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. This does not prove a point about Category:Songs by theme, as the case is strongly made here that these songs are generally not about the days of the week, and even for those that are, this is not defining. This case is less solid for, say, Category:Songs about drugs. Also, I'm not going to rule on a list; if you want one, make one, and then AFD can deal with it. --Mike Selinker (talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Songs about days of the week (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Most of the songs in the category are not "about" days of the week. The category is defined as "songs featuring a day of the week in the title", and indeed, that seems to have been the inclusionary criterion that was applied. This makes the category overcategorization by shared name. I'm not sure if this can be salvaged by somehow limiting it to songs that are truly "about" days of the week, but how many songs really are "about" the day of the week itself? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Even if we limited this category to songs that are actually about days of the week, I don't see how this is a defining song topic for categorization. szyslak (t) 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. I sense a great disturbance in the force of common sense ^{as if millions of categories suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced}. This nomination logically ends with removing the entire Category:Songs by theme hierarchy. It would be WP:OR to start analysing whether songs are actually about things mentioned in their title or lyrics, but I don't think anyone would remove that whole category tree. For instance, "California Dreamin'" is actually about somebody in a cold place (it was written in NY), but it is sufficient that California is prominently mentioned in the lyrics and/or the title for it to be included in Category:Songs about California. At least some of the songs in the nominated category are about days of the week, and IMHO it is fine to include others named likewise. As for WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, take it as a wise and generally-helpful principle rather than a law. It is aimed at ruling out trivial and unencyclopedic connections, but IMHO this category is non-trivial and a valid encyclopedic navigational option. At the very least, listify rather than lose the info. – Fayenatic London 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's kind of like saying, "I know this category violates the guidelines as it is applied, but so do all these other categories that we have created, so let's keep it." But on the merits of the category's application, how anyone could say that, for instance, "Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M." is "about" that day of the week, I'm unsure. In other words, I think you've exactly hit on a major problem with Category:Songs by theme that some of us have been trying to point out for some time now, but users just keep creating and creating and creating these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • That sounds a weighty analysis, but I see it this way: if a song mentions something in the title, that is sufficient to count it as being a "song about" that theme, and it is neither required nor desirable to have to investigate further. It might be more precise to rename all the "songs about" categories as "songs about or named after" but IMHO (currently) that would be unnecessary. – Fayenatic London 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your standard sounds an awful lot like what WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES is getting at. It just so happens that every song with a specific word in its title is not necessarily "about" that word topic. Some artists, such as Bob Dylan, are notorious for giving songs titles that have nothing to do with what the song is about. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and hopefully one day the whole songs by theme will follow suit. The category is called, "Songs about days of the week" and yet, for example the following songs are including which are specifically not about days of the week, Ruby Tuesday (song), A Roller Skating Jam Named "Saturdays", I Don't Have to Be Me ('til Monday). I conclude that the category should have be called Category:Songs with a day of the week in the title.

At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with WP:V, it is NOT defining. WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically, WP:DEFINING.

Songs, and song titles, use Simile, Metaphor, Analogy, Allegory, Parable, Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies most lyricists and songwriters the ability to use english, or any other language, when writing lyrics.

It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at Category:Lists of novels.--Richhoncho (talk) 20:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Pointless Brad7777 (talk) 18:18, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: although it would be a matter for discussion at AfD, it would be helpful if the closing admin would comment on whether making a similar list is viewed with any favour. A list could be more informative with sections on songs that are about the days, perhaps followed by a concise list of songs that merely mention the days in the title. – Fayenatic London 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify after purging those that just use the name, instead of being about. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am not convinced that we need to categorize songs by subject, especially such a narrow subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 28 June 2012 (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) 21:51, 26 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Construction projects in Canada to Category:Buildings and structures under construction in Canada

Nominator's rationale: Rename. After removing the ones that were completed, looks like the remaining ones are under construction so this should be renamed to follow the more established Category:Buildings and structures under construction tree. I'll finish checking what remains later today to make sure I did not miss any that should be moved to Category:Proposed buildings and structures in Canada. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong support following similar categories for other locations. – Fayenatic London 21:11, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as nom Brad7777 (talk) 18:20, 25 June 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Victoria Cougars players to Category:Victoria Cougars (1911–1926) players

Nominator's rationale: Adding the years because there are two teams with this name. This one is under Victoria Cougars. The other is a juniors team under Victoria Cougars (WHL) that played from 1971–1994 under this name. It is nominated for a different kind of renaming here. When we differentiate teams with the same names in categories, we either use the league name or the years. Here, surprisingly enough, both Cougars were in a (different) league called the WHL, so I think the years is the right call.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. This is the standard dabbing convention in such instances. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Winnipeg Warriors players to Category:Winnipeg Warriors (1955–1961) players

Nominator's rationale: Adding the years because there are two teams with this name. This one is under Winnipeg Warriors (minor pro). The other is a juniors team under Winnipeg Warriors that played from 1980–1984 under this name. It is nominated for a different kind of renaming here. When we differentiate teams with the same names in categories, we either use the league name or the years. Here, surprisingly enough, both Warriors were in a (different) league called the WHL, so I think the years is the right call.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. This is the standard dabbing convention in such instances. Jrcla2 (talk) 00:45, 20 June 2012 (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: split. Louisville category was split to by country category as there are no appropriate state-level categories, and to appropriate Louisville categories as appropriate. FL shanghaied for the other... - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Development projects in Shanghai to multiple categories.
• Propose renaming Category:Development projects in Louisville, Kentucky to multiple categories.

Nominator's rationale: Split to Category:Buildings and structures under construction‎ in Shanghai, Category:Proposed buildings and structures in Shanghai and, if needed, "Unbuilt" and/or "Unfinished buildings and structures in Shanghai". Following the merger of Category:Development projects in the United Arab Emirates to the relevant "Buildings and structures", this should follow. (By all means notify me to implement this after closure if agreed.) – Fayenatic London 21:55, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support and I have added the one for Louisville, Kentucky. That should be merged to city categories like proposed above if they already exist. If they don't exist merge to the state categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:19, 20 June 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2C. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Germany in space to Category:German space programme

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I think the best thing to do with this category would be to make it a subcategory of Category:Space programs and to follow the naming convention used there. Tim! (talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Support - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:18, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nm, to follow the convention of Category:Space programs ... and also to avoid the impression that this relates to a country which has been sent into orbit. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:26, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Sometime, remind me to tell you about the great tragedy of Hypermaine". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 22:48, 20 June 2012 (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:Video games about angels and Category:Films about angels.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:07, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Angel video games to Category:Video games featuring angels
• Propose renaming Category:Angel films to Category:Films featuring angels

Nominator's rationale: Significent enough a change not to qualify for speedy, I believe; "Angels in video games", the speedyable choice, would imply characters, not the games themselves. This category has a somewhat awkward name, and one that is badly ambiguous; I clicked on it expecting it to have video games relating to Angel (TV series). The film category has the same problems... The Bushranger _{One ping only} 08:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but to Category:Video games about angels and Category:Films about angels as the use of "about" is more widespread, at least for films (see Category:Films by topic). – Fayenatic London 19:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I reckon that could work. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 15:46, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree with the rename suggested by Fayenatic, although Bushranger's suggestion is also an improvement. Brad7777 (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I support Fayenatic's suggestion. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:26, 4 July 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Pacific Wharf to Category:Pacific Wharf (Disney California Adventure Park)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. This is about the section of Disney California Adventure Park; it is not about Pacific Wharf Company. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:18, 19 June 2012 (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: Speedy rename C2B. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:15, 24 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Future World to Category:Future World (Epcot)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Future World alone is ambiguous. This category refers to the Future World part of Epcot. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:11, 19 June 2012 (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:Sparkle (film series) and Category:Songs from Sparkle (film series).--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:12, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Sparkle to Category:Sparkle (film) or Category:Sparkle (films)
• Propose renaming Category:Songs from Sparkle to Category:Songs from Sparkle (film) or Category:Songs from Sparkle (films)

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Sparkle alone is ambiguous. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:05, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: is two films + two albums enough to call it a franchise? in which case Category:Sparkle (franchise) would avoid having to choose between "(film)" and "(films)". – Fayenatic London 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't know if it could fairly be called a "franchise". The 2012 film has not even been released yet, so it's a little hard to assess at this stage. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:27, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, preferring (franchise) but, if not (film). - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:47, 27 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Sparkle (film series) and Category:Songs from Sparkle (film series). According to the article media franchise, "franchise" is often incorrectly used; a film series is what we have here. – Fayenatic London 07:26, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename using (film series) per FL. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:27, 4 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: agree with name changes to Category:Sparkle (film series) and Category:Songs from Sparkle (film series). --Discographer (talk) 02:09, 6 July 2012 (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: move categories as described.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have noticed that the two categories Category:Films by studio and Category:Films by producer cover a very similar subject and think that these may need to be re-organised. The main issue I see is that in the Films by producer category, this lists people as well as production companies, whilst the films by studio category only lists production companies.

I think the best solution for this is to have two categories, one category for production companies/studios and one category for film producers (people). The easiest way to achieve this is to move all the production company categories in "Films by producer" e.g. Category:Film4 Productions films into the "Films by studio category", leaving only film producers (people) in the "Films by producer" category. This way we will have two categories, one for companies and one for people:

• Films by producer should contain people such as "Films produced by James L. Brooks"
• Films by studio should contain companies such as "20th Century Fox films" - 0800abc123 (talk) 02:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. – Fayenatic London 13:22, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• This seems like a sensible approach. I spotted the the mix in Category:Films by producer the other day and found it odd. --Rob Sinden (talk) 10:33, 20 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]
• Split into two categories as suggested by Fayenatic. Aristophanes68 (talk) 05:10, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The credit goes to 0800abc123. – Fayenatic London

Is there an easy way of moving multiple categories from "Films by producer" to "Films by studio"? I'd do it myself but haven't really got the time to do it for that many pages. - 0800abc123 (talk) 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I would imagine that using AWB to sort the films into their respective companies and producers by using the search feature would speed things up. Take all the films on the page and search for just the ones who list Brooks as producer, and then add (not replace) his cat, and then repeat for the next big producer. Do the same process for companies--again, adding, not replacing. To keep it easy, don't remove the original cat until you've worked through both the companies and the individuals—otherwise you really will be making it time-consuming. Aristophanes68 (talk) 13:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Make it simple: let a bot move the whole lot, then use WP:HOTCAT to move back the small minority that are named after people. – Fayenatic London 08:42, 3 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

• Split Category:Films by producer to Category:Films by production company. Most of the contents of Category:Films by studio should also be moved to the latter, but it should probably be kept for the few members that are literally about film studios, such as Category:Soviet films by studio, Category:Elstree Studios films, Category:Pinewood Studios films, Category:Southall Studios films, Category:Twickenham Studios films and List of films shot at Estudios Churubusco. Can anyone suggest a rename for the studios category to make it less likely that editors will re-populate it with production companies? – Fayenatic London 08:42, 3 July 2012 (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.