Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2022 February 5

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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 06:57, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Comets with aphelia greater than 1000 AU (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:ARBITRARYCAT and contains only two articles. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 23:48, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom; no indication that a comet with an aphelia of 1001 AU is substantially different from one with an aphelia of 999 AU. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2022 (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: merge/delete. bibliomaniac15 03:08, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:21st century in Bagmati Province to Category:History of Bagmati Province
• Propose merging Category:21st century in Lumbini Province to Category:History of Lumbini Province
• Propose merging Category:21st century in Madhesh Province to Category:History of Madhesh Province
• Propose deleting Category:21st century in Gandaki Province
• Propose deleting Category:21st century in Karnali Province
• Propose deleting Category:21st century in Province No. 1
• Propose deleting Category:21st century in Sudurpashchim Province
• Propose deleting Category:History of Gandaki Province
• Propose deleting Category:History of Karnali Province
• Propose deleting Category:History of Province No. 1
• Propose deleting Category:History of Sudurpashchim Province
• Propose deleting Category:21st century in Nepal by province (added 8 Feb)

Nominator's rationale: upmerge/delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one or two articles in every category. In four cases, merging to the "history of province" category is not useful because the history category is otherwise empty. In those cases upmerging to the grandparent "province" category is not needed either because the articles are already in a "government of province" category. So deletion is all that is needed. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:53, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- As a rule local government positions are NN. I am therefore dubious as to whether we should have and article on the ministers making up a provincial cabinet, but this is a CFD, not AFD. The States of US and states of India are an exception to this, because some states are larger than some nations. I see no value in having anything more than a single Category:Bagmati Province to deal with everything relating to that province. Category:Province No. 1 (Nepal) would be the appropriate category in that case as its location is otherwise unclear. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:45, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Further comment -- The current provinces were only established in 2014, 8 years ago, so that there can be no justification for having any of the categories in the nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:26, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and delete: the member articles are already in Category:21st century in Nepal via <Year> establishments in Nepal. They are also already categorised by province e.g. in Category:Government of Gandaki Province, and there is no point having a parallel "History" category containing a subset of the articles that are in "Government". – Fayenatic London 10:07, 8 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and delete per the above. BD2412 T 22:48, 21 March 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 11:04, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs based on speech samples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Just because a song uses a speech sample, that doesn't make it a defining quality of the song itself. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:50, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. No more distinctive than 'songs featuring a Les Paul Guitar.' --Richhoncho (talk) 20:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It may not be a defining property for all songs which use speech samples, but it's certainly defining for some, as can be seen in RS coverage. e.g. [1], [2], [3], etc. Colin M (talk) 20:34, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that sources exist about using speech samples is not what WP:DEFINING is about. In order to be defining, sources about a particular song should consistently describe that song as based on speech samples. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:23, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• And that is the case for some songs. For example, search for RS coverage of the Justin Bieber song "2 Much" (described in the Rolling Stone EL above). Sources consistently talk about its use of a sample of a speech by MLK Jr. Or to take an example of a song that actually has an article, RS coverage of Ariana Grande's The Light Is Coming consistently refer to the looped speech sample as a central aspect of the song. Colin M (talk) 22:03, 9 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Your example confirms that some speeches are important, not that their inclusion in a song is significant. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:22, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure how you came to that conclusion. I'm saying that RS coverage of certain songs talks about their sampling of speech as a significant aspect of those songs. In some cases the sampled speech itself is not even particularly notable per se. e.g. in the example of The Light Is Coming, the sampled audio is an obscure excerpt from a 2009 CNN town hall debate. Colin M (talk) 18:48, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but heavily purge per Colin M. "Get on the Beers", for example, is notable due to being composed from a speech delivered by the Premier of Victoria (Daniel Andrews, for those outside of Australia). Anything not created in similar circumstances to this example should be removed from the category in question. This is a topic covered quite widely in reliable sources, maybe an article should be written on it? Sean Stephens (talk) 07:35, 20 February 2022 (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: rename. – Fayenatic London 17:01, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Bacteroidetes to Category:Bacteroidota
• Propose renaming Category:Bacteroidetes stubs to Category:Bacteroidota stubs

Nominator's rationale: The informal name of this phylum ("Bacteroidetes") has been replaced by a valid name for this phylum (Bacteroidota).[4] The category name should reflect this nomenclatural update. Ninjatacoshell (talk) 18:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - per nom --awkwafaba (📥) 13:58, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:31, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - per nom. --Lenticel ^(talk) 05:33, 15 February 2022 (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: convert to container category. – Fayenatic London 17:29, 18 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about places (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Categories are supposed to bring things together with a similar defining attribute. Here’s the entries brought together in this category under the letter S: Santa Claus Is Comin' to Town, Shangri-La (The Kinks song), Somewhere (song), St. James Infirmary Blues and Surf City (song). No objections, at present, to turning the cat into a container only category. Richhoncho (talk) 15:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)}}[reply]

• Comment @Richhoncho: Are you planning on putting the whole category tree forward for deletion? While I'm sure that most of these are way too generic, there might be a rare few instances where songs about some specific, precise places (say a city or a neighbourhood) might actually have a relevant connection; and if only in the interest of having a thorough discussion on those, I'd recommend this be done in separate steps. I'd support keeping original only as container cat. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@RandomCanadian: As already stated, happy with container only cat, the rest do need looking at, but not me now. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This CfD was malformed; please use {{subst:cfd2}} next time. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: Thanks, so long since I did a AfD or CfD I was confused when previewing Cfd2 didn't show correctly. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:35, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Containerize, it is reasonable as a parent category, but there should not be any articles directly in it. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:43, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerise and distribute or delete articles. Some refer to a specific place and should be recategorised. Others refer to nowhere in particular and should not be included. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:03, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Containerize per MArcocapelle. --Just N. (talk) 22:33, 12 February 2022 (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. Nomination flies in the face of long-standing practice. ✗plicit 14:09, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:TC Matic songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:SMALLCAT. This is a group whose coverage seems limited enough that neither a list nor a category seem required. Simply mentioning these in their article (as is already done) seems plenty enough. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:11, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per WP:SMALLCAT which goes on to read "Note also that this criterion does not preclude all small categories; a category which does have realistic potential for growth, such as a category for holders of a notable political office, may be kept even if only a small number of its articles actually exist at the present time. Also, subcategories of Category:Works by creator may be created even if they include only one page" Plenty of songs by artist with only one member. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  That seems like a silly exception. This is a group which was last active more than 3 decades ago. There is just simply no potential for growth whatsoever. And while the category might technically fit into a wider scheme, the fact is there are only two songs: in this context, a category is not necessary nor helpful in accomplishing the stated purpose of categories, which is to link related pages together. And less categories is more, because it avoids other potential WP:OVERCAT issues. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:37, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I've CfD nominated enough single member cats in the past only to be told 'there are exceptions.' I could always live with 2 members, irrespective of time scale etc. FWIW, about 20% of all entries in this cat have single members. If you think the guideline should be changed, then you should start there, rather than one nomination. IMO. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:56, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• If anyone would initiate a discussion about WP:SMALLCAT to alter the last bit about works (if even increasing the threshold from one to two). Marcocapelle (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Not really a loss for uswers and navigation. --Just N. (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per the smallcat exception. Over the years, I have found this categorization helpful for navigation to discover different acts over having miscellaneous songs in genre or country subcategories. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:32, 13 February 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 04:58, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about whistling (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Instead of wasting my time removing these from each article where they're inappropriate and then ending up with CSD:C1 because it turns out none are, let's just go right here. (from a quick statistical sample) None of these are "about whistling". These are all variants of the "Songs about [word in title]" theme which the creator has been making as of late. There is no reason to think that this is a pertinent scheme, and people interested about words in titles can do an intitle search without needing a category which links item which are almost entirely unrelated except through sheer coincidence. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:07, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I cannot for the life of me, see what the connection between a song about a train whistle and a song which uses the term 'whistle' as a euphemism for oral sex have in common. The creators of these random "songs about" categories which fail every guidance contained in Wikipedia including WP:CATDEF, WP:V and WP:SHAREDNAME should cease forthwith. It's almost bordering on vandalism. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:27, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Richhoncho: Have you considered taking Kjell Knudde (talk · contribs) to ANI? For songs-by-subject categories, their talk page indicates problems dating back to at least 2018. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 15:32, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  I have given them a very clear warning. If this continues, or if the problem stretches even further back in time, then I'd agree with Pizza's suggestion... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @LaundryPizza03: and @RandomCanadian:. Thanks for your support guys. I am not sure ANI is a solution because there is more than one person creating these categories and several supporting the retention of these categories. It could also be argued that when I remove articles from these these cats (if not mentioned in text only) I am vandalising his work. Plus I am probably a little OCD on this subject, see User:Richhoncho/Songs by theme for additional details. --Richhoncho (talk) 15:52, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Based on Kjell's category creations, I believe an ANI is warranted. Each of these categories, particularly the "songs about" ones should be reviewed and further creations need to be curtailed. Category:Songs about decades is another palm to the face. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom --Gerda Arendt (talk) 20:33, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:36, 12 February 2022 (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: Convert to container category; no consensus to rename without considering the whole parent hierarchy. – Fayenatic London 08:55, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Participants in British reality television series to Category:British reality television contestants

Nominator's rationale: Participants is suitably vague. What do we mean by this? Hosts? Contestants? Guest appearances? Not sure what the purpose of "participants" is as its not overly helpful. The sub-categories are all "candidates" or "contests". Perhaps what is needed is a second Category - British reality television hosts and judges (or something similar). For example, at present people like those appearing on Love Island appear alongside judges from The X-Factor and The Voice which doesn't make any sense. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 12:23, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, the rationele presumably relates to the entire tree of Category:Reality television participants. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Prefer Category:Reality series contestants in British television, but containerise i.e. purge all bios to the relevant show. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• reply from nominator yes @Marcocapelle: I didn't realise how widespread the whole branching system was, and yes @Peterkingiron: I would support containerising as the current system is confusing and "participant" is far too open to interpretation. No RS refer to someone involved in the show as a participant. Seems like an arbitrary choice made by Wikipedians purely for categorisation. Not a plausible search term. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 19:25, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Alt rename per Peterkingiron . --Just N. (talk) 22:38, 12 February 2022 (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: manually merge (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:05, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional states of the United States to Category:Fictional regions

Nominator's rationale: Like the recently deleted main article, most of these articles and redirects are not actually U.S. states; the four that are (Calisota, Springfield's State (The Simpsons), Winnemac (fictional U.S. state), and possibly Pennsyltucky) can be merged into Category:Fictional regions and Category:Fictional locations in the United States; Moosylvania and Panem could also be incorporated into relevant parent categories. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 11:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Support At least for the few that actually are merge-able. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 16:44, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Manual merge using discretion. – Fayenatic London 10:10, 8 February 2022 (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 in light of recent expansion. bibliomaniac15 03:12, 22 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Anti-Turkish sentiment to Category:History of the Turkish people

Nominator's rationale: merge, redundant category layer with only one article and one subcategory. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:29, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 22:58, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. They all end up in Anti-Turkic sentiment anyway. Laurel Lodged (talk) 16:26, 19 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Oppose More articles have been added, and that one category has many subcategories too. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 18:12, 6 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: category was recently renamed at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2021_December_23#Category:Anti-Turkism. – Fayenatic London 08:40, 11 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per expansion of category contents. This fits neatly into the categorization scheme of anti-national sentiment. BD2412 T 22:47, 21 March 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 18:30, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Commissioners of the Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Not a defining attribute. User:力 (powera, π, ν) 21:24, 4 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I created the category because membership in the commission was clearly significant for its commissioners, since both they and others mention it in their biographies, and being able to keep them all grouped together is a convenience for Wikipedia readers. For example, Joseph Nye is on several similar councils and commissions, which are included in the categories for his article. EVhotrodder (talk) 02:02, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, short-living and non-defining occupation. No objection to the list in Global Commission on the Stability of Cyberspace though. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:52, 7 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete definitely nondef, including for Nye. (t · c) buidhe 06:10, 27 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's an important commission, the results are instrumental in an ongoing political and diplomatic process, it was an important achievement for the members, many of whom were previously notable in their own right. I can't see what purpose would be served by deleting this work... Part of the point of the commission was that, unlike its predecessor, it was multistakeholder, which means that the composition of the commission was, itself, a significant topic. And the composition of the commission is what this category covers. Also, Wikipedia policy is clear that lists and categories coexist, and each serve useful purposes, indexing content and making it more available to readers. Getting rid of it advances no goal, and so seems to me like gratuitous deletionism. BurritoTunnelMaintenance (talk) 08:21, 4 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Perhaps a bit more discussion about whether this is a defining characteristic would get us to a consensus?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 06:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• The fact that the composition of the commission was a significant topic is not relevant here. The question is whether membership of the commission is defining for most people in the category, individually, and the answer is clearly no. Also, Wikipedia policy is clear that lists and categories may coexist, not that they should coexist. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:15, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Some group being notable does not mean that being a member if it is a defining characteristic. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:21, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So does that mean that Category:Nobel laureates shouldn't exist, because it's a consequence of people's work, rather than a defining characteristic? I'm having a hard time understanding the rationale here, other than just "categories are bad, they should be eliminated." EVhotrodder (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Nobel laureates is a defining characteristic, so I do not understand this argument. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per WP:NONDEF. There's no indication that this characteristic "is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having", and it's not the sort of thing that should be (or is) mentioned in the leads of the various commissioners' articles. While the commission may have been "important" or "clearly significant", that doesn't make one's service on it defining. Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:41, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Clearly DEFINING for the field of reference. --Just N. (talk) 23:01, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Definingness is not assessed based on the field of reference but on any individual article in the category, see WP:DEFINING. Marcocapelle (talk) 23:20, 12 February 2022 (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 to delete, therefore rename to Category:Images related to William Tenn (fixing uppercase letter i). – Fayenatic London 16:20, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Images related to WIlliam Tenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: While there is a scheme for book covers by artist, there is no scheme for cover images by author. The books themselves would already be categorized in the "works by" category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• keep. Useful category, to keep track of non-free images. OTHERSUFFNOESNOTEXIST is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:41, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In categorization, it completely matters to have a useful scheme to navigate across similarly grouped articles, files, etc., appropriately. This category was created simply to populate Category:William Tenn with no other appropriate parent. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:51, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

What is wrong with population the William Tenn category? And I have an idea how to create an appropriate second parent, because other image categories are too general. It makes a good sense to have categories for illustrations of particular authors because of immediate relevance. There are this kind of categorys in commons, such as [[5]]. Loew Galitz (talk) 04:37, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, for images we do not need a very detailed categorization scheme, as that would merely lead to duplication. In this case, the images are included in the articles which already are together in Category:Works by William Tenn. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:14, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep 8 entries are convincing. --Just N. (talk) 23:05, 12 February 2022 (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. (In case the diffs are useful, they are here.[6]) – Fayenatic London 22:49, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Mondays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Tuesdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Wednesdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Thursdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Fridays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Saturdays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Sundays (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: See the discussion for Category:Songs about days. All of the same reasons why this is a fundamentally useless category apply. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and my comments on the creator's talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:00, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the particular day of the week does not seem to play a significant role in most of these songs, e.g. Tuesday and Thursday are largely interchangeable. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:40, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this is a collection of songs that have a certain word in the title. Just taking one entry (at random I might add, rather than to make this point), Tuesday (You Am I song), only mentions Tuesday as the title of the song, not that the song is about Tuesday. So its inclusion here fails WP:V and WP:DEFCAT. I then cheated and looked up the lyrics to see the relevance of Tuesday, and it just appears once in the song:-

And old Ryan's still his rust

And Tuesday comes and goes

Like any late night bus.

I could do a lot more with my time

But you should hear what's going on outside.

Now I don’t know why Tim Rogers chose to insert Tuesday in there, perhaps it was the sibilation, Saturday didn’t fit the meter and Friday was too mundane. But one thing is clear, the song is not about Tuesday, real or imagined and its inclusion in this category is purely and solely because of the title. It should be purged, but it won’t because nobody actually purges categories they merely suggest it.

Finally, songs can use all the all the literary devices available to wordsmiths, parables, alliteration, personification, satire, symbolism. Many song meanings are beyond the comprehension of their creators. Often songs cannot be classified as ‘Songs about..” and it does a great disservice to the creators of the songs and to Wikipedia readers by those who continually add things to WP without thought to the benefit to readers.

I Don't Like Mondays isn't about Mondays either, it's about a school shooting... that happened to take place on a Monday, worked into a chorus from something the shooter happened to say, if she'd said 'Can I have an ice cream?' would it have ended up in a category 'Songs about ice cream'

--Richhoncho (talk) 10:45, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all per OVERCAT and NONDEF. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:31, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Keep There are a lot of media professionals that make a good use of those categories. And a huge number of individuals that just look for song references to weekly days. So it's simply useful (in a non-scientific way)! --Just N. (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Media professionals come to Wikipedia to use these categories that were just created a month ago? Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 19:37, 15 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:USEFUL is not a criterion, WP:DEFINING is. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:40, 16 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about God (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WP:OVERCAT which is truly redundant to every single more specific religious song category. I do not see a valid justification for having this on top of that, as it's needlessly vague (there are so many types of songs "about God"; ...), and as such it doesn't even fulfill the basic purpose of categories, which is to link related items together, not things which happen to share one little element in common (if you're honestly going to suggest that "A Mighty Fortress is Our God" and "All the Good Girls Go to Hell" should be in the same category - to take two radically unrelated songs, then you don't understand what categories are for...) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and my comments on the creator's talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:58, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, most of these songs fit better in a more specific category in the tree of Category:Religious songs and the few non-religious songs in this category, with God in the title, aren't really about God as commonly understood. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:47, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Grimes2 (talk) 10:16, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Most of these are already in relevant categories, gospel songs, hymns, etc the rest appear to have been added because of a word in the title, i.e. I'll Walk with God which is obviously about 'I' not God and also appears in Category:Songs about walking - which is confirmatory proof that these categories are stupid. "Walking with God" doesn't mean using 2 feet, does it? (added text and signature) --Richhoncho (talk) 20:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2022 (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. (non-admin closure) Extraordinary Writ (talk) 19:44, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about Bethlehem (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: None of these songs are "about Bethlehem" (they're well and truly about Christmas, but simply because "Bethlehem" is in the title does not make them be "about Bethlehem"). As such, a category which is factually incorrect, even if the WP:DEFCAT issue is set-aside for half a moment (and if you take it into account, this should almost be a speedy delete). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:06, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and my comments on the creator's talk --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:57, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment, the category is currently empty, but I can imagine that most songs were about Christmas rather than about Bethlehem as a town. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:49, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  yes, see my comments on the creator's talk page, - the "about" in the category (many more than three here) said no more than that a specific term happened to be mentioned in a title, - not even about Christmas. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 09:54, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Marcocapelle: Examples included (but were not limited to) such Christmas classics as O Little Town of Bethlehem or Puer natus in Bethlehem and relatively less known or foreign-language ones like Bethlehem Down or Zu Bethlehem geboren. All very obviously not "about Bethlehem"... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:24, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Grimes2 (talk) 10:14, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment RandomCanadian, please do not empty the contents of a category being discussed at a CFD discussion. It defeats the entire purpose of having a discussion. Let the closer handle the category contents depending on the decision they come to. It's bad form to propose deleting a category and at the same time you make it irrelevant by emptying it. Editors should be able to see what pages it used to contain. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 03:44, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  @Liz: Sorry, this was an unintended side effect of me doing this in the wrong order and removing this and and least a half-dozen inappropriate categories from hundreds of articles they were added to by the creator (all with the same blanket "added some categories" edit summary and at a pace which suggests no real effort was made to appreciate whether the topic truly was "about" the subject or just contained it in its title...). When I finally came to check the category page itself, I had already removed all of the entries (I've given a fair sampling above): you'll undoubtedly understand that I don't feel like wasting my time and putting back inappropriate categories. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 05:11, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  in support of the removals: some were just grotesque and an offense to our readers, such as categorizing a song mentioning "Lamm Gottes (Lamm Gottes, für uns gegeben) as Songs about sheep, simply because "lamb" is mentioned in the title (Lamb of God), and yes pictured. It's still not about sheep. - The categories should not have stayed until a Wikipedia discussion terminates. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:06, 6 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Fenway Bowl (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: One article in the category which is already in this category's parent cats. This may qualify for speedy per C2F. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:30, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 23:12, 12 February 2022 (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. ✗plicit 14:12, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:William Tenn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Only content is a bio of the author & a subcat for his works, which is entirely sufficient. Anomalous+0 (talk) 02:18, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. This is an unnecessary layer of categorization. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 02:34, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I wasted lots of time trying to find where to put a new article I created. Writer's bio is a natural place where to search author-related subcategories. Loew Galitz (talk) 03:05, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, except for the biography all articles are in Category:Works by William Tenn so that category is clearly sufficient in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:03, 11 February 2022 (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. – Fayenatic London 16:16, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Politics of Bangalore (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: delete, redundant category layer with only one subcategory. There is no need to merge, the subcategory is already in the tree of Category:Government of Bangalore and Category:Local elections in Karnataka. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:19, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Relavant pages and subcategories are added. Request not to delete since all the pages related to Politics in Bangalore can be tagged under one category. However Category:Government of Bangalore can be deleted since it is named after a Government which never existed. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 08:15, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• I reverted it, because everything that was added was about government, not about politics. That is, it is about government with a "g" (noun), not with a "G" (name). Marcocapelle (talk) 09:21, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• For background about Vijethnbharadwaj's comment, see this earlier discussion. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:25, 24 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Saw that you removed Category:Politics of Bangalore from page Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP). But BBMP (Greater Bangalore Municipal Corporation) is the politically elected governing body of Bangalore. Hence I feel that retaining Category makes sense. -Vijethnbharadwaj (talk) 15:25, 27 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Ok, so that would leave a subcategory and one article. Then it is still a redundant category layer. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:24, 1 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:46, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep It seems to be consistent with others in Category:Politics by city in India. I have added a relevant child Category:Politicians from Bangalore — DaxServer (t · c) 09:09, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Politicians from Bangalore is not relevant. It mainly contains national or state politicians, not people involved in local politics of Bangalore. Marcocapelle (talk) 15:48, 6 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I do not think any child of Category:Politics by city in India has enough content to be kept. Category:Government of Bangalore should probably be Category:Local government of Bangalore or something similar. Bangalore is a megacity, so that it is appropriate for it to have its own categories distinct from Karnataka. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:15, 5 February 2022 (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. All member articles are now linked from the page Balkars. – Fayenatic London 16:13, 10 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Balkar people to Category:Balkar and Karachay people

Nominator's rationale: The Balkars and Karachays are the same people, and speak the same language, but there's no common term for both on English. We don't have a category for Karachays on Wikipedia, so instead of creating another, I think it's better to keep these two peoples united and rename the category. For sources that prove my claims see this [7]. Super Ψ Dro 10:48, 29 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, if we keep only one category for both peoples the renaming makes perfect sense. Alternatively we might split the category - after all there are two articles as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:01, 30 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Extraordinary Writ (talk) 01:08, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment -- The distinction seems to be that one come from one area of the Caucasus and the other from another, though they speak the same Turkic language. I am not sure how to resolve this one. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:20, 5 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose at this time If there are two different articles, then there should be two different categories. If these however indeed are "the same people with the same language" and the difference is some minor geographic trifle, then it would probably be worthwhile to merge the articles (and then speedy merge the categories, since these usually follow the article titles). Of course, setting aside whether the categorising by ethnicity is an appropriate thing to do in the first place. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:35, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  Delete Categorising BLPs by ethnicity is a bad idea unless there are good reasons why somebody might be notable because of it. Having taken a look at a few of the articles at random, it doesn't seem like there are enough (or indeed, any) people of this ethnicity where the ethnicity is a DEFCAT to justify a category (too many are also BLPs where this information is unsourced). The three non-BLPs (Balkars, Karachays, Balkar and Karachay nationalism) should be either up-merged to some other appropriate place in the relevant category tree (the first two) or moved somewhere else entirely (for the last one, but it's already in Category:Nationalism in Russia, so that's already done. I'll go ahead removing the category in BLPs where it is unsourced (as per widely enforced standards about unsourced information in BLPs). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:45, 7 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

• Deleting the category is also a fair solution, per arguments provided. The topic articles do not have to be relocated anywhere, they are already in appropriate categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 03:45, 16 February 2022 (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.