could we repurpose the sub-cat as "Montreal Roadrunners people", which would enable the two people to be downmerged with the main article being its main article. This would enable this level to be eliminated. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This seems like an unnecessary level of categorization. The coaches are mentioned in the article and the players category already exists.--User:Namiba 18:31, 16 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Which other articles can be added? As mentioned above, the arenas should not be included per WP:OCVENUE. Please be specific.--User:Namiba 18:33, 18 November 2021 (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:Mongolian musical groups by genre

[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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not enough Mongolian musical groups‎ to divide by genre. Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 1 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
The number of subcategories has increased from one to two. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2021 (UTC) [reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 17 November 2021 (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:Pomplamoose members

[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. bibliomaniac15 06:28, 16 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Pomplamoose is a musical duo. With there only being two members, this category is highly redundant and unnecessary. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 05:07, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Fayenatic london: It doesn't make sense to have categories for duos since duos only have two members. A backing band, if they have one, does not make them members. If they were official members, they would no longer be a duo. Mr. C.C.Hey yo!I didn't do it! 21:47, 17 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It is certainly WP:DEFINING for each of them that they are a member of Pomplamoose, so they should be in some category for Pomplamoose.
In the case of a more prominent duo e.g. Category:Simon & Garfunkel, there is enough content to justify an eponymous category, and then the members are held directly within that category, with no sub-cat for members. However, a case such as Pomplamoose clearly would not justify an WP:EPONCAT, so a members category is needed.– Fayenatic London 08:52, 19 November 2021 (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/2021_November_17&oldid=1060553502"