The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This would seem to be more suited to a list (which already exists somewhat at Aardman Animations#Short films) as the songs in the category aren't necessarily defined by what company animated a video for them. Sure "Slegdehammer" had a groundbreaking video but is the animator a defining aspect of the song? Also WP:OC#SMALL with no established scheme here. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 19:49, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I'm not sure there are many subject that are truly "defined" by which categories into which they are put. The categories are there to help readers find more articles of the same. It's the same as with the sub-categories to Category:Music videos by director (or any other category). In this particular case I would say that the sparse population of the category is rather an argument for its existence rather than against it. Aardman animation are known for their short and feature films, not their music videos making the the few music videos they did produce stand out even more. Also, if the entries in the category Category:Aardman Animations, were to be sorted into sub-categories such as "short films by Aardman Animations" and "feature films by Aardman Animations" there should certainly be a category for the music videos they produced as well.--Bensin (talk) 23:07, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Who performed it, who wrote it, who produced it, when it was released/published are all defining aspects of a song. The fact that a video was produced for a song 22 years after its peak popularity, as in the case of Barefootin', is not. How is a list not a better option here, which can be categorized in Category:Aardman Animations? --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 11:37, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: No problem with the grouping or concept per Bensin. I never create cats with less than 5 articles but 4 is close and there may be future room for growth. RevelationDirect (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep An appropriate defining characteristic and aid to navigation across articles sharing this characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 03:59, 27 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep defining and helpful. gidonb (talk) 09:37, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
"A defining characteristic is one that reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define, in prose, the subject as having." You will not find secondary sources that commonly and consistently define these songs (save possibly "Sledgehammer") as having videos with animation by Aardman Animations. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 17:10, 30 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The rationale for keeping those categories seems to have been that suicide is more defining in occupations in the public eye (such as actors and politicians) than in more private occupations. Whether or not anyone agrees with that conclusion, I don't see why it matters whether the person was a voice actor rather than a stage or film actor. BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:26, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
merge per nom. I don't think we need fine-grained categorization here. I also think we should consider merging up the actress/actor categories; presumably these people will be in other suicide-by-gender categories, not sure we need the intersection here as well.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:29, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
This is not a gendered category. Gender is irrelevant to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
By that logic, all the male actor categories should be upmerged then... LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 09:58, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they should. But since they aren't all nominated, start by merging the nominated category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 18:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Suicide and gender are highly linked and studied in linked ways. We should split the actor and actress categories by gender. The claim that the people will be in other categories that link their gender and their suicide is not actually supported, in most cases that will be the only category that does so.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. We have discussed the actor/actress distinction ad nauseam. Gender is almost uniquely significant, because generally women do not play male parts or vice versa, the exception being explicit cross-dressing. We should not be splitting actors by genre, because typically they will play many roles in the course of a career. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:52, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge oh, the sorry lives of voice actors... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 07:27, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Not enough content for an eponymous category. Taylor Trescott - my talk + my edits 17:58, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nom is correct. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:31, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Proposal A was suggested at WP:CFDS, but it was opposed with the rationale, that it's ambiguous. I have no opinion on that, but the categories should consistently use either "Tate", "Tate Gallery" or a third option determined by consensus. I have no preference for either of them. ArmbrustTheHomunculus 13:57, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer proposal A. The term "Tate Gallery" hasn't been in official use since 2000, so it would be best to avoid it. The institution's preferred usage in its official literature is "Tate" without the definite article (see e.g. "Working at Tate"). "(The) Tate" is meant to be a compromise between the official branding and more idiomatic usage. I don't think disambiguation to prevent confusion is necessary but if others disagree I'd prefer something like "Tate galleries" to "Tate Gallery". Ham 14:31, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to the way consensus is currently heading, but I'd suggest deleting the "Tate structures" category altogether if we're going to go ahead with "Tate galleries". Tates Britain, Modern. Liverpool and St Ives could then be at the top of the parent "Tate galleries" category. Ham 20:01, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Tate galleries" to avoid ambiguity with with other topics listed at Tate (disambiguation). Since the opening in 1998 of Tate Liverpool, there is no longer a single Tate Gallery, and there are now 4 of them. So the singular form "Tate Gallery" is no longer viable. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 19:35, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Tate galleries. I was going to oppose Option A since it is inherently ambiguous. BHG provides a very sound reason to clearly choose the plural over the singular so I'll support her proposal. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:23, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to "Tate galleries". Most widely recognised name. Suggest upmerging "Tate structures" since all the included "structures" are actually galleries. Jonathan Oldenbuck (talk) 13:23, 11 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Prefer "Tate Gallery": it is still an art gallery. If we are to adopt their present style, it should be "The Tate" (capitalised so). Peterkingiron (talk) 16:55, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not "Tate". I don't particularly care what other form we use, but "Tate" by itself is a very bad idea — it's not some worldwide-known name, and "Tate" can mean lots of other things (tons of people, for example), so using it by itself would be very confusing. Nyttend (talk) 22:58, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
how about Tate (museum) - adding the dab makes it clear that we're not inventing a new natural DAB, rather we're keeping the way it is naturally referred to (e.g. director of the Tate (museum)). This is similar to how we handle Georgia (country) for example.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 23:21, 11 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete both--Ymblanter (talk) 14:18, 14 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Amateur clubs, which happened to have a notable footballer as their manager 20 and 15 years ago respectively, and this is the only member of these category. There is a small possibility that another notable would become manager in the future, but the chances that these category would grow to a reasonable size are slim. They should be deleted per WP:SMALLCATMentoz86 (talk) 13:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 11:09, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The category has two members, not one. Xaris333 (talk) 23:42, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Remove -- Upmerge the Kongsberg category; both if Orkanger is kept contrary to my vote. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both, too minor for categories. Geschichte (talk) 14:17, 7 January 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.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories, with only the article itself as a member in addition to a sub-category with one member. These should be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Mentoz86 (talk) 13:54, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - serves no purpose. GiantSnowman 11:10, 10 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the category has many articles and two subcategories. Xaris333 (talk) 23:47, 10 November 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:BLP articles lacking sources from 2013[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 above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge, following the established scheme in Category:Amusement rides by amusement park which mostly does not have sub-cats for amusements/rides. There is not sufficient consensus in this CfD to break the pattern. If an editor feels this is wrong in principle then start an RFC at the WikiProject. – FayenaticLondon 12:05, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Upmerge to the parent cat and add Category:Amusement rides by amusement park to that one since none of the subcats there include "attractions" in their name. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:04, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
While most of the subcategories in Category:Amusement rides by amusement park follow the proposed naming, that does not make it correct. If you look at the subcategory contents you will see that they include more than just ride articles. So the name of the current category is probably a more accurate choice. If a rename is needed, maybe Category:Thorpe Park rides? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Correct or not, isn't this just following an accepted and established scheme? The theme parks project can decide if things like Category:Disneyland should be pared down to Category:Disneyland rides or whatever. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 00:50, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Merge somehow -- I only think we need two categories if the parent and child can both be and separately substantially populated. There may be a case for downmerging Thorpe Park to the rides category, leaving Thorpe Park as the main article for the rides. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Following category cleanup (including building categories for songs and albums and removing articles for songs and albums that weren't solo recordings) the remaining content doesn't justify an eponymous category. Looking through the material in the course of cleanup shows that it is well linked without the category. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 06:05, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Contains only the lead article and a redirect along with image files which, as I understand it, aren't supposed to be in mainspace categories. They should be migrated, or something? Regardless, the category isn't needed for the contents. Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:42, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The images cannot be migrated to commons because they are non-free/fair-use images. There's nothing wrong with having images in categories in WP if they are such types. If we want a category exclusively for images, it could be named Category:Images of Optimus Prime. Good Ol’factory(talk) 18:02, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, rename to Category:Images of Optimus Prime (and weep at the notion of thinking there need to be 16 different images of Optimus Prime), removing the other contents and leaving Optimus Prime in the category head note (as it currently is). Jerry Pepsi (talk) 19:44, 8 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
We don't need 16 different images of Optimus Prime just to illustrate the character—most of them are covers of video games; screenshots to illustrate movies, TV shows, or comics; and the like. One is even primarily used to illustrate Ronald Reagan in comics—for that one, OP's appearance is secondary. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:40, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
rename to "Images of Optimus Prime" and purge of everything else. No epon cat needed, sadly, for this, the greatest of all autobots.-- Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 04:45, 9 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Someone PLEASE close this with a rename! Jerry Pepsi (talk) 05:10, 4 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Oh my god make it go away. Seriously, what is the holdup here? Jerry Pepsi (talk) 08:20, 12 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
patience young padawan. The volunteer closers will be along shortly.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 13:51, 12 December 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 December 25. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 19:15, 25 December 2013 (UTC)