Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 7

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 6 March 8 >

March 7[edit]

Category:Armenians from Fresno[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:37, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection of ethnicity and town of residence. TM 21:16, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Category can be renamed to Armenian Americans of Fresno.Proudbolsahye (talk) 21:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You maybe could create an article Armenians of Fresno to cover the subject. The fact of the matter is that in the US people move too much between places for ethnicity by place to be a good idea.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:35, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you can add proper reliable sourcing which demonstrates that there's any real truth to your claim that it's "special", then by all means you can create an article about the Armenian community of Fresno, which can include a list of some notable community members. But a category isn't appropriate for the reasons that have already been mentioned here. Bearcat (talk) 22:45, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Thats fine thank you. Proudbolsahye (talk) 23:06, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps, you could write an article about the Armenians of Fresno that is along the lines of the History of the Hmong in Merced, California article. If there are enough articles about the Armenians of Fresno, perhaps the category Category:Armenian-American culture in Fresno, California could be created. Just a suggestion. Vis-a-visconti (talk) 08:13, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the fact that articles may be in multiple sub-categories of the same category. That is why we got such a mess when we upmerged Category:American musicians of Italian descent to Category:American musicians, most of the contents were in one of more sub-cats of Category:American musicians already.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:31, 11 March 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.

Songs by producer[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. The Bushranger One ping only 22:40, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. My rationale is that songs are written and songs are sung/performed but they are not produced as would be defined by this category, but rather it is the recording of such songs that are produced. I am also including one subcategory in this nomination and will nominate the other 443 child categories pending a positive outcome of this nomination. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Excellent rationale put forward. Nominator has nailed the difference between "song" and "recording." I note that this nomination also affects instrumentals, as well as songs, I am happy to run with the proposed new name because I can't find a better solution and feel that "songs" intuitively includes "instrumentals." --Richhoncho (talk) 11:53, 9 March 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:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic majority population[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. See User:Johnpacklambert/Hispanic lists and explanation. Nyttend (talk) 15:18, 24 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possible create more lists with Category:Populated places in the United States with Hispanic majority populations.
  • Nominator's rationale The underlying problem with this category is that such categorizations are not fixed. The quickest example I can come up with is Ardoch, North Dakota which is in this category. In 2000 its population was 54% Hispanic. By 2010 its population was 44% Hispanic and it no longer fits the category. What do we do though? At one point it had a Hispanic majority population, so if this is a fixed trait, than how can we remove the categorization. As far as i can tell the best solution would be to listify. I just renamed what was posing as a general list to what it actually was, a list of such communities based on the 2010 census. It might be worth creating such a list for the 2000 census. Otherwise in theory we will get places in this category and in either Category:Populated places in the United States with African-American majority populations or Category:Populated places in the United States with Asian American majority populations, not due to people in the place self-describing as both, but due to population change. Ethnic make up of the population of a place varies over time, so it really does not work as categories and works much better as time specific lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:52, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I made a bot request to try to get the sub-cats tagged as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the oddities of what this type of classification does is seen in Pilsen Historic District which is both in Czech communities in the United States and this category. And what happens if before the next census Pilsen gets inhabited by a new wave of immigrants, should we then remove it from this category?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete This is really the sort of thing that people who want genuinely accurate information need to query the census for. I note that Ardoch has a population report of 67, meaning that the difference between 54% and 44% is less than five people. Mangoe (talk) 22:24, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • first create the lists, then and only then deletion Hmains (talk) 04:00, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We already have lists based on both the 2000 and 2010 census. As it is places like Optima, Oklahoma have been put in this category although the only demographic data in that article is from the 2000 census which lists its population as 48% Hispanic, thus less than half, thus it should not be in the category based on what the article says (evidently according to the list it was significantly over half Hispanic by 2010, but the article does not in anyway reflect that fact).John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:51, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Where are the lists? What are their names? Assertions without fact don't fly. Hmains (talk) 04:03, 10 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
They are at List of U.S. communities with Hispanic majority populations in the 2010 census and List of U.S. communities with Hispanic majority populations in the 2000 census. The first is linked to from the category, so actually what is going on is you are failing to do even the msot basic investigation.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:33, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I made no assertions there were lists; you did; you are therefore to provide lists. You seem very confused about roles. Doing the required work without snarky comments is all that it takes to be a good worker here. Hmains (talk) 04:59, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Also, I see you just renamed the article to be List of U.S. communities with Hispanic majority populations in the 2010 census. Tough thing, though, is that the only referenece in the article was retrieved in 2008; no indication what the date of the census data is, but certainly not 2010. Hmains (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If the list is linked to from the category it has clearly been created. The first place on the list has the 2010 percentage and would not even qualify for the list if it was based on the 2000 census. The list is horribly made and I have no clue why when people changed the list over to being based on the 2010 cnesus they did not edit the listed sources, but your assertyion that it is based on other than the 2010 census is false, and if you had bothered to read even one article linked you would see that the percentage is the 2010 figure and not the 2000 figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 12 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Your snarky comments advance no discussion and merely expose you. Work, not comments, are good. Hmains (talk) 02:32, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The presence of a majority Hispanic population is a strong defining characteristic and an effective aid to navigation for readers across articles with a rather clear common characteristic. That the population dipped below at some point hardly changes the relevance of the status. Alansohn (talk) 15:38, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are ignoring the fact that it is not fixed. As I pointed out with a place in North Dakota, some places that fit this criteria in 2000 no longer fit it now. This is a changable characteristic and not and that change and time sensitive nature can be shown by lists, but not categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, not ignoring, just unaffected. Almost half of the entries in Category:Presidents of the United States are no longer serving as president. There will be places that are majority Hispanic in one census and not in another. I'm fine with that, as the characteristic remains defining. Alansohn (talk) 00:55, 15 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However that does not work with places. With people these is an understanding that once someone fits a category they always do. However, it does not make sense to put this type of category on a place that it only applied to 100 years ago. Likewise we do not put places currenly in Russia or Poland in a category as places in Germany because they used to be in Germany.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm intending to relist so as to tag the subcategories for deletion, per the original nominator's request. If the result here is "Delete", it would leave the subcategories in a precarious position. If I don't hear from someone within 5 hours, I'm going to relist, with the subcategories included. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 20:27, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is a container category. If deleted it will simply leave the sub-cats orphaned, which disrupts navigation.
    Substantively, I think that this is a bad way to categorise places, because of the arbitrary threshold of 50% and the changeability of the figures. For example, I presume that Texas was majority hispanic in the 18th century? So I'd support listifying the sub-categoriesif they were nominated. But they aren't. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:30, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I went through and requested a bot to tag the subcats. It is not my fault that was not done. So much for the claims that mass tagging is easy. On another note, in the 18th-century the majority of the population of Texas was Native Americans who would not be in any meaninful way seen as Hispanics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnpacklambert (talk • contribs) 02:40, 14 March 2013‎
Sorry JPL, but it is your fault. Your bot request was impossibly vague: "I think this whole tree needs to be deleted, and some related trees as well". You not only failed to set out an explicit list, but you defined the scope so vaguely that there was no clear way of telling what you meant. You were asking the bot-owner to guess what you meant, and when I was a bot-owner I would not have taken up that job. If you list the categories in the nomination, and then ask for that list to be tagged in a precise way, then you'll get a much quicker response. See for example the 3-hour completion time of my CFD-tagging bot request this evening. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 04:33, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it was my first time making such a bot request. I tried to do it as well as I knew how.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 17 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, no, I just figured we should start the discussion somewhere. The category names themselves are long and complexed to begin with, and the split by state makes this even more difficult to deal with. That said, I could argue that Hispanicness, being an ethnicity, not a race, is a different category. However, in reality I think the same principals would apply across the board. In fact, the problems of not easily being able to encompass places that once were such would be a lot worse in the Native American and African-American situations, considering that there are places in the US that were Native American communities before the European incursion, or that South Carolina and Louisana both in the past had African-American majority populations but do not today.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:39, 17 March 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:Albert Einstein prizes[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:Albert Einstein.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a more specific variation of Category:Things named after Albert Einstein, which was deleted here. There are several unrelated prizes named after Einstein, and the disambiguation page is Einstein Prize. This category is grouping those unrelated prizes. See WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES. Categories are not intended to function as disambiguation pages. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:06, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and it is taking the category system a bit too far. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:32, 26 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok! (as author). I moved all items to parent Category:Albert Einstein. Need deletion as {{db-catempty}}. NickSt (talk) 02:40, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Emptied out of process Please do not anticipate the outcome of discussions. I now cannot see what was in the cateogry. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We should not have categories for proze winners. I observe that there is a a subcategory for "Albert Einstein medal". That should not exist: it should be listified and deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:03, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a category for prize winners. It's a category for the prizes themselves. IRWolfie- (talk) 12:23, 7 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: If this category is deleted, will the articles just end up being categorised in Category:Albert Einstein?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete grouping together prizes because they all happen to be named after the same person is a grouping by shared name which we very heavily depricate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:37, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Perhaps my vote above was not clear. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:08, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because the name is a defining characteristic of the prizes. They are specifically for achievements in science and peace and commemorate Albert Einstein's achievements in those areas. The arguments that applied to Category:Things named after Albert Einstein do not apply here because it is a more specific category. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:20, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
However the prizes are not linked with eachother, they are independent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's hard to see how prizes could be better linked. If you take away the common factors that I have described, what is left? Can you explain how Einstein Prize (APS) is better linked to the other articles in Category:Physics awards and Category:Awards established in 2003, the other two categories that include it? RockMagnetist (talk) 21:41, 9 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - in answer to BrownHairedGirl's question, if this category is deleted, the articles should not go into Category:Albert Einstein. That would contradict the rationale for deletion. However, each prize is already in other subject-specific categories. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the relevant WikiProjects were not identified and notified of this discussion. I have done that, and they should be allowed time to respond. RockMagnetist (talk) 16:54, 6 April 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:Foreign Ministers of the Philippines[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:Secretaries of Foreign Affairs of the Philippines. The Bushranger One ping only 22:42, 18 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To be aligned with Secretary of Foreign Affairs (Philippines). Note that there is no standard naming convention for state/foreign (affairs) secretaries/ministers as evidence at Category:Foreign ministers by country, but in this specific case the category name is significantly different from the article name.

The other articles may have have to be standardized, including this one, though -- but it should be in format/phrasing, and not on using a universal term for everyone. These include capitalization and word order (is it "Foreign minister of Foo" or "Fooian Foriegn Secretary" or what?). Nevertheless, while that is an issue for another day, this has to be moved to the be aligned with its main article. –HTD 11:09, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think we should consider renaming the parent. It seems to be an attempt to impose British usage on everyone, and that has lead to this imposition of it on the Phillipines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:53, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such office as "Foreign minister" in the British govt. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 14 March 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:Project Hula ships[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:57, 6 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The current name for this category is somewhat oddly formed; it's clear a better one is needed, but I'm not 100% sure the proposed name is ideal, so suggestions are invited. The Bushranger One ping only 04:30, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: I created the category to allow another way of navigating among the Project Hula ships (or ships of Project Hula) for those interested in them (in addition to the templates, the links I have added to the text of each ship with its own article, etc.). I have no strong feelings about the category's exact name. The formulation I chose ("Project Hula ships") isn't a "strange" one; looking at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships, we see there are categories for "Legendary ships," "Missing ships," "Greenpeace ships" (rather than "Ships of Greenpeace"), and "Naval ships," and under http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Ships_by_conflict, we see that it is common for the subcategories to use this formulation ("Cold War ships" rather than "Ships of the Cold War," "Korean War ships" rather than "Ships of the Korean War," "Gulf War ships" rather than "Ships of the Gulf War," "World War I ships" rather than "Ships of World War I," etc.), making it a little hard to determine which formulation to choose. However, the majority of ship categories to seem to use the formulation that you propose, and I don't see any problem with changing the category's name as you propose (although I'd recommend leaving a soft redirect in place if you do). In fact, one could easily argue that there are quite a few other categories – like the ones I point out above – that should be reformulated in the same way for the sake of consistency across categories, which would be a good outcome. Thanks! Mdnavman (talk) 17:47, 7 March 2013 (UTC)mdnavman[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:Officers of the Most Venerable Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem[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. I'm going to assume folks are right about these being the same. If not, we might reverse.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Duplication. StAnselm (talk) 03:57, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Order of Saint John should certainly go to the disambiguation page, Order of St. John. StAnselm (talk) 10:11, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all; WP:OCAT per award. None of these folks are known for having won this award. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OCAT for awards. There are award cats which we generally discorage. Some of these people the award is not even mentioned in the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:42, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: For those who suggested deletion, what about all the other subcategories at Category:Order of St John? Do we keep the knights and the dames? StAnselm (talk) 05:47, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see no reason not to delete those, but am not sure really. What is clear is that this category is being used in non-natable ways and needs to go.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:36, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We deleted that category, we should delete this one. In general we discorage award categories, that is why we should get rid of this award cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:37, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I see it was deleted seven years ago. Well, Category:Officers of the Order of the British Empire exists and it has 2,579 pages. It certainly isn't true to say we discourage award categories. StAnselm (talk) 06:54, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that we discorage award categories. The overcat guidleines on awards say "People can and do receive awards and/or honors throughout their lives. In general (though there are a few exceptions to this), recipients of an award should be grouped in a list rather than a category." If this is not discoraging them than nothing is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I see it. But that does not reflect the reality. There is such a huge number of subcategories of Category:Awards by country as to make the "few exceptions" clauses meaningless. StAnselm (talk) 20:35, 11 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinterpreting things. First off, just because people blatantly ignore policy in some cases does not mean we should stop trying to apply it. Secondly, you have misinterpreted the category you linked to. Categories for awards and categories of awards are not the same as categories for award winners. We have articles on awards, so we have to group them together in categories. That is what is going on in the category you linked to. True we have an unaccetably high amount of award categories, and a high level of squemishness at deleting them, with some sort of view that we need them for some awards, which is not really supported by the guideline. Per the guideline we really should have way fewer awards cats, but whenever an award cat gets nominated for deletion its special defenders come out and do battle for it, and even when they don't people just ignore the nomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Category:Awards by country contains many award-winners in its subcats. E.g. Category:Officers of the Order of the British Empire is a subcat of Category:Order of the British Empire, which is a subcat of Category:Orders of knighthood of the United Kingdom, which is a subcat of Category:Orders, decorations, and medals of the United Kingdom, which is a subcat of Category:British awards. StAnselm (talk) 06:28, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but do it carefully because there are two problems. "The Most Venerable Order" and "Venerable Order" are the same Order of St. John (being the British/Protestant Order). The Sovereign Military Order of Malta (aka SMOM) is the Roman Catholic Order of St. John. There is also a third German Order of St John. To recap, Venerable=British, Malta=Catholic & Brandenburg=German (The Malta order self identifies as Catholic). The Alliance of the Orders of St. John of Jerusalem lists all three versions of the same order. I suggest making Order of St John the top level with only 3 sub-categories being the British, Malta and German Orders and Category:Officers of the Venerable Order of Saint John can sit under the British/Venerable Order.
  • Comment: For those suggesting deletion, I should point out that these are postnomials, and if used, then the recipients are known for having them, which is the rule of thumb for including categories. At Arthur Waite (racing driver), the lead calls him "Colonel Arthur Waite MC., OSt.J., DL., JP." where the "OSt.J." refers to this honour. StAnselm (talk) 19:58, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
That is a big conditional "if used". As it is some of the articles do not even mention in the text the people receiving them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:15, 21 March 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:Films directed by Lillian Gish[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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:07, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Gish only directed one film, Remodeling Her Husband, so it's either deletion or renaming to Film directed by Lillian Gish. Clarityfiend (talk) 02:13, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories are always named after plurals also, WP:SMALLCAT supports keeping this, as it's part of an established scheme of films by director. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:43, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The director of the film is one of the most defining aspects of that film, and as per FILMCAT - "A category for a director's films should be created even if they have only directed one film (irrespective of whether they are likely to direct more in the future), providing that the director already has an article." This mirrors the structure for the category Albums by artist. Also note that the nominator removed the category from the article - I've since restored it. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 19:23, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's one of the sillier guidelines around here. I mean, what possible purpose does it serve? Oh, well. Clarityfiend (talk) 01:33, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It serves the purpose of not excluding Remodeling Her Husband from the standard categorization structure that's applicable to all other films. What possible purpose would it serve for Remodeling Her Husband to be the only film in the entire history of cinema to be explicitly excluded from Category:Films by director just because its director didn't happen to direct another film afterward? It's meant to be a comprehensive tree that includes all films, and is not limited to films that happen to have been made by directors who made multiple films. Bearcat (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Justin and Lugnuts. Bearcat (talk) 07:05, 8 March 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.

Waves[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/merge all. While there's a lot of opposition here, everybody seems inclined to follow the lead of the RMs on New Wave music and Dark Wave. Both of these were renamed without much discussion, so I could see this coming back around again. But for now, they're all moving.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:44, 10 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Minimal wave[edit]
Nominator's rationale: Music genres are not capitalised. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:28, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
New wave[edit]

Music genres are not capitalised. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose new wave is ambiguous. The genre article is capitalized New Wave music ; so even if this is renamed it should be Caetgory:New wave music genre x -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:29, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural close all three of these noms Pending discussion at Talk:New Wave music. Why nominate these now? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:40, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - close all four nominations - Minimal wave & dark wave can be renamed, but New Wave is an exception. And as mentioned above, there's no need to nominate as there's a current ongoing discussion on the talk page of the main New Wave music article. Sectorrvolts (talk) 04:49, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose "New Wave" is a proper name, as indicated by the article name. If there is a pending article renaming discussion, we should await its outcome and follow it. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:19, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Darkwave[edit]

Music genres are not capitalised. Lachlan Foley (talk) 01:07, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • This should be closed to match "New Wave" above. My view is that it is probably correctly capiralised as a proper name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:23, 9 March 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_March_7&oldid=1138398355"