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: This category covers recurring sporting events which have now stopped. The word typically used in this respect is defunct, as seen in the much broader Category:Defunct sports competitions. I don't think this warrants a merge as we have maintained a parent-child structure between Category:Sports events and Category:Sports competitions to account for those parts of sport that are not exactly competitions in nature (professional wrestling is a common example). I also propose using "sporting" over "sports" as a mirror of it's semantic opposite in Category:Recurring sporting events. SFB 23:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, or rename to "Former sporting events". In my experience, groups get disbanded, but not events: events aren't bands in the first place, so they can't disband or be disbanded. Nyttend (talk) 01:13, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I agree "former", "historical" or "earlier" looks better when it compes to events. J 1982 (talk) 12:16, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely opposed to this, but I feel that "former" implies that something has been succeeded/replaced by another thing or that the thing has changed (former president, former country, former capital, etc). "Defunct" clearly denotes that these are things which have simply ceased to exist. SFB 21:51, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom events are defunct, not disbanded. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2015 (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:keep without prejudice against a fresh nomination of the alternative proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:51, 3 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These are a set of newly-created categories that are part of the Category:Annual sporting events tree. I feel the naming should match that parent to indicate this is for recurring events and not one-offs held in the month (a fact which would make the month a much less definitive facet of the event). I also feel the "events in April" wording is much more idiomatic than the current choice. SFB 23:08, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Not all of these are annual at all. Some are biannual, others held every fourth year. J 1982 (talk) 23:17, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per J 1982: if the Summer Olympics were always held in June, they'd fit in "June sporting events", but they wouldn't fit in "Annual sporting events in June". However, if we have an alternate tree to hold non-annual events per month, the proposed rename would be a good solution to the problem, especially since these categories are all children of the annual sporting events tree. You could have "Annual sporting events in June" to hold Wimbledon, the French Open, etc., and "June sporting events" would hold the always-in-June Olympics while being a parent of "Annual sporting events in June". Nyttend (talk) 01:11, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Even the ordinary "June events" should not be categorized under "annual events by month". Move "annual events by month" to "events by month" (or "recurring events by month"). J 1982 (talk) 11:55, 26 January 2015 (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:People who recorded Elvis tribute songs[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: This category runs afoul of WP:CATDEF which says that categories must be a "defining characteristic" which is "commonly and consistently" named by reliable sources discussing the topic. There are virtually no biographies where recording an Elvis tribute song can be said to be commonly and consistently named as a defining characteristic. So this would be a null category per CATDEF. Binksternet (talk) 14:03, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I checked a sample of articles and it's not a defining characteristic indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:27, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Whether some song is or is not an "Elvis tribute song" is a matter of personal interpretation. We're not likely to find sources that say that some "artitist recorded an Elvis tribute song". - DVdm (talk) 15:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – far from defining. Oculi (talk) 19:47, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-WP:DEFINING. Wikipedia categories do not exist as a way to create lists on any topic that it's possible to create a list for — we categorize on defining characteristics that are central to the topic's notability, not interesting trivia. Bearcat (talk) 20:30, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- This has the feel of a performance by performer category. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:40, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this hound-dog of a category as not defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 18:44, 26 January 2015 (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. (We're only talking about Theophilus of Edessa as far as contents go, so to resolve issues of upmerging or not and to where, users can deal with this with the categorization of the article.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:11, 2 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Single-instance category (and inaccurate at that, Theophilus of Edessa was active in Iraq, not Greece) unlikely to be ever populated Constantine ✍ 11:05, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not the most appropriate category for the sole target and the parent categories are barely populated as it is. Greeks were not a major element in the development of astrology during this period. SFB 11:36, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Medieval astrologers. I assume that Theophilus was from the town now called Şanlıurfa, and a subject of the Abbasid Caliphate. Ethnically he was a Syriac Christian, not a Greek. I am not sure what the other categories should be. Iraq is an anachronistic category, but I do not think we have eliminated the anachronisms in this case. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:56, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Theophilus of Edessa is described in the article start as a Greek astrologer and scholar, and is of Greek ethnicity, but if this category is deleted he will not be categorised by ethnicity except as a translator of Greek. The Armenian, Greek and Jewish people were widely dispersed throughout the Middle East. Hugo999 (talk) 10:51, 29 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Medieval Greeks. No reason for this one person category, but we need to categorize the subject as such. This would be an ethnic not a nationalistic category, as there was no nation of Greece in Medieval times.John Pack Lambert (talk) 07:39, 1 February 2015 (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. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:17, 12 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: It's redundant: all GA-Class articles are good articles, and all good articles are GA-class, so literally every good article can be placed here. It's like having "FA-class Featured articles" and putting all the featured articles of all types into it. I suppose that this could be converted into "All Good articles" (comparable to Category:All free media), but I don't see a benefit to having a category that includes all 21,374 in addition to the topic-sorted categories of GAs. Nyttend (talk) 05:25, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
CommentCategory:Articles by quality seems to be collecting categories rather than articles in its children. I think a category for all the Good Articles themselves is a good idea – no relying on the "by project" element to navigate them. Unlike the other ratings (stub, start etc.), Featured and Good article statuses are usually not linked to a project and should be independent of that structure. I also support creation of such a category for Featured articles. I support the function of the category, but should we (a) upmerge to Category:GA-Class articles so that all are contained directly there, or (b) rename to Category:Wikipedia Good articles to keep these at a separate location (and perhaps rename the current parent to Category:GA-Class articles by project?). @Nyttend: Does this rationale affect your position at all? SFB 11:45, 25 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
If you want to have them all together, let's emulate the cleanup categories and go with "All Good Articles", or some capitalisation variant thereof. I still don't think it's useful (why would someone browse among more than 21,000 articles?), but if others think we should retain it, this would be my preferred name. Nyttend (talk) 01:09, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I support conversion into "All Wikipedia Good articles". I think it's important that the "Wikipedia" be in there to distinguish that this is a community rating (not simple description, as in "All free media"). SFB 21:56, 26 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I support keeping the category just as it is.--DThomsen8 (talk) 01:28, 10 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I note that, occasionally, GAs are actually listed as A-class, so it's perhaps not entirely redundant. More useful may be categories such as "B-class GA articles", as it seems that such articles require a bit of attention. I've no opinion on whether this should be kept, as I don't know why it was created. J Milburn (talk) 14:39, 28 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
An article may be A class and also be a Good Article, but an article cannot be B class and a Good Article/GA class, though it can be A class and GA class. By convention when an article is listed as GA, that becomes its base class for all projects; however, a project may decide that the article also meets that project's criteria for A class. At this point the article is still a Good Article, but it is also an A class article for that project. All other involved projects may accept that the article is A class, in which case the article is A class and a Good Article. However, one or other projects may feel that the article does not meet their criteria for A class, in which case they will have it listed as GA class, so the article is shown as both A class and GA class. If the article becomes Featured, then it becomes Featured class for all projects. While not all Good Articles are GA class, all Good Articles are listed in Category:Wikipedia good articles and all GA class articles are listed in Category:GA-Class articles, therefore we don't need a Category:GA-Class Good articles (as they are already listed in Category:GA-Class articles). However, there may be a point (not sure yet what that point may be though) in having a Category:A-Class Good articles, as not all A class articles are Good Articles. SilkTork✔Tea time 22:58, 17 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant, per SilkTork. Miniapolis 17:57, 9 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as redundant and confusing. Relentlessly (talk) 12:56, 28 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Redundant and unclear. gidonb (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2015 (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.
