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.
Speedy delete if Michael Ford is not notable enough to have his own article, he is clearly not notable enough to have his own category. JDDJS (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was actually preparing to speedy the album's article as an A9, but it turns out to have been a collaborative album with another musician who does have an article — so it doesn't qualify under that criterion. That said, it still appears to be AFDable as an album that doesn't actually make any substantive or sourced claim of notability beyond happening to have a notable musician's name on its cover (which is not something that gets an album a free WP:NMUSIC pass if it isn't adequately sourced as a standalone topic.) But even if it is kept, the fact that Ford doesn't have an article means he doesn't need (or qualify for) an albums category alongside the one for the other musician he collaborated with. No prejudice against recreation if circumstances change — but right now it's just not necessary or useful. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: I am relisting for additional discussion that can take into account the fact that the album article Philadelphia Chickens survived its AfD (not sure whether that should make a difference...). The absence of an article does not qualify the category for speedy deletion—just as the existence of an article is not proof of notability, the absence of an article is not proof that the subject is not notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:44, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is insufficient content to warrant a personal navigational category, especially as the person does not appear to be the main performer or artist on the albums. SFB 02:00, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Merge. Overlapping categories, with the former being too narrow, I think. Brandmeistertalk 19:38, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Large overlap, but also the history category doesn't distinguish itself from the rest of the content – practically all the contents of Crime in Ohio relate to history, so it's not a useful or more-specific subtype to explore. SFB 02:02, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Tagged all for discussion. Looks like Foo US state crime history categorization is non-standard, the rest of 44 states don't have crime history. Brandmeistertalk 23:09, 1 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but this would require a relisting. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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.
Note: although the Church of Norway recently has adopted a different way of electing their primates (namely for a four-year period), I don't think that is a sufficient reason to use the Norwegian name for primate (praeces) instead of the English name (primate). Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Rename per WP:C2C, clear naming convention in that tree. This is not a loan word into English. Norwegian Wikipedia is, of course, free to use the term in the local language.RevelationDirect (talk) 03:39, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Rename to make the distinction between the two categories clear. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:49, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support The current wording of the categories make it unclear such a distinction exists - the proposed names match the true content and scope. SFB 02:04, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article, and not part of an established tree. 14:42, 22 November 2014 (UTC) / signature added: Marcocapelle (talk) 17:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge This tiny subcategory does not aid navigation, especially while Category:Lay preachers is non-existent (no opposition to creating that potential category). SFB 02:05, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge, and oppose creation of categories for lay preachers as this is not wp:DEFINING. We have discussed that before in the context of Christian ministers and deacons. – FayenaticLondon 13:59, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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:Rename. Because the articles in the category aren't really "scandals" in my opinion, they're just controversies (noting that three of them are named "XXX controversy"). Also for consistency with parent category Category:Auto racing controversies and sister category Category:NASCAR controversies. DH85868993 (talk) 11:52, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support This better matches the given content, particularly things like 2012 Bahrain Grand Prix protests which generated discussion but don't bear the hallmarks of a scandal. SFB 02:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match parent and sister articles--Lenticel(talk) 04:49, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:2 ft 9 in gauge railways in the United Kingdom[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.
Nominator's rationale: 2'9" railways are rare. There are a couple in England, one (closed for a century) in Japan. We do not need categories for both "in England" and "in the UK". This adds nothing other than a meaningless consistency, solely for the sake of symmetry in the category tree. It also increases the depth of the tree and the length of the navigation path for browsing all of the 2'9" railways internationally. As a result, it's more encumbrance than added value.
Should we create "filler" categories on that basis alone? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:32, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I don't much care whether we skip either England or UK, but I see having two as pointless duplication. Categories are a mechanism for grouping and structuring: simply repeating each other doesn't add much. As they also carry an overhead in extra navigation length, at some point it's not worth having extra categories.
For listed buildings (which are numerous) we categorize down to the county level, maybe even finer. That conveys value, it's worth doing. For 2'9" railways it doesn't convey extra value - all it's doing is aping the structure of the more numerous 2' gauge railways. Is there sufficient point to doing that? Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge all to Category:2 ft 9 in gauge railways Given the entire content scope is three articles, I propose me upmerge these to the main parent. The national aspect of the content can easily be catered by Category:Narrow gauge railways in England and Category:Narrow gauge railways in Japan. Almost certainly there are other parts of this tree that should be consolidated. Such narrow definitions doesn't aid navigation, it merely makes it more difficult to end up looking at an article (rather than looking through near empty categories). SFB 02:13, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Alternative Upmerge all per SFB. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:41, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerging per SFB. Thryduulf (talk) 11:17, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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: Per main article. Technically, the Internet is broader than World Wide Web, so the proposed title is slightly more inclusive. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:47, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per broader application as mentioned by Koavf, above. — Cirt (talk) 17:23, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename --Lenticel(talk) 01:38, 24 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
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. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:52, 10 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content: only a main article, one other article and two subcats which are interlinked (and which both link to the main article). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:11, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep So where else would you suggest sticking the subcategories?
If anything (and I'm not even advocating this) we could upmerge the two subcats (albums and songs) into one cat for the band. That would at least be workable. I can't see how deleting the local top category (band) can even work. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
We need to link Gorky Park (article) with the two discography categories. The straightforward way to do this, as used widely throughout WP, is by an eponymous category. Why delete it? What does deleting it improve? Andy Dingley (talk) 20:12, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Eponymous categories are useful when varied non-work content needs to be grouped together for navigation (e.g. Category:The Beatles). Searching the given contents of Gorky Park is sufficiently dealt with by the album and song categories - which are already linked together by the see also category templates. SFB 02:16, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category is not empty, there is a member of the band in the category already. And the category is expandable, there are many more notable members. And by the way, I can create a navigation template for the band if you you want. Cause the template in the Russian Wikipedia is certainly useful: Шаблон:Gorky Park. --Moscow Connection (talk) 08:24, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 2. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 15:55, 2 December 2014 (UTC)
