< August 11 August 13 >

August 12

Category:Naresh Krishna Raja

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 deleted at user's request. JohnCD (talk) 22:05, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Users don't get their own categories Jackmcbarn (talk) 21:44, 12 August 2014 (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 Trackmasters

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. Nyttend (talk) 21:54, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trackmasters are specifically a production team, not a songwriting team. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member/trading name affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. This is supported by WP:SONGS which states, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members. Previous discussions include The Bee Gees and The Miracles and Lady Antebellum where the category has been devolved into individual members. Richhoncho (talk) 21:40, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • SFB. Actually you are wrong. As for any other category, a defining characteristic is of the subject, not, as in this case, of the songwriter. There is absolutely NO compunction anywhere to have an article, as in this case, for the songwriter. The only relevant guideline is that the category must match the article name if an article exists. It should be noted that most production partnerships are split up for songwriter credits (but NOT production credits) and there are numerous categories where there is no article for the songwriter.
As proof, here are a couple of examples of previous discussions, where, you will note, I made the nomination, but withdrew after a few days, Josh Schwartz, Lou Singer and Nathaniel Calhoun and others. There are other examples if you wish to confirm these decisions as ongoing.
The underlying problem is when you join songwriters together artificially under a trading name you will have 1000s of anomalies when each "partner" writes with somebody different. Songwriting, in law, is not a partnership item, hence the natural separation by individual. It should also be noted that many (not all, unfortunately) songwriting by trading name have been separated to each individual and the creation of this particular category flies in the face of what has been happening at WP.
Any change to the guideline (which is what you are proposing) should be discussed more fully in the right places, not on a one by one basis. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:36, 16 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. And your !vote above and the original nomination has nothing to do with this ANI you raised against me but couldn't make stick? It also ignores that this is the *ONLY* trading name songwriter category... and you are creating "Song recordings produced by" categories for individuals when the credit is for the whole band, yet objected to me doing the same for songwriting? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:10, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

@Erpert Here is an example. The article says the song, Stone Love (song) was produced by the band (Kool & the Gang), yet you have created Category:Song recordings produced by Ronald Bell (musician), a member of that band. There are other examples you have created. Exactly why is it OK for you to do this, but not me? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:49, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Because Ronald Bell has a separate article; Samuel Barnes doesn't. And this is the only trading same songwriter category? I'm sorry, did you not read all the examples shown to you in the previous CFD? (BTW, that Mint Condition discussion isn't an ANI.) Erpert blah, blah, blah... 09:17, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1. Mint Condition? I don't know/remember what you are talking about. All I know is that you raised an ANI against me because I was following guidelines and you didn't like those guidelines (much the same as here)
2. If there is a requirement to have an article to match a category then show me the guideline, policy, whatever. At present your objection (and SFB's) objection is based only on WP:IDONTLIKEIT.
3. Your defense of the Ronald Bell category doesn't work because, I repeat, there is no requirement to have an article to match a category.
4. Yes I did read the names in the previous CFD, and I repeat, there are as far as I know no other songwriter trading names. However, there are a few where the songwriting partners are named, i.e. Lennon/McCartney.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:30, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(added No 4 above) --Richhoncho (talk) 09:41, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mint Condition is the band who made "Breakin' My Heart (Pretty Brown Eyes)". Are you telling me that you were disputing in a discussion about a subject you don't even know about? But more importantly, it's interesting that you're throwing around WP:IDONTLIKEIT considering the only person against keeping things as is (in this and the previous discussion) is you. If Samuel Barnes had an article already, it should be fine for him to then have a category for all the songs he has written either with other people or by himself; no one here is opposing that. True, there is no guideline that necessarily requires this, but that is what was decided in the previous CFD; why are you so gung-ho on still swaying it the other way minutes after that discussion was closed? I'm also wondering why you consider "songwriter trading name" and "songwriting partners" to be two different things. Finally, I'm not sure why you don't understand this, but every discussion on Wikipedia isn't considered an ANI. ANI is used when another user causes enough trouble to disrupt the encyclopedia; what I did was simple dispute resolution. Erpert blah, blah, blah... 19:46, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I remember Pretty Brown Eyes and the dispute, didn't remember the name of the band. Why there was a dispute is still beyond my comprehension, I trust you know why were wrong then. Now to the case in hand, the previous discussion did not delete either Category:Songs written by Samuel Barnes (songwriter) or Category:Songs written by Jean-Claude Olivier but moved *some* of the entries when they were co-written by both to this category. That means those two categories you objected to because there was no article still exist. I hope this is informative for you.
Now let's look at an existing guideline, namely Wp:Songs#Categories which reads, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members.[1] So, for example, if Y is a member of a song's production team X, categorization may not be as 'songs produced by Y'; 'songs produced by X' might however, be included as a related category of 'songs produced by Y', or the song might be categorized directly as 'Y' (perhaps in addition to 'songs produced by X'). (my bold to make it easier for you to read - we don't want you misreading it again). So we have a guidelines that specifically opposes songwriting credits by "team of people"
As both the Olivier and Barnes songwriting categories continue to exist, why do we actually need the Trackmasters songwriting category as well? We can move everything back to where they belong.
The Ronald Bell category (and its not the only example), irrespective of how you dress it up, proves your opposition here is deliberately one rule for the Erpect, another for others...--Richhoncho (talk) 20:43, 21 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

As already discussed and confirmed by the previous closure for Olivier & Barnes an article is NOT necessary to have a category. I do not understand why you keep insisting otherwise. All that has happened with the creation of this category is a duplicate of the Barnes & Olivier categories - It is surplus to requirements. It would not be unreasonable to add the Trackmaster songs back into the Olivier and Barnes categories, after all, Olivier and Barnes DID write the songs! Are you saying otherwise?
I note that it is alright for you to hurl insults around, but get upset if you are given a dose of your own medicine, as your talkpage confirms.--Richhoncho (talk) 10:42, 22 September 2014 (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:Disney's Snow White characters

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: Upmerge to both parent categories (NAC). DexDor (talk) 19:53, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only two pages in category, and it's not going to expand JDDJS (talk) 20:12, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support The category can never be populated. Even if all the characters are listed, there would only be around 15 pages.Reawaken (talk) 23:30, 13 August 2014 (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:Greek and Roman fictional slaves

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 16:39, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fictional goes at the beginning of the title JDDJS (talk) 19:56, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support --172.251.77.75 (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2014 (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:Fictional female magicians

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. – Fayenatic London 16:41, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming to Category:Fictional female magicians (fantasy)
Nominator's rationale: Consistency with Category:Fictional magicians (fantasy)
--172.251.77.75 (talk) 18:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Nominator has a point, renaming clears confusion.Reawaken (talk) 23:31, 13 August 2014 (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:Ukrainian film stubs

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: Upmerge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 04:47, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unnecessary category. I tried to populate it, but the parent category Category:Ukrainian films only has 47 articles, so even if all of them were stubs, this category would never meet the threshold for stub categories. It should be deleted, and the contents upmerged to Category:European film stubs and Category:Ukrainian media stubs. Fortdj33 (talk) 18:27, 12 August 2014 (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:Branch of Meteorology

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:Branches of meteorology. – Fayenatic London 16:56, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename, somehow. Not actually a proposal for deletion, but there needs to be some discussion about appropriate renaming. "Branch of Meteorology" violates conventional categorization naming rules in two ways -- "branch" should be "branches", and "meteorology" should not be capitalized. But I'm not convinced that Category:Branches of meteorology is the best renaming option. And, I'm assuming that it's appropriate for a "subfield" or "branches of" category to exist, but in looking through the contents, some of the subcategories seem to be subtopics or related topics. Category:Environmental chemistry, for instance, seems to be a related topic. So a scope note might be appropriate. Lquilter (talk) 17:55, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Hi! I'm the one that created this category because the categories in Meteorology were a mess with no logical order. I understand that the name might not be best but my idea is to create a category that incorporates the different fields of application in Meteorology. I have choosen to put in "Branch of Meteorology" such subcategories. It might not be perfect but this was the best I could think at that moment. I have no problem if you want to change the name to something such as Meteorological fields or anything that has the meaning I have just explained. By the way, in English there is much confusion between Meteorology and Weather which make it more difficult to classify. Pierre cb (talk) 02:17, 13 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
But lowercase "m" on meteorology, right? --Lquilter (talk) 11:21, 18 August 2014 (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:NorthernAreas-geo-stub

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 ((GilgitBaltistan-geo-stub)). – Fayenatic London 16:46, 25 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Northern Areas is the former name of what is now known as Gilgit–Baltistan. RacerX11 Talk to meStalk me 14:46, 12 August 2014 (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:LGBT Roman Catholics

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 big mess. See comments at bottom. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This whole category listing is based mostly on speculation; nearly everyone in this listing did not identify personally as LGBT in their lifetime, and so there are a lot of liberties being taken in retroactively ascribing sexual identities to them that may not have even existed in the same context as they do in the modern era. Many of the people listed under this category are merely speculated to have been LGBT due to unpublished letters found centuries after their deaths. This whole page seems to follow that vein of listing people based on mere speculations or rumours, and as such I ask for its review Solntsa90 (talk) 19:22, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I took a random sample of (only) three articles, in all three articles the persons were described as openly LGBT. This sample result seems to be enough to conclude that this discussion has to take place on an article-by-article basis, instead of for the category as a whole. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The whole category is extremely problematic. Pope Benedict IX is not an "LGBT" Catholic, neither is Ludwig II of Bavaria; However, I do see the usage of it's inclusion. Therefore, I ask that other editors may review it for quality control, as there seems to be more than a few people under the listings who shouldn't be listed under the category due to mere speculation without any concrete confirmation. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:24, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of deletion, I ask that other editors look at this category for the possibility of review. Solntsa90 (talk) 05:25, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Can't we rather agree that you first have a review yourself? If you have any questions on how to, don't hesitate to discuss further on my talk page. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:44, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I want more than just your opinion. Solntsa90 (talk) 19:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry to disappoint you but that's probably not going to work. As you apparently withdraw your nomination to delete, it's unlikely that people here will check this out any further. If you feel the category is polluted (which may well be the case) then it is your own responsibility to undertake action against wrongly-classified articles. I've been in the same situation myself too. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:39, 8 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I have looked at about three dozen entries in this category and it is not entirely clear to me what warrants someone's inclusion therein: Josephine Baker was given a Roman Catholic funeral- which may have been someone else's decision; one the other hand, Alexandru Bogdan-Pitești "was no longer a practicing Catholic by the time of his death". There seem to be a number of other entries where the articles themselves mention that information may be unclear or dubious, but the Category talk page is no doubt a better place for that. The only thing I can find that most of these people have in common is that religion didn't seem to play a particularly significant part. Mannanan51 (talk) 22:56, 29 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
In the above comment "as both LGBT & Catholic" (rather than "as LGBT Catholics") indicates that this being used as the intersection of two (in some cases at least) unrelated characteristics. If a historical figure had an (important) influence on LGBT history then that should be discussed in the article(s), but does not necessarily require a category. DexDor (talk) 06:19, 10 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Fayenatic London 13:51, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment only. I neither think that neither Catholicism nor LGBT are irrelevent. What I don't understand is why there is an importance in the conjunction of the two to create this category. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:32, 28 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Closing comment The deletionists make good arguments (e.g. JPL's comments about rumours), but the "keepers", "opposers", and "reviewers" put together are also making solid arguments (e.g. the nomination comments), and the numbers are roughly the same. Moreover, if the nominator's idea had gained consensus, the result would still have been "keep"; we just would have purged the category from many of its articles. With this in mind, I can't quite see how any action on this category can reflect a decision made here (it's a perfect "no consensus" situation), so I'm basically going to have to declare a mistrial due to a hung jury, to invite the participants to restart the discussion if they wish, and to remind Solntsa90 that, as far as I can see, the desired purging can be performed at the present time if desired. Nyttend (talk) 22:02, 30 October 2014 (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:Neurotypical Wikipedians

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 04:58, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category is supposed to be a list of neurotypical editors, "meaning they do not belong to any neurological minority such as autism, bipolar, Down syndrome, obsessive-compulsive disorder, psychosis, schizophrenia etc.". That's simply not a useful, or even valid, way of marking editors. I also have grave doubts about the corresponding Category:Neurodivergent Wikipedians, but that one at least conceivably has some value. Looie496 (talk) 13:06, 12 August 2014 (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:Big 33 Football Classic alumni

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:32, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NON-DEFINING. Playing in a high school all-star game is not the defining aspect for these players. They have been deemed notable because of other activities, including playing professionally. TM 12:00, 12 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is nondefining. We also don't categorize athlete articles because they once were an all-star or an all-pro etc. Of course, the MLB All-Star game is on a much more higher level than a high school game....William 14:29, 12 August 2014 (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:Dukes of Clarence and St Andrews

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 21 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category for a single item. DrKiernan (talk) 06:38, 12 August 2014 (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:Dukes of Clarence and Avondale

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 12:38, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is only one holder of this title. Categories containing one item are not useful. DrKiernan (talk) 06:35, 12 August 2014 (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:Ice hockey people from Detroit

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: Upmerge all to both the respective city's sportspeople category (as listed in the nomination) and to the state/province ice hockey category. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 05:09, 20 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Also propose merging
Category:Ice hockey people from Cranston, Rhode Island to Category:Sportspeople from Cranston, Rhode Island
Category:Ice hockey people from Anchorage, Alaska to Category:Sportspeople from Anchorage, Alaska
Category:Ice hockey people from Cranston, Rhode Island to Category:Sportspeople from Cranston, Rhode Island
Category:Ice hockey people from Buffalo, New York to Category:Sportspeople from Buffalo, New York
Category:Ice hockey people from Rochester, New York to Category:Sportspeople from Rochester, New York
Category:Ice hockey people from Sterling Heights, Michigan to Category:Sportspeople from Sterling Heights, Michigan
Category:Ice hockey people from Livonia, Michigan to Category:Sportspeople from Livonia, Michigan
Category:Ice hockey people from Weymouth, Massachusetts to Category:Sportspeople from Weymouth, Massachusetts
Category:Ice hockey people from Kelowna to Category:Sportspeople from Kelowna
Category:Ice hockey people from Milton, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Milton, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Duluth, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Duluth, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from White Bear Lake, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from White Bear Lake, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Grand Rapids, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Grand Rapids, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Yorkton to Category:Sportspeople from Yorkton
Category:Ice hockey people from Eveleth, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Eveleth, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Saint Paul, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Saint Paul, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Bloomington, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Bloomington, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Hibbing, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Hibbing, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Edina, Minnesota to Category:Sportspeople from Edina, Minnesota
Category:Ice hockey people from Thunder Bay to Category:Sportspeople from Thunder Bay
Category:Ice hockey people from Kitchener, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Kitchener, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Greater Sudbury to Category:Sportspeople from Greater Sudbury
Category:Ice hockey people from Kingston, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Kingston, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Hamilton, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Hamilton, Ontario
Category:Ice hockey people from Windsor, Ontario to Category:Sportspeople from Windsor, Ontario
Nominator's rationale: As per previous CFDs[1] and this one[2], we don't subcategorize per what type of athlete a person is. ...William 00:08, 12 August 2014 (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.
More