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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counterfit (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per WP:OC#EPONYMOUS, "articles directly related to the subject typically are already links in the eponymous article in question". That is the case here. There are only 4 albums and their covers. The albums themselves would already go in a well-established albums by artist category, thus no need for a redundant eponymous category. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:26, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep and recategorize the contents of Category:Counterfit albums and Category:Counterfit album covers back into Category:Counterfit. This is completely useless subcategorization. The entire subject area of this band encompasses only 5 articles; there is no need for further subdivision. The albums cat isn't even used correctly: 2 of the releases in it are EPs, not albums. Are we really going to have subcats (albums & EPs) just to hold 2 articles each (the band broke up years ago & only ever released 2 albums & 2 EPs)? That makes no sense at all. Note that WP:OC#EPONYMOUS also says "there are sometimes good reasons to have an eponymous category. Most examples are either collections of subarticles (see Wikipedia:Summary style), or collections of articles on a topic about the named person. Category:William Shakespeare and Category:J. R. R. Tolkien, (sub-categories of which were noted as examples above), are two such examples. Another example is Category:Alexander the Great, which includes subarticles as well as topic articles such as Alexander (film), Alexander Mosaic, Alexander Romance, Alexander in the Qur'an, Alexander the Great (1956 film), and Alexander the Great (song)." The overcategorization here lies in the creation of unnecessary subcats that will only ever contain 2 articles. See also the current discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Albums#Category:Albums by artist. --IllaZilla (talk) 08:36, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Those are hardly productive examples relative to this instance. Shakespeare has 15 subcats and 78 articles, Tolkien has 8 subcats and 40 articles, and Alexander the Great has 6 subcats and 96 articles. This band has 5 articles if you count its eponymous article. It's useless to have an eponymously named category that does not help identify the articles here (the 2 albums and 2 EPs) in the least. With so few articles, again I will take from WP:OC#EPONYMOUS: "renaming the category to reflect the topic, rather than the person, is a good alternative to deletion". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 09:08, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is useless to have Category:Counterfit albums and Category:Counterfit EPs when each would only ever contain 2 articles. It makes much more sense to simply have 1 category that includes all 5 articles related to the topic. The topic, of course, being the band. --IllaZilla (talk) 09:16, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

It is useless to have an eponymous category with so few articles when they all already link directly from the eponymous article itself. The outcome of your discussion on WP:ALBUMS will help determine the fate of Category:Counterfit albums, or you can nominate it for CFD as well. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 17:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – the articles should certainly not be reorganised back to an undefined top category. Any albums should be in an albums category. I shall head forthwith to the albums discussions and make the same point there. Occuli (talk) 20:52, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  The top category is hardly "undefined": It says right at the top what the topic area is (articles relating to the band Counterfit). The albums are in albums categories: albums by year and by genre. However, it hardly makes sense to have a "by artist" album category in this case when the artist in question only released 2 albums and is no longer active. I have seen no logical argument for the utility of a "by artist" album category that would only ever contain 2 articles. Why do you think such a category is necessary? --IllaZilla (talk) 21:57, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  And 'related' means what? This is exactly what I mean by 'undefined'. (Session musicians? Partners? Spin-off bands? Relatives?) It makes perfect sense to categorise an album by foo as an album by foo. We categorise articles by 'defining characteristics', and it is impossible to describe Managing the Details of an Undertaking without saying it is an album by Counterfit: ergo 'Counterfit album' is defining. (It doesn't bother me at all to consider EPs as albums.) We have had endless debates about 'eponymous musician categories' and no-one has previously raised any objection to albums categories. WP:SMALLCAT explicitly states "... unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist". Occuli (talk) 12:12, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Exercise common sense, please: "Related" means articles about the band and their releases. Again, the whole point is that this was a short-lived act that only put out a small handful of releases, thus there are (and probably only ever will be) a small handful of articles about them & their releases. If there were a large number of articles about musicians, spin-off bands, yadda yadda yadda then this wouldn't be an issue to begin with: the whole point is that this is a tiny topic area that isn't ever going to get any larger. I never said it didn't make sense to categorize albums by foo as an album by foo, I said that it doesn't make sense to create an albums by foo category if will only ever contain 1 or 2 articles. It may not bother you to consider EPs albums, but it bothers the Albums project, hence why we have separate Category:Albums by artist and Category:EPs by artist. So if we are going to be pointlessly strict about "overall accepted sub-categorization schemes", we will have Category:Counterfit albums and Category:Counterfit EPs each of which will only ever contain 2 articles. What usefulness does that have to a reader? How does it help them to find or navigate between articles of the topic area "Counterfit"? --IllaZilla (talk) 17:54, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Can you point me to where it bothers the Albums project? I've found discussions where it bothers some people more than others, but no consensus or a mention in WP:ALBUMS. While you can say there is consensus for the categorization scheme of Category:EPs by artist, there is nothing that says an EP by Foo should be categorized under Category:Foo EPs, yet it does say within the project that every album should be categorized under Category:Foo albums at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body#Categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:27, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Again, common sense, please: If we have Category:Albums by artist and we demand that all albums by Foo be placed a Category:Foo albums, and we have Category:Songs by artist and we demand that all songs by Foo be placed in a Category:Foo songs, and we also have Category:EPs by artist...what do you think follows from that? --IllaZilla (talk) 18:30, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  That doesn't answer the question. "Common sense" does not equal "bothers the Albums project". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:50, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Anyway, this is going off on a tangent as the discussion for this CFD is about the eponymous category. The problems with albums by artist, EPs by artist, etc, should continue at your discussion on the WikiProject Albums talk page. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 18:58, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:EPs by artist is under the purview of WP:ALBUMS, as is Category:EPs by year. The albums project has recognized in past discussions that EPs are distinct from albums, as are singles. Hence the existence of 3 different categorization branches: albums/EPs/songs. If the Albums project wanted EPs categorized as albums, then they wouldn't be placing articles in Category:EPs by artist and Category:EPs by year. That we do have these separate category branches implies that EPs are to be categorized in EP categories, not in album categories. Just as your assertion that because Category:Albums by artist has a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", every album article must be placed in a Category:Foo albums to fit that scheme (even if it would be the only article ever to inhabit that category). By the same token, Category:EPs by artist has a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" and EP articles should follow the same convention, yes? This, of course, meaning even more categories that will only ever contain 1 or 2 articles.

  I don't see it as tangential. The root problem here is the instruction at Category:Albums by artist that "all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded." You've said that we must stick to that instruction, as it represents a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (per WP:SMALLCAT). I think it's stupid to require the creation of categories that will only ever contain a few articles. That's the central issue affecting this category, as well as Category:The Hippos and other eponymous categories I created to group very small topic areas, rather than have them spread out across multiple cats/subcats. --IllaZilla (talk) 19:13, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I would say there's not enough in this case to justify an eponymous category. I support having an albums category first. An eponymous category should only follow if there are several subcategories and articles that need grouping. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:08, 26 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: WikiProject Inheritance Trilogy renamed sometime ago to WikiProject Inheritance Cycle (renaming of the book series). Recently got around to changing the WikiProjects banner to use new categories. This and related categories should be deleted as redundant. Other relevant pages which should also be considered for deletion: User:WP 1.0 bot/Tables/Project/Inheritance Trilogy. Noom _talk ^stalk 18:17, 17 April 2011 (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 to Category:Anshan, Liaoning. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:28, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anshan, China to Category:Anshan City

Nominator's rationale: 1) only city named Anshan anyway. 2) confusing, as there are probably several towns named Anshan HXL's Roundtable and Record 17:54, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Anshan, Liaoning as the article is Anshan, Liaoning. Occuli (talk) 18:07, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I would support a move to Anshan, Liaoning either way. --HXL's Roundtable and Record 18:08, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Anshan, Liaoning per Occuli.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:38, 20 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:29, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Canadian Academy of Engineering (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I made a mistake when creating this category today. Apparently the elected members are called Fellows. See Canadian Academy of Engineering News - under section 2010 ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING, INDUCTION OF NEW FELLOWS & SYMPOSIUM and University of Waterloo - Alumni Accomplishments - The Canadian Academy of Engineering I have created already a new category Category:Fellows of the Canadian Academy of Engineering and moved the two entries Adel Sedra and Thomas Brzustowski. -- SchreyP (talk) 17:35, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Then it will get deleted automatically as an empty category. --Bduke (Discussion) 01:09, 18 April 2011 (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 to Category:United States congressional aides. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:27, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Former U.S. congressional aides to Category:Aides to United States Congress members

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I am unsure if this is an actually useful category or not, but I am sure that we shouldn't use "former" in a category. TM 11:41, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support changing the category's name, but not to the suggested name.I created the category today and agree it should not have former in the title. Why not simply rename it Category:U.S. congressional aides The suggested category name - Aides to United States Congress members sounds a bit awkward. In fact, I have never heard the term "United States Congress members" in my life. KeptSouth (talk) 18:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

As for the nominator's questioning of whether this is a useful category - I of course strongly disagree and would like to say in support that

• it is a career people often work several years at;
• other Washington careers that can be short term such as lobbyist have their own categories
• it is an interesting biographical fact as it often, but not always leads to a politics-related career;
• looking at the other names in the category can be interesting because it can provide something of a picture of the career path many aides follow. --KeptSouth (talk) 18:52, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Support move to Category:United States congressional aides Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 23:59, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support move to Category:United States congressional aides. Neutrality^talk 08:36, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Agree with move to Category:United States congressional aides as proposed by 2 other users above. That makes 3 people, including the person who created the category, who agree KeptSouth (talk) 08:51, 19 April 2011 (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. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:24, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brazilian Armenians to Category:Brazilian people of Armenian descent

Nominator's rationale: Per naming conventions of Category:Brazilian people by ethnic or national origin Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 08:49, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 11:30, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:09, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Support much less ambiguous that the current name, which could refer to Armenian citizens of Brazilian descent. 65.94.45.160 (talk) 03:37, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per above. Neutrality^talk 08:37, 19 April 2011 (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: Relisted, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 26. Dana boomer (talk) 13:52, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Brazilian Catholics to Category:Brazilian Roman Catholics

Nominator's rationale: Has only three pages...is essentially redundant to Category:Brazilian Roman Catholics. Propose merge Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – has the nom looked at the 3 pages? These are very much not 'Roman'. Occuli (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Of the three pages, one of them is Roman Catholic, and the remaining two just aren't enough to justify having a category of their own Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Support Merge (Delete?), likewise for all Fooian Catholics. Any who are not Roman Catholics (in the usual sense), classify them in subcategories of Category:Traditionalist Catholics or Category:Old Catholicism. Several subcategories of Category:Traditionalist Catholics by nationality have only one or two articles in them. Hugo999 (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That wouldn't work for many of the FOOian categories, since there are also FOOian Eastern Catholics: see Category:Eastern Catholics by nationality. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Don't merge. The "Catholics" tree is not redundant to the "Roman Catholics" tree, and in this case one subcategory plus 3 articles seems sufficient for a category for Catholics. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (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 all. Timrollpickering (talk) 23:25, 24 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose Renaming Category:Archaeology in Côte d'Ivoire to Category:Archaeology of Côte d'Ivoire, Category:Archaeology in Ghana to Category:Archaeology of Ghana, Category:Archaeology in Lebanon to Category:Archaeology of Lebanon

Reason Most members of Category:Archaeology by country are Archaeology “of” not “in” Hugo999 (talk) 01:02, 17 April 2011 (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. Dana boomer (talk) 13:54, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Category:18th-century architecture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:1770s architecture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:1780s architecture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:1790s architecture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Entries here are based on the date the building was built in. I see no reason to break out this by country. An upmerge would have been suggested, but it is better to add the articles to the appropriate completed by year category which I'm in the process of doing. Note:Completed adding other categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:17, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. Neutrality^talk 08:39, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom except Category:18th-century architecture in the United States which fits fits into Category:American architecture by century and is not too limiting. Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:12, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • I suspect that everything in those categories is there since they were built in a specific year, those categories will also need to be reviewed and nominated as appropriate based on the outcome of this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2011 (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.