Trichome

thcscience_admin
< February 6 February 8 >

February 7[edit]

Category:Indian actors by language[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: relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Indian actors by language. The Bushranger One ping only 04:11, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename Category:Indian actors by language to Category:Actors by language or Category:Film actors by language
  • Nominator's rationale not all of the contents of these categories are actually Indian actors. Most are actually categories for actors grouping them by the languages of the films they acted in. I really think we would be best off reworking these into just categories that connected acting with the language of films. A seperate set for acting by language in theatre might work. I am somewhat heistant to rename these categories, because I do not want to expand them to include a wrold-wide structure. However there are several non-Indians in these categories, so it would seem best to stop treating them as child categories of Category:Indian actors. To fit in that category a person needs to be a national of India. However to fit in these categories people only have to have acted in certain languages. Category:Tamil film actors and Category:Bengali film actors may not even be limited to films made in India, and many Hindi film actors are clearly Pakistanis who were acting in India-made films and clearly not Indian nationals. There are also other people who show up who are British, Brazilian, American, Australian and maybe other nationals as well.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Bengali film actors is connected to Bengali cinema, which is a term that covers films made in Bengali, both in Kolkata in India and in Dhaka in Bangladesh. The cinema is essentially trans-national. It is a clear group and worth categorizing but not placeable as a sub-cat of any nationality cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I am not clear whether the categories are actually native language ones or Indian state ones, but we should have them a Tamil speaker will probably not perform well in a Hindi/Urdu language film. Since the languages are ones spoken only in India, upmerging (per nom) acheives little: yes I know that there are langauges shared with neighbours within the subcontinent - Punjabi, Bengali, Tamil, Urdu. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:58, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Actually lots and lots and lots of people have been in Tamil and Hindi films. The overlaps between these various categories is very high. Beyond that, the Hindi category could not possibly be a state category, since it is not limited to one state. The various films categories are clearly being used as categories to group together people who appeared in those films. These, as I mentioned above, contain lots of actors who are not Indian nationals. This is especially true of Category:Hindi film actors which has both a large number of Pakistani nationals, and is also probably the one with the most people who are from other countries as well, including one article on a British man who spent 6 months leatrning Hindi so he could act in a Hindi film. The claim these languages are spoken only in India is false. Most obviously Bengali is spoken outside India. Hindi is also spoken in Fiji and many other places outside the subcontinent. Also, Peter Kingiron has entirely ignored the fact that the current name is saying the people are Indian, when as I have shown many of the people involved in the film actors cats are not Indian at all, but are foriegn nationals who came to India only to perform in films there.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:03, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment if you want a sense of why this is clearly not a by state category look at the article on Rati Agnihotri. She is in five film-language categories, none related to where she was born, and is also in another people category that seems to refelct where in India her ancestors came from, and does not overlap with any of her film film-language cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Another example of the complexities of these categories can be seen by looking at the article on Kirron Kher. Currently she is only in a Hindi realted category. The vast majority of the films she was in were Hindi, but she was also in English, Bengali and Punjabi language films and a few more. I half wonder if with such heavy cross-over between languages these categories are heading towards being performer by performance overcategorization.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:22, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Punjwood film actors[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 to Category:Punjabi film actors. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:24, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Malayali actors[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: relisted at CFD 2013 March 1. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:48, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:Malayali actors
  • Nominator's rationale My main objection is two fol. 1-the category criteria are messed up. 2-The inclusion criteria are too loose and lack a clear yes or no line. 3-this may or may not be a by language category, having no way or knowing makes it unworkable. The head says "This category is for film actors who are Malayalees (having Malayalam as their mother tongue or loosely, people from Kerala). They can be actors in films in any language. This category is different from Category:Malayalam film actors, which will include actors of any language and place, who acted in Malayalam films. e.g.: Mohanlal will come under this category as well as Category:Malayalam film actors. Kamal Hasan will not fall under this category, but only under Category:Malayalam film actors. M. G. Ramachandran will fall under this category since he is a Malayali by birth (born to Malayai parants), but not under Category:Malayalam film actors, since he never acted in a Malayaalm film." First off, we cannot have this category limited to film actors, since it does not say film actors. Secondly with this description it cannot work as a partent category to Category:Malayalam film actors because 1-there are people in that category who are excluded from this category (Kamal Hasan being the listed example), 2-there are film actors who fit here but not there. Then we have the problem of is this by language, by place, or by ethnicity. They seem to want to have it both a by place category and a by language category. However we have never agreed to have "by mother tongue language" categories. Category:English-language singers is about singers in English, whether it is their mother tongue or not. This whole category is messed up and confusing. I think we would be best off deleting it, and if we actually need a category that does any of the 4 things this category could do, create more precisely named categories. At present Category:Malayalam film actors is a category grouping actors is a defined group of films, it is not a by place, by ethnicity or by nationality category. I think in the case of India these categories for films work, but I do not think there poorly defined, especially when limited to "film actors" without saying such, sister by what, place?, mother tongue? categories work. I think we should delete this category and leave the much better defined film actors cat.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:08, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REanme to Category:Malayali-language actors and purge if necessary. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If we are to keep and rename this the best target would be Category:Actors from Kerala. The actors by language categories, like the singers by language categories, would most logically be limited to people who performed in the language involved. However this category explicitly includes people who never performed in Malayali and excludes people who are not from Kerala who did perform in Malayali.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just listed this at the wikipedia India talk page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:20, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Paul Brown coaching tree[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. Wizardman 16:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary grouping of articles based on a tenuous connection of having been assistant coaches to Paul Brown. If anything, a subsection on his article would be better suited for this sort of information. (Edit: Just realized that subsection already exists, making this category even more pointless.) Jrcla2 (talk) 15:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I added "Category:Sid Gillman coaching tree" per Jweiss11's recommendation; this is now a dual-CfD nomination. Jrcla2 (talk) 18:33, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete; don't think we need a category based on this sort of tenuous influence. Perhaps Category:Sid Gillman coaching tree should be deleted as well? Jweiss11 (talk) 17:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Not everything needs a category, and adding these categories crossed the line into fancruft. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 21:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Doesn't seem like a category is needed. If anything, just a section or an image would suffice. ZappaOMati 05:10, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't delete - I don't see why having a Paul Brown coaching tree section is a bad idea. If some of the NFL's most successful coaches have a proven link to Brown, whether it be direct or indirect, shouldn't there be a category which lists the coaches who fall under Brown's coaching tree? I mean, for goodness sakes, it's practically a forest. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:32, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • We group people by what teams they coaches for or played for. We do not organize coaches by what other coaches they were assistants to or played for. This is not how we organize things.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:55, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Arguments of the form "this is just a bad idea for categories" or "Doesn't seem like a category is needed" along with other variants of WP:IDONTLIKEIT are exceedingly poor arguments for deletion at any XfD. We group people by what teams they coaches for or played for AND we organize coaches by what other coaches they were assistants to or played for; category structures exist for both. What we are proposing is that we shouldn't organize coaches by what other coaches they were assistants to or played for, and that we should delete the associated category structures. The question that needs to be addressed is if it is a defining characteristic of a coach that he worked for Paul Brown or Sid Gillman or a coach who worked under a coach who worked for wither of these two coaches, ad infinitum. From that perspective, it appears to me that the answer is no. Alansohn (talk) 01:57, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: OK, if you want to delete the Paul Brown coaching tree section, I'll do my best not to protest. But don't erase Brown's tree itself from the article, as it does carry significant relevance. Furthermore, as a compromise, can I please note that many of the so-called "descendants" in Brown's tree have won 1 or multiple championships? With your permission, I would put the number of championships (before and after the start of the "Super Bowl Era") that each individual coach in Brown's tree has won in parentheses. Thanks for your reasonable consideration. Mr. Brain (talk) 02:52, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Here's my problem. Most of these coaches are assistants under several coaches. Why should we ascribe greater influence to Gillman or to Brown rather than other coaches? Would every single coach that an assistant worked under be considered part of that coach's tree? Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:29, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Exosquad images[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:Animated series images. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:50, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Nearly everything in here is orphaned fair-use due to its corresponding article being deleted. What remains is too little to support a category. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 14:44, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Women mayors[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 all. The Bushranger One ping only 04:13, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename all to clarify scope, and match the "Mayors of places in Foo" convention of Category:Mayors by country‎. The characteristic which is being categorised here is not the nationality of the mayors, but the country in which they are mayors. Local political office-holders are not universally required to be citizens of the country where they hold office, are rarely required to be natural-born citizens, so a mayor of a town in country X may be an immigrant from another country Y.
For example, a German emigrant to New Zealand may be properly in Category:People from Germany, but when categorising that person as a mayor, the relevant country is the one in which they hold office: New Zealand. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:41, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename so that the mentioned hypothetical emigrant can only be in two categories if they were mayor of two places.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The current name is short, and is in the convention of "Canadian women Members of Parliament‎", "Canadian women senators", "American women state governors‎", etc. 117Avenue (talk) 04:30, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • However we have Category:Female members of the United States Congress. The Canadian Senators is a bit of a misnomer, since it is clearly limited to people who were in the Canadian Senate. Anyway, the relevant parent categories are named things like Category:Mayors of places in the United States, Category:Mayors of places in Israel and so forth. WE do not categoize mayors by nationality, we categorize mayors by the location of the place they were mayor of.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:59, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is some inconsistency in the way various "women in politics" categories are currently named, but that's because they were created by different people at different times under different perceptions of what naming conventions were applicable — it doesn't mean that these categories should be permanently kept at Convention X if there's a valid reason to consider moving them to Convention Y. There might be a reason to consider renaming those categories in a different naming format too. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe I'm missing something, but why do we need special categories for women mayors? Surely they can just be placed in the normal mayor categories. — This, that and the other (talk) 00:31, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It's been generally accepted that because women holding political office is a fairly recent (i.e. almost non-existent before the 20th century) development, resulting in extensive coverage of women in politics as a topic of social, cultural and academic research in its own right, categories specifically for women in politics are permissible on Wikipedia — because whether it's a topic that personally interests you or not, "women in politics" is a topic of interest in its own right for many other people. And because "[Country] women in politics" categories would, in many cases, become unmanageably large without some subcategorization, subcategories for particular political positions that women may hold (e.g. mayors) are also permitted whenever the numbers support them. (For example, it is still possible even in the 2010s for a woman who gets elected as a mayor to be her city's first ever woman mayor — a distinction which is not possible for a male mayor to attain anymore since men have been serving as mayors for centuries already, and a distinction which in some cases might even be enough to qualify the woman for a Wikipedia article on that basis alone even if the city doesn't otherwise meet Wikipedia's "large enough that all mayors count as notable" cutoff.) See WP:CATGRS for further information. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Quick note to say that I fully endorse Bearcat's excellent explanation of the reason for categorising women in politics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:13, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom; although I created some of these, it was in accordance with one side of an inconsistent naming convention that's since been regularized on a different naming format for exactly the reasons the nominator points out. Bearcat (talk) 16:52, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to standardize the cat.--Lenticel (talk) 01:31, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Ethnic categories related to Vojvodina[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 Category:People of Rusyn descent plus its sub-categories, but delete the others. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. These categories were created by an indefinitely blocked sock of User:Oldhouse2012 who was responsible for a large amount of ethnic POV disruption of articles related to Vojvodina using at least 10 sockpuppets (so far...). These categories and sub-categories were created as an overarching vehicle for POV-pushing in order to emphasise that Serbs are the majority or plurality in the overwhelming majority of towns and villages in Vojvodina (to the exclusion of other ethnic groups). Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete O my God! "Croatian people of Rusyn descent" we do not need these categories, this is pointles. "Serbs in Serbia"? Well, of course! As far as i see, we do not have these kind of sub-sub categories in normal editing. Delete, for sure. --WhiteWriterspeaks 20:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The ...descent categories would make sense if they actually included individual people and if those people were descendents of immigrants. Like this, Oldhouse has completely missed the mark. --Joy [shallot] (talk) 13:55, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Not so much as missed the mark as missed the planet... Peacemaker67 (send... over) 14:31, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Update. The user responsible for the creation of these categories has now been community banned by WP. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 23:22, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- These nations are not ethnically uniform. Some of them are certainly pointless and need to be upmerged, but Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina has a lot of articles. Vojvodina was part of Hungary until the end of WWII, and I would not be surprised if there were Hungarian majority communities there. While the creator may have been pushing a POV, nationality and ethnicity are not identical in that part of the world; and these are not expatriate communities, rather those left behind on the post WWI boundary changes. Though not in Serbia, the Hungarian population of Transylvania is a similar case. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems to me that in almost all cases the basis for the category is just unencyclopedic and potentially POV. If these categories are appropriate, surely we are not interested in categorising the communities that have a plurality or majority of one ethnic group, but in categorising each ethnic community in what is a patchwork of ethnicities? The current basis for categorisation means that if 51% of the town is Hungarian, we categorise it as Hungarian, but if 49% is Romanian, we don't categorise it as Romanian (as well) because of some arbitrary cut-off? It seems to me that there is no reason why all ethnic groups in a particular village couldn't be categorised (if we go down this track at all). I personally don't see the value in these categorisations, and believe they should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 01:30, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello! To start from the very beginning, at first I created the Category:Hungarian communities in Vojvodina on the example of the ones like Category:Hungarian communities in Slovakia or Category:Turkish communities in Bulgaria. As you might know it very well, this part of Europe is ethnically very mixed, and with the borders changing rapidly during the last centuries many people found themselves in a minority status without even moving away from their own town – ie. 2 million of Hungarians live in the neighbouring countries of Hungary, which means every sixth Hungarian in the region lives outside of Hungary; or taking the second example, there are about 600-800 thousands of Turks living in Bulgaria, thus every tenth person in Bulgaria is a Turk. Of course these groups maintained their identity, cultural heritage and so on, and form their very own community.
The twist in the story came when a load of similar categories were created just to prove a point (many of them already deleted), thus the whole thing ended up in a complete nonsense mess. Rolling through these I can say that some of the categories are completely useless as these have no or only a very few articles in it (why not emphasize in the article that it is the lone, or one of the 3 villages of that certain minority?), however, I'd say some of the may be useful (the Croatian, the Romanian and the Slovak one). These three has now 10-20 towns, but if not only the places with ethnic majority would be listed, they could have easily much more, and might serve the good of Wikipedia. Here comes the question of Peacemaker: where to draw the line, since this 50% is definitely not good. Whatever decision would be arbitrary, however, something as low as 5% might be a good start to include all siginificant minorities.
Another option would be to listify these, as I was advised earlier and created the List of Hungarian communities in Vojvodina article. This could give additional informations about the settlements of a certain minority, a short background, thus one could easier understand how they are there, where exactly they live, and could easily navigate in between the settlements.
So, to close my thoughts, I strongly support the deletion of all categories except the Croatian/Hungarian/Romanian and Slovak communities of Vojvodina. These four could remain in my opinion, and by adding an "underpopulated category" template they may find someone who would add further towns and cities to them. Additionally, I think the communities list can be added to the articles' "Demographics" section as a "See also", thus making the coverage complete. That much for now. Regards, Thehoboclown (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - We do not need ALL these categories, this is absolutely pointles. Delete, for sure.--Nado158 (talk) 12:36, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Thehoboclown, I think they should all be deleted. I see your point about listifying, and I would encourage you to do that as it would be useful for the reasons you have identified. It would need updating after every census of course... But my view is that the above categories have no actual value, and I maintain that they should all be deleted. Peacemaker67 (send... over) 11:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, considering that pointing to the settlements list link can convey the intented additional information, and that these categories can trigger future problems (as it became a playground of some in no time) , I don't stand in the way of deletion. So, I'm completely fine with adding the list link only, and support the deletion for now. – Thehoboclown (talk) 08:58, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Songs written by Dennis Knutson[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. There's no guideline that requires a parent article; there is only a guideline that, if a parent article exists, the category matches it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:45, 16 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No parent article. Searches failed to find enough content to make one. Compare Category:Songs written by Tim Buppert, which was deleted for the same reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:28, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The authorship of a song is a defining characteristic of that song, regardless of whether we have (or could expect to have) an article on the author. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:04, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perdew didn't. I still see no logic for making a category when the songwriter isn't notable. It's categorizing by something that doesn't exist. It's putting the cart before the horse. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 16:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because an article on a person does not exist does not mean they are not notable. Also, songs by songwriter is an established patter, and I almost think it is the mentioned exception to smallcat rules. There is no clear reason why we should not categorize every song by the person who wrote it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • But as I said. I scoured the net and could find NOTHING on the guy. He is NOT NOTABLE. NOT NOTABLE. How hard is that to understand? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does not matter if the writer is notable. The writer is always a defining characteristic of a song. Thus it is always a notable trait of the song, and is worth categorizing. Exactly how someone can be "not notable" are write 5 notable songs is not clear. Anyway, just because there is no mention of someone on the internet does not actually prove they are not notable. The internet is not the sum total of all knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the question is are the songs notable. As long as they are grouping them by their songwriter works, whether or not that person has an article. Wikipedia is not a reliable source so whether or not there is an article on a given person does not tell us if they are notable. Anyway, it is not clear people have to be notable to group their songs together. We only need reliable sources that show all these songs were written by the same person. I personally think the mentioned past deletions were all wrongly thought out. We should not hold to bad precedent.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again, this makes NO FUCKING SENSE. Why categorize by what isn't there? Should we categorize "Now and Then There's Such a Fool as I" as Category:Songs written by Bill Trader even though according to BMI, it's literally the only thing he ever wrote? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:01, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It does make sense. In this case there are multiple songs. The songs are notable enougbh to have articles. They were all written by the same person. The Bill Trader issue is a red herring since that category is not this one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, then what about Perdew? He wrote four or five songs, but all were cut by the same artist (Joe Diffie) in a couple years' span, and he had no outside cuts. Tim Buppert wrote a Top 10 hit and a Top 15 hit two years apart, but nothing else that was a single. They shouldn't have categories IMO since their scope was so limited. And what argument do you have for Knutson being notable? Not every songwriter is. Some people just crank out a song or two sporadically for a few years, then fall off the face of the earth. Every song has a songwriter, but we have to draw the line somewhere, or every song would have a "Songs written by X" category even if no one knows who the hell X is. And I think "not notable enough for a standalone article" is a good line to draw. If you find any sources on Knutson, then I'll withdraw, but so far I've found bupkis. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:11, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The writer is a notable trait of the song. I see no reason to not categorize all notable songs in this manner. Whether we have a rule on song notability that actually makes sense and leads ot having only articles on notable songs is another issue, which I am not prepared to make any comment on at the present. For now I assume that the articles in this category are all on notable songs. If some of the songs are not in fact notable, you are free to take the articles to AfD. However, for the present I believe we should keep this category. I am not sure why you are bringing up totally different categories that this nomination is not even about.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of the songs is not at issue. The notability of the writer is. And so far, I can't find a damn THING on this writer. He could be a pen name for all I know. He could be a disgruntled Kmart employee who wrote five songs and was never heard from again. He could be Wilford Brimley's son. It's the writer's lack of notability that's the sticking point here, and no matter how many songs he's written, I see no reason to categorize songs by a songwriter whom the world has totally forgotten, and never given a drop of attention to. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 20:25, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The notability of the writer is relevant to the decision of whether we have an article on the writer, but that is not the issue here. The songs are notable, and we have articles. They share a common defining characteristic, and a category is how we group tings which share that defining characteristic.
    We'd do the same thing with a place. A townland in the back of beyond might not merit an article even if a cluster of notable people came from there, but if there were enough notable people to make a viable category it would be a good grouping. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:17, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • That still seems bassackwards to me. Why category by what doesn't exist? It's totally counterintuitive and misleading. Someone's expecting the category to hook on to an article, and when it doesn't, you have confusion and a feeling of incompleteness. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:43, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • You are still confusing the question of whether the topic exists with the narrower question of whether there is a Wikipedia article on that topic. Those are not the same thing, and there are plenty of redlinks on Wikipedia. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:23, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Which still leaves the question as to whether said redlinks will ever turn blue. And in this guy's case, all signs point to "no". Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 00:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • It doesn't matter whether the said redlinks will ever turn blue. The fact that all these notable songs were written by Dennis Knutson remains a defining charcateristic of them even if we know nothing at all about him beyond the name. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per BHG's sound analysis. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 03:46, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remarks – BHG always makes sense. I think long ago I was pushing the idea that the writer of a song (or book) was undoubtedly a defining characteristic of the song/book, but the argument by TenPoundHammer (which also makes sense) has prevailed in many cfds. Oculi (talk) 10:59, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Richhoncho, who created the category, asks, "As I said then and I will keep repeating, unless WP is consistent then what's the point? Why should the consensus on something so basic change?" Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 01:24, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Now that my name has been mentioned I thought I had better join the discussion. I understand and appreciate both sides of the argument and have argued from both positions in the past, so all I really want from this, or any other discussion, is consistency. If anybody has any idea how to achieve this please let me know. I think, in the great scheme of things, consistency at WP is far more important than whether this category remains. I make a few notes for consideration.
  1. I created Category:Songs written by Cory Batten where there was a CfD discussion back in 2009 and the result was delete on the grounds of no main article. Several other articles were deleted for similar reasons. Obviously I argued to keep, but accepted this guidance not to create a category without a main article.
  2. Back in December I checked through the whole Category:Songs by songwriter speedy renaming, nominating for deletion etc. All done keeping an eye on what I thought were the guidelines/common practice.
  3. For the first CfD I stated, There is no matching article for this category. Notified creator of category and happy to withdraw nomination if relevant article is created. A very weak article was created and it was still deleted!
  4. Having established a precedent again, I nominated in 3 or 4 batches, example CfD about another 30 categories on the grounds there was no main article, it quickly becoming apparent that they would survive, I withdrew the nomination on all except those with a single member.
  5. Unlike 10pound I do agree that songwriting credits are a defining characteristic worthy of categorizing in WP, but equally I can see the logic in ensuring that every category has a matching article.
  6. My opinion is a category with 5 members and no main article is a lot more navigational use than a category with one member and a main article - which can survive CfD.

What I really don't want to see is different outcomes at different nominations. I would expect that any responsible editor would agree. Although I am specifically interested in Category:Songs by songwriter, I suspect this discussion applies to all/most categories. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:08, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply to BHG. Yes, consensus can change but in less than one month and at the hands of less than 4 different editors? That isn't a change of "weather", that's scattered showers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:23, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Rich, the [CfD first CFD you linked] had only one participant other than you, so, the less than 4 different editors" you complain about here is a lot more than the example you prefer. And in second example, of ~30 categories, the no-main-article test was rejected.
    So what we have here is a common enough scenario: a proposal gets consensus in a low-participation discussion, but the same idea is rejected when scrutinised by more editors. . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:28, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further Response to BHG. I am going to rely on The Bushranger who said at a previous nomination noted above, There is no requirement that a category have a matching article; Obviously if consensus changes to "there should be a requirement" that's fair enough. At least then it won't be who has strolled past a CfD on a particular day which is my concern. Thanks for your help in the matter. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:43, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Defining characteristic, and with more than one song it has navigational value. Having a main article for a category is not necessary per the convention that notability is not inherited. --Qetuth (talk) 23:00, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As mentioned, the absence of a main article is no reason to delete a category that categorises by a defining charactistic and which is part of a very well-established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:13, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bakery/café restaurants[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 on splitting. There was no support for the current name, so I'll take as a consensus to rename to the only proposed alternative: Category:Bakery cafés. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is an unusual category name construction which I've never encountered before. The closest real name for this concept I can think of is simply "bakery café". The additional "restaurant" is probably redundant and superfluous. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:03, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As nominator, I support the below mentioned split to Bakeries and Coffeehouses. Axem Titanium (talk) 03:13, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to Category:Bakeries and/or Category:Coffeehouses. Bakery café and bakery cafe do not exist. Cafe is a redirect to coffeehouse. I have issues with what we are grouping here. Is a doughnut shop a cafe or a bakery? Well it is not a bakery since most of the chains these days have a central bakery and the stores don't actually bake anything. While I think that this is a better option then proposed, I have to wonder if there is a better choice out there. I also wonder if these are correctly classified as Category:Fast-food restaurants when you include places like Coco's Bakery. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:21, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the discussion below this one could very well influence the outcome here. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split to coffehouses and bakeries categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:49, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • REname somehow. In UK a cafe that also has a retail shop selling bakery products is common. This is partly a consequence of the different VAT treatment for food consumed on and off the premises. The real problem is that there are few obvious boundaries between the carious designations. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:14, 10 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't split. I'm neutral on the proposed rename, but businesses in the existing category like Au Bon Pain, Panera Bread Company, and Bruegger's are neither coffeehouses nor bakeries. They are restaurants where you can sit down and eat pastries, sandwiches, soup, and the like, in addition to buying baked goods to take out. Dr.frog (talk) 23:37, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Coffee houses[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: a very weak consensus to rename to Category:Coffeehouses, without prejudice to any further renamings of the category, or to renamings resulting from a move of the head article. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Either the category should be renamed to match the main article, coffeehouse, or vice versa. I have no strong preference but I figure that the main article has a reason for omitting the space. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:56, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose ; Rename both article and category to café / category:cafés , since it seems to be the current common term. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 11:46, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Rename To match the parent article at coffeehouse. If the title for the parent article is changed to coffee shop or café, then a rename of the category would be appropriate, but until then we should stick with matching the title of the parent article. Alansohn (talk) 16:02, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment During the Rename from "coffeeshops" discussion, "coffeehouses" was preferred to "coffee houses" as scoring more ghits and for being less ambiguous. I would agree wit the anon that at least in American English, neither "coffee house" nor "coffee shop" is much used, with establishments specializing in coffee known as cafés— but add that not all cafés specialize in coffee, and the term is commonly used to refer to sandwich shops.- choster (talk) 19:36, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment but then neither does a "coffeehouse" strictly mean a café, as it can mean a coffee import business, or a non-food-service coffee seller, that sells beans or grounds. The non-food-service meaning is also attached to "coffee shop". -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 21:20, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment What is a cafe? According to one definition, A coffeehouse, restaurant, or bar. And from the same site:
    Coffeehouse: a small restaurant where drinks and snacks are sold
    Restaurant: a commercial establishment where meals are prepared and served to customers
    Bar:
    a. A counter at which drinks, especially alcoholic drinks, and sometimes food, are served.
    b. An establishment or room having such a counter.
    So what is intended here? Our articles are coffeehouse, bar (establishment) and restaurant. We define coffeehouse as primarily serving coffee. I can see Starbucks meeting this definition, but does Krispy Kreme? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:47, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:48, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It appears that until three months ago there was a separate article at Café which was merged into Coffeehouse after a very brief discussion at Talk:Coffeehouse that may have gone unnoticed by many. I think this may be a case where the articles name & contents & even number of articles need a rethink to be clear what's intended - although the term "café" is used in relation to coffee shops (including the chain I used to work for), in British English at least the term really implies a place for light food and/or drinks and isn't coffee focused. Timrollpickering (talk) 14:43, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Person opinion is the cafe is more common then coffee house in US English and it is also a place for food and drink without a focus on coffee. A Google search for 'cafe -"Corporate Average Fuel Economy"' shows most are for food types of places in the 3,140,000,000 hits and the first hit for coffeehouse is, as expected, our article. Coffee house has 32,600,000 hits and coffeehouse has 462,000,000. The renaming question here could come down to a question of should we start fixing what appears to be an article naming issue? Or do we kick it back to the RM process? Note that the rename as proposed is kind of a non issue. A rename does not hurt addressing the larger problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:58, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Batmobile[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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:24, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Contains a handful of articles loosely connected to the Batmobile; seems more suited to a navbox, if that. Trivialist (talk) 02:09, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete museums should not be categorized by one item in their collection. This category is built around too loose of a connection to work.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:40, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per John. Non-defining trait. Axem Titanium (talk) 06:58, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article Batmobile includes links to all the others except Volo Auto Museum which apparently only has a replica. All the pages except the lead article link to it. That is sufficient for navigation; neither a category nor navbox template would be appropriate. – Fayenatic London 19:32, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Somehow I do not think we want to start categorizing museums by items in their collection. That just sounds like a overcat nightmare. It is bad enough we categorize huge museums like the {[Detroit Institute of Arts]] because part of the large collection focuses on one or another specific things, but to categorize museums because of one thing seems extreme. That would be like putting films in categories for each of the actors who appeared in them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:07, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Certain museums merit categories for items in their collections. However museums should not be categorised by items in their collections. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:14, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Holy Delete, Batman! seriously though, this is a bit of an overcategorization.--Lenticel (talk) 01:34, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Military operations of the post-1945 period[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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 March 13#Category:Military operations of the post-1945 period. The Bushranger One ping only 04:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OR
Nominator's rationale: Rename or merge. This category is a subcategory of Category:Military operations post-1945. It is defined as being for military operations from the end of the Second World War to the year 2000. So in other words, it's acting as "20th-century military operations post-1945". The current name is not clear at all. I'm not sure if we should simply upmerge this to Category:Military operations post-1945 or if we should try to come up with a name that works. There is no broader scheme for military topics in the 20th century that are post-1945. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:30, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep/Rename (category creator) I've no objection to a rename to "Category:Military operations 1945-2000" (or similar) or to "Category:20th century military operations after World War II" (which IMO isn't really a triple intersection), but I think it's the (original) "post-1945" category that should be upmerged/deleted rather than this one (I was/am planning to take that to CfD myself) - see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_8#Category:Military_operations_post-1945. The background to this is that we currently have both "post-1945" categories and "20th-century" categories which (for the period 1946-2000) overlap, but neither of these categories can be a subcat of the other - thus an operation in 1977 could/should be categorized in both although article editors may be unaware of this. The advantage of the "post-1945 period" category (I agree it's not an ideal name) is that it's defined to fit within the "20th-century" category. If the community accepts this rearrangement of the "military operations" categories then the other "post-1945" categories could be replaced in a similar way. Consideration could then be given to renaming these categories (which have an intro referring to 1946-2000) "back" to just "post-1945". Many of the articles in these categories are in "Cold War" categories which reduces the amount of recategorization needed. DexDor (talk) 06:54, 7 February 2013 (UTC) DexDor (talk) 06:42, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename WP:C2E to Category:Military operations 1945–2000 (with a redirect using a hyphen). The whole of Category:Warfare post-1945 should be split between that period and 21st century, and then abolished. The original predecessor of that category was Category:Modern warfare, created back in 2004 when there was not yet much of the 21st century to categorise. – Fayenatic London 19:44, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but it'll need to have text explaining that it's only for operations after WWII. DexDor (talk) 20:01, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should be about the Cold War period (ie. approx 1945-1991) and the post Cold War period. So that's where the split should be. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:41, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
There's several problems with that idea (which I had considered myself) - "M.o. of the Cold War period" includes the word period which I think is what the nom is trying to avoid (and would be a slightly strange way to categorize articles about any ops by countries not involved in the Cold War), "M.o. of the Cold War" would be OK as a category but doesn't solve this problem because it can't contain any ops that weren't part of the Cold War, and (most significantly) "M.o. of the post-Cold War period" has exactly the same problem as "M.o. post-1945" (it doesn't fit within the 20th-century category) - in fact it's even worse as editors/readers are more likely to consider 2001 etc part of the post-Cold War period than part of the post-1945 period. DexDor (talk) 06:08, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge both to Category:Military operations since World War II. A while back we did a major cull on 20th/21st century categories as an attempt to have a past/current distinction. In the field of war, the end of WWII is clearly major punctuation point, marking a change of era. We need to resist the urge to split things further until it is clear that the category is too full for comfort. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:02, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't the end of the Cold War also be such a punctuation point? No more proxy wars. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:42, 14 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Support Category:Military operations 1945–2000, and upmerge some subcategories of Category:Cold War to subcategories of this category. A subcategory covering most (1947-91 or 1946-90?) of the 1945–2000 period is unnecessary, and it is unclear whether the “Cold War” category covers all events within the period or those related to the USA/USSR/NATO only. Hugo999 (talk) 13:46, 11 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
PS: No "from" just "1945–2000" (and not "from 1945 to 2000") Hugo999 (talk) 10:48, 13 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Military operations from 1945-2000. With the events of Sep. 11, 2001 and the start of the "War on Terror" at that point, ending one category in 2000 and starting the next in 2001 makes sense. Anyway we allow 20th-century and 21st-century categories when they are part of a longer series. We only disallow them when by their nature they will not have anything predating 1900 and so will only be two categories. That is not an issue here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:14, 12 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:1963 assassinations[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. Note that I am closing Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 2#Category:Assassinations_by_year together with this one, and the closing statement (to follow) is the same in both cases. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Extended rationale. There is a consensus that these categories should not exist as presently constituted, but there is no consensus on what do with them. This debate was hampered by being split over two separate discussions, and per WP:MULTI that undermines consensus-formation. However, there is no sign of a consensus being reached in either of the 2 discussions, so even if these categories had all been discussed together, the outcome may also have been inconclusive.
There was no support for splitting Category:YYYY deaths, and no evidence of any precedent for doing so. The YYYY deaths categories are generally treated as fundamental biographical data which should not be divided. The closest precedent I can find is Category:Executed people by century and its subcats such as Category:20th-century executions, which are not divided by year.
The point was made in both discussions that there is a difference between an article about an assassination, and a biography of a person who was assassinated. These categories are currently named as if they were for assassination articles, but their actual contents are overwhelmingly biographies. That could have been an argument for renaming, but the existence of biographical articles in the subcats of Category:Murder by year (e.g. in Category:Murder in 2005), suggests that the distinction is problematic.
There was also suggestions of merging these categories to the YYYY crimes categories. However, it was also pointed out that this raises POV problems: Carlossuarez46 noted that "one person's assassination is another's pre-emptive strike", and it is hard to see how classifying the assassination of a tyrant as a "crime" can fit with WP:NPOV. The same issues arise with merger to categories relating to murder; what if the the 20 July plot had succeeded?
Possible solutions include categorising assassinated people by century, or listifying them. Those and other ideas were not discussed here, but might be considered if there is a further nomination of these categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:31, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Category:1963 assassinations
  • Delete Category:1962 assassinations
  • Delete Category:1965 assassinations
  • Delete Category:1910 assassinations
  • Delete Category:1911 assassinations
  • Delete Category:1912 assassinations
  • Nominator's rationale With the exception of the 1963 category all the contents of these categories are biographical articles. This is essentially a non-diffusiing sub-cat of Category:1910 deaths or such. We have never agreed to sucdivide Category:1910 deaths, and I do not think we should start now. Birth and death categories are by year, no matter how big or how small. This works perfectly fine and I see no reason to change it. At a minimum we should remove all the biographical articles. This is also because these are sub-cats of the crimes cats, and thus we are at some level labeling people as connected to crimes because someone decided to kill them. This does not really make sense. Anyway, just looking at the artcicle on Boutros Ghali, he is in 5 other categories just based on his death, adding a assassinations by year category just will lead to more category clutter. So these categories are all really small (I am not even sure if any is to 5 articles), and only the 1963 one has articles that we really should include. So if we limited the 1963 category to the two articles on assasinations where would we be. Well, those articles also fit in the county by year categories, specifically Category:1963 in the United States and Category:1963 in Vietnam (or maybe Category:1963 in South Vietnam). It really does not seem worthwhile to create a whole schema of new categories to subdivide Category:1963 murders assuming we even have that category, so I think this is an excessive example of incident by year. I do not think we need these categories. Also, it just seems odd to put in "assassinations" categories articles that are on people who were assassinated, other categories we distinguish between these two, and we should here as well, but then we would have nothing, so I think we should just delete these categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:14, 7 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • If Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_2#Category:Assassinations_by_year ends in "delete", then Merge to "Murder in 19xx", otherwise keep. This member at least was moved from the year's Murder category to populate its new Assassination category. Deletion would therefore remove information which was here before. – Fayenatic London 20:57, 8 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
But the murder in x year categories are supposed to be for articles about the murders, with only two exsceptions these are all biographical articles. We do not subdivide x year deaths by the way the people died. You cited one of two exceptions to the fact that these are bio articles that should not be in the murder categories at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:09, 9 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_February_7

Leave a Reply