Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 23 October 25 >

October 24[edit]

Category:Dj Trevi[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:40, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not enough content for a category. Delete per WP:OCEPON (eponymous categories). Tassedethe (talk) 23:49, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think this is is an invalid category and should be removed without controversy.--Soulparadox (talk) 02:35, 25 October 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:History of the Islamic State (caliphate)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category apparently trying to be something other than a category. —teb728 t c 22:21, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not serving as a true category and history of this organisation is not required at this time. SFB 23:41, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- This is now a category redirect. It redirects to Category:History of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, which is a list article sitting in cateogry space, dealing with the various names under which this insurgency has operated. There are multiple articles, which I suspect ought to be merged. Politicans and the news media seem unclear whtfher to call the group ISIS, ISIL, or Islamic State. The latter is not acceptable as it is not unique. We might have a category Category:Islamic State (caliphate), but for such a recent organisation, I cannot believe we need a seaparate history category. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:47, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Marcocapelle (talk) 01:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article masquerading as a category, for which the main article already covers all the information presented. Further "Islamic State (caliphate)" is highly wrong, as any caliphate can also be described in this manner. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:07, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This isn't being used as a category, the creator ia a new editor who didn't understand what they were doing. Dougweller (talk) 16:38, 31 October 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:Chinese Nationalists[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. This close is no bar to an early re-nomination along the lines discussed. – Fayenatic London 10:44, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposd ranaming:
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories. Charles Essie (talk) 21:56, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. There is a specific proper meaning in the Chinese context that is, or might not be, present in the categories for other countries. See Kuomintang. If disambiguation is necessary (Chinese nationalists who were not Chinese Nationalists), other action could be necessary. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:01, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename There are two things going on here. The categories listed here for renaming are associated with the Kuomintang, a political party in China, called the 'Chinese Nationalist Party, the people belonging to, and associated with, it are called the 'Chinese Nationalists'. There are other Chinese nationalists who were not part of the Kuomintang. I just re-created the category Category:Chinese nationalists for them, which is also the proper name to belong in its parent categories such as Category:Nationalists as well as the proper parent of Category:Chinese Nationalists. Hmains (talk) 03:19, 25 October 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:South Tyrolean nationalist[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:41, 2 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with other categories. Charles Essie (talk) 21:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as uncontroversial speedy rename. SFB 13:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per established naming convention. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:01, 26 October 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:Richard and Linda Thompson albums[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. (NAC) Armbrust The Homunculus 14:09, 13 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There is no article on them as an act and Richard has several albums of his own already. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:31, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not split. I'm not an expert of experts, but I am an avid RT listener and I'd say that his period of collaboration with Linda is distinct. There's a lengthy section on that collaboration in RT's article, and to be honest, if they'd given it a cute name it would probably have its own article (compare the White Stripes). Linda also has some of her own albums, I think we just don't have articles on them yet. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Richard and Linda Thompson are a distinct and prolonged artistic entity from the individuals, to the point where this category is warranted. Several albums were produced under this name and it does not merely signify a coincidental appearance of the two. SFB 23:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – albums such as this one by Richard and Linda Thompson should be categorised as such (regardless of articles wikipedia may or may not have). It should be a subcat of Rt's albums and LT's albums. Oculi (talk) 00:26, 25 October 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:Thimerosal controversy[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:47, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per main article Thiomersal controversy. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support as speedy rename to matching main article, though I make no comment on the benefit of Thiomersal vs Thimerosal. SFB 13:56, 25 October 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:Radioactive Man albums[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 and redirect. – Fayenatic London 10:51, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same artist, different pseudonym. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 21:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – albums should be categorised by the name on the cover (which is defining for an album), regardless of wikipedia's choice of redirects (which is not defining for an album). Connections between pseudonyms should be made using subcats. Oculi (talk) 11:52, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, when it's the same artist, we don't need two separate categories. Use a category named after whatever the artist's WP article is named, per nom. The other names can be category redirects. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:48, 5 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:Hindi films of 2014[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:2014 films and decade categories by language. In practice this will be implemented by deleting Hindi and Malayalam categories as they are now empty, and merging Category:Kannada films of 2014 to Category:2010s Kannada-language films, Category:Telugu films of 2014 to Category:2010s Telugu-language films as well as Category:2014 films in each case. – Fayenatic London 21:42, 29 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not only are these category names inconsistent with the other sub-categories of Indian language films, but per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 October 21#Tamil films by year and other discussions, these categories are unnecessary, and should be deleted. The contents can be upmerged to Category:2014 films and to the sub-categories of Category:Indian films by language. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:10, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also, the articles in these categories are not lists, so they should not be in Category:Lists of 2014 films by country or language. Fortdj33 (talk) 20:46, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Fortdj33: Could you explain why Category:Hindi-language films, a category with over 4000 articles, does not warrant division by year (a common feature for film categories)? I believe each nomination should summarise the reasons and not simply assume and repeat the status quo as a superior form. SFB 23:48, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
WP:FILMCAT states "Year-Country films categories should not be created, unless the project decides it is wise to do so". So as these are the only year-country categories across the hundreds of languages, then it's a fair assumption not to have them, unless a future consensus changes. Lugnuts Dick Laurent is dead 08:53, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Lugnuts: That section simply says it should not be done, but not really why it shouldn't be done. The underlying rationale seems to be to avoid small categories but, as I state above, many of these nominated ones are well populated ones. SFB 14:02, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There have been other discussions about categorization by year, which have resulted in those categories being deleted. See this discussion and this one. Just because these categories are populated, does not mean that they are necessary. Fortdj33 (talk) 14:18, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for those discussions was again "we don't encourage this". I feel like I'm beating a dead horse here, but we need an underlying reason why we shouldn't do this. This is sorely required for any nomination otherwise the category system would become a system of pure tradition, rather than one based on classifying logic. SFB 18:40, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Logic would dictate that if a large category needs to be broken down into sub-categories, one way to do that is to sort by decade. This has already been done with Category:Tamil-language films by decade and Category:Malayalam-language films by decade, and the same can be done for Hindi-language films. But breaking them down further by year is unnecessary, and in some instances creates categories that are too small to populate, plus there is clearly no consensus to do so. That's three reasons why these categories should be deleted. Fortdj33 (talk) 12:40, 28 October 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:Biggest names in the Business[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:49, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The category is not appropriate for an encyclopedic resource. Also, the tone is promotional. Soulparadox (talk) 19:54, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly subjective category. SFB 14:04, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- pure POV. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 26 October 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:Municipalities of Brazil[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: do not merge, or at least no consensus to do so. Clearly, more info on the status of municipalities in Brazil would be helpful here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:00, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Two categories that serve the same purpose. Merge into the better developed and older category. There is no intention to rename subcategories since keeping the current names may be desirable. This change also matches the correct parent naming. There is a related discussion here. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:16, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comments The municipalities have their own article Municipalities of Brazil; the cities do not seem to. It is not clear from Municipalities of Brazil what the relation between cities and municipalities actually is, other than the statement the administrative center of a municipality is always a city. Some of the underlying articles I looked at are of little help either. Is every city accounted for by a municipality name? Do municipalities encompass the entire land area of each state? Hmains (talk) 03:37, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • And Municipalities of Brazil is also categorized in Category:Lists of cities in the Americas. That means some consider these as cities. Yes, this is not clear and maybe all that is needed would to clarify/change the categories used and the parenting. Or as proposed just merge. Maybe the question is, is a municipality here more like a city or county if you want to compare it to the US? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge No answer so no reason to merge. Hmains (talk) 03:29, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. While all cities are municipalities, not all municipalities are cities — so these are two different sets, which have some overlap but are not identical. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 7 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:Greens[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 as nominated. There is strong consensus to rename to something. Category:Green politics politicians and Category:Politicians of Green and Ecology parties had some support, but not as much as the original proposal. The risk of this being interpreted as "novice politicians" is probably slight. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:51, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: ambiguous with other meanings listed at greens Tim! (talk) 16:51, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • This begs the question of what is a "Green" or "Ecology" party unless it's an impermissible categorization based on name. What positions must such a party endorse or oppose to be in and out?? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would say it is about the political movement, codified into political parties that carry that as their core message. But, I'm interpreting Peterkingiron's proposal based on why I found his option acceptable. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 02:09, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Original Rename Neutral on alternative rename, opposed to deletion. RevelationDirect (talk) 18:54, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alternative Category:Politicians of Green and Ecology parties and tag the category as "container only". The parties in question share a name and probably an ideology, so that there is a legitimate reason to have the category. My usual objection to long category names will not apply as the individual parties will probably not have a lot of parent cats. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:12, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • support much clearer and less ambiguous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DGG (talk • contribs)
  • Support Original Rename, weakly opposed to both alternative renames, strongly opposed to deletion. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:46, 28 October 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.

Sport players from Louisville, Kentucky[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: upmerge as proposed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:42, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge to Category:Sportspeople from Louisville, Kentucky and the relevant sport-specific category for Kentucky (e.g. Category:Baseball players from Kentucky). CfD has been very consistent in not taking the category structure down to the city/sport specific level (see past discussions for Chicago, Portland, Oregon and a slew of cities pertaining to ice hockey - there are many, many other examples of this existing consensus if needed). Reasons have been: 1) Breaking down to the sport/city level is not generally considered defining, 2) Causes overcategorization and category clutter, 3) "<Sport X> players from Kentucky" categories are the occupational nationality sub-category as is (to American <Sport X> players) and taking categories to the city level (vs. state/province) gets us further away from the national identity of the subject, which can be confusing for non-natives. The typical response is that "Sportspeople X category is too large," but I would submit there is no maximum size limit for categories if the structure is right (see Category:Harvard University alumni - 9,400 entries, Category:Detroit Tigers players - 1,600, etc.). Rikster2 (talk) 13:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Upmerge per prior discussions.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 14:22, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per previous CFDs....William 14:27, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per Rikster2's nomination and firmly established category practice. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:11, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge, ensuring that we retain a by sport category for the individuals - possibly a by state one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:13, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per many previous CfDs. Individual sports in individual cities is too detailed. -DJSasso (talk) 17:17, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. #1 doesn't make any sense; narrowing down to a city is plenty defining for other subjects, so why not sports?. As for #2, more categories is not necessary more "clutter" - that's an assertion that rings as an aesthetics complaint not unlike the "typical response". As for #3, two levels down as a problem is an assertion (we're not going down to neighborhood level, but down to major city level). The idea that for the subject of sportspeople, we can't go a mere two levels down from the nationality is arbitrary. Diffusing the categories in this case is eminently reasonable, so I reject the precedent others are mentioning. There is a far more vast precedent that I rely on, and that is clarifying categorization via diffusing -- it's not merely to reduce an oversized category, but to increase clarity for the reader. Stevie is the man! Talk • Work 14:12, 3 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment If the precedent you rely on is so much more vast, where are some examples that would support your case? Seems like you've decided that your opinion is what is best for the reader vs. others. There is plenty of precedent about exactly this kind of category diffusion for much bigger and more well-known cities than Louisville. Rikster2 (talk) 15:03, 3 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:C programming language family[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: procedural close as the category page was not tagged (the talk page was tagged instead). If it had been tagged and there had been no additional contributions, the result of the discussion below would have been keep. – Fayenatic London 11:00, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: What is the purpose and scope of this category?

This category can have some real value for languages that are either C or closely related to it as some notion of family. At present though, it seems to be assumed that any block-structured language invented after K&R is "C family". That is both nonsensical and encyclopedically pointless: we have a value to grouping languages that have some real C relation, but not if we take the simple line that "everything since C is C". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:15, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • Is it perhaps a better solution to split the category instead of deleting it?Marcocapelle (talk) 12:23, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is just the default entry on the CfD and there isn't one for "What the hell is this?"
We need to define what this category means. I don't object to this category in principle, but it has just had Java / ECMAScript / Ruby / Perl / Python added to it. They don't all belong in a useful category with this as a name. The only category that includes all of them would be something like "any programming language invented in the last 20 years" and that just isn't a useful category scope.
What is a "C family language" ? Andy Dingley (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Java, ECMAScript, [Dart, Go, OpenMP] were already listed. Wes Turner (talk) 12:53, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
What is the distinction between this category and List_of_C-based_programming_languages? Wes Turner (talk) 12:55, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They're both unreferenced crap? Ratfor is even older than C. (There is no book "Software Tools", it was a series of three related books, "Software Tools in Fortran", "Software Tools in C", "Software Tools in Pascal". Only the C book flavour is remembered today, Ratfor only appeared in the Fortran version). So what is the definition (for either article or cat) of a "C family" or "C based" language? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:45, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • So what categories do you think we should distinguish for the 64 articles that are in the nominated category? Marcocapelle (talk) 02:22, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

keep The purpose of the category is clearly stated. It is a legitimate subcategory of its parents. If a few articles do not belong here, then remove them by normal category maintenance; this is no reason to delete the category or even to be discussed here. Hmains (talk) 03:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify though why Ruby (and others) are "C family" languages. There seems to be no real connection for many of these, they're just the high-visibility popular modern languages. Their syntax isn't C like, their object models aren't C++ like, they don't have a development ancestry from C. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:43, 25 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
keep Do they depend upon the C_standard_library? Wes Turner (talk) 21:28, 4 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
That would have the merit of at least having a clear distinction to it, such that membership of a category could be managed.
The problem with it is that it is based on a notion of low-level implementation, rather than theoretical design of a language. If you invent a new DSL, or you implement an interpreter for Whitespace or Brainfuck then (depending on the tools you use to build it) it's likely to depend on the C library - especially in Windows, where everything, no matter how distant, seems to drag in dependencies on .NET, then MFC, then stdio.h.
If this category and list are to have any encyclopedic value, then they should list languages that have a historical development path heavily based on C. Anything else is WP:SYNTH and playing "match up the words in the language spec". If they don't have clear encyclopedic structure, then they should go. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:48, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There should be little difference between the contnet of this and the list article. I do not know enough to comment on AndyD's point, but if there is a problem over inclusion criteria, the discussion should be on the category talk page. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:18, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No-one reads category talk: pages but I've raised it at WikiProject Computing Andy Dingley (talk) 20:48, 26 October 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:Inactive South Korean boy bands[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:51, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is a current category, like the others nominated over the last few days and per the precedent of Sept 16. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 06:44, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge – indeed it is a current category. Oculi (talk) 11:37, 24 October 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:Mad Heads albums[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 but make it a sub-category. – Fayenatic London 11:10, 15 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Same band, different names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:39, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep and make Category:Mad Heads XL albums a subsection, as precedent Category:Cat Stevens albums where Category:Yusuf Islam albums is a separate category and subsection even though it's the same person (discussed here). I think some reasons apply - according to the way the band describes it, it's not a simple band name change, but a new project. It's a rock/psychobilly trio that in 2004 formed a new band with twice the headcount in a different genre of music. That said, I don't feel as strongly about this as I would if they had dropped a member when they formed their new project or done a massive genre shift, as Stevens did. While I think the subcategory is the best solution, I'd think our readers would be served almost as well with a redirect. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:59, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Oculi: @Moonriddengirl: So you think there should be eight separate categories for A Silver Mt. Zion albums because they slightly change the name of the group with each release? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Koavf:, you think there should not be? Which is my way of saying, if you want to discuss the substance of my comments, happy to do so, but I'd prefer to discuss the substance of my comments. I already indicated that I believe this "not a simple band name change", which makes "slightly chang[ing] the name" a different issue altogether. If you disagree, that's one thing. Reductio ad absurdum is something else. :) --Moonriddengirl (talk) 11:58, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Moonriddengirl: In general, the standard before in many of these CfDs is "if the artist has an article, make a category" and furthermore "if the artist doesn't have an article, don't make a category". I guess what I'm trying to ask is what standard do you think should apply otherwise? That seems a straight-forward and pretty empirical one. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:20, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, the deletion proposal was based on the premise that is "Same band, different names", User:Koavf. I have never heard this band, and only know about this category because I used to review album articles for the project. (Since I created the category, I was flagged.) But according to the article, this is not the same band. It's a new project, with different musical style and band composition. To me, that's the dividing line. There used to be two articles here, but a few months ago it was unilaterally merged - undoubtedly under the fair belief that nobody cared, since it had been proposed (without discussion) since 2011. Useful categorization groups like things in a way that makes sense. If they are not the same band with a new name, but a new project, then following on the example of Cat Stevens that I gave above makes sense to me, whether the articles remain merged as they are now or not. With Cat Stevens/Yusuf Islam, we have the same person, but not the same entity, musically. If a band is simply changing names, to me, it's the same band. If somebody said to me, in that case, "It's still useful to have a subcategory of albums produced by the band under the name Foo," I could probably be convinced. The central goal of categorization, after all, is to help people quickly find items by essential defining characteristics, and categories are meant to exist in trees. Where two musical entities are inherently different - not the same project, although one is composed of the other - I believe that the essential defining characteristic will be "albums by Foo" and "albums by Fee", though treeing them in a way that makes the relationship explicit is good practice. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonriddengirl: But it's not like Cat Stevens changed his name for a musical project. E.g. when E became a band named Eels for commercial purposes but has also released one album as "Mark Oliver Everett" and another as "MC Honky". —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:35, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
User:Koavf, I'm not sure I understand your point there. :/ What difference does it make why Stevens changed his name? (The deletion discussion, linked above, leaned heavily towards musical differences in its keep.) The point for me is that it seems to be a new project, not the same one known by a different name. That, to me, is the essential defining characteristic. --Moonriddengirl (talk) 21:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
@Moonriddengirl: Maybe I'm not understanding. I thought your rationale before was that these were distinct musical projects but that's not the case for Stevens/Islam. He started performing a different genre of music but not because he had a musical pseudonym. Similar categories like Category:Johnny Cash gospel albums and Category:Paul McCartney classical albums have been deleted because we don't want to create an intersection of artist/genre categories. Are you saying we should now? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:21, 29 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My rationale now is that it is a different musical project. My opinion hasn't changed. :) It is my assertion that Stevens/Islam is the same situation. As I wrote in my open, it is my understanding that these are different bands. Band A was a rock/psychobilly trio. Band B incorporates the members of Band A but is not the same band. Again, I have never heard these bands. I'm basing this opinion on their own assertion of their histories. The purpose of the name change for Stevens/Islam is immaterial; the comparison relates to the fact that in both cases we are dealing with an entirely different musical entity in spite of continuity of membership (in the case of Mad Head XL, some continuity of membership; in the case of Islam, complete). --Moonriddengirl (talk) 12:26, 29 October 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:Academy Special Achievement Award winners[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:52, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The title of this category is awkward and not accurate. The actual award is called the Special Achievement Award. It should be changed to Category:Special Achievement Academy Award winners to match the article name Special Achievement Academy Award. - Gothicfilm (talk) 03:30, 24 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support based on the nominator's rationale. Even if this weren't the case the current wording is clumsy anyway. Betty Logan (talk) 01:43, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support better wording; agree that the current wording is awkward with the category term being embedded in the general grouping term. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 19:05, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which Academy? I assume that this is about a special award at the oscar ceremony, but the academy making the award should be named in this and all other categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:22, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    It's referring to the Academy Awards themselves, which is not disambiguated because it is the primary topic. Do you think that needs to be done here in some form? Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 20:35, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
It should be consistent with the others, like Category:Best Director Academy Award winners. - Gothicfilm (talk) 01:27, 27 October 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_October_24&oldid=1090392035"