< March 1 March 3 >

March 2

Georgia to Georgia (country)

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:28, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. These rename proposals were opposed in the speedy rename section (see discussion copied below) because disambiguation is unneeded. It has become a convention (very well established, in my opinion) that we always disambiguate "Georgia" in category names to match the ultimate parent Category:Georgia (country) (or Category:Georgia (U.S. state)), even when a good argument can be made that in the specific case disambiguation is unnecessary. Compare, for instance, Category:Georgia (country) at the Olympics and Category:Olympic competitors for Georgia (country). This issue has been discussed a number of times and in my opinion has reached the stage where such changes should continue to be accepted under speedy criterion C2B. These are currently the only categories I can find that refer to the country of Georgia that are not disambiguated in this way. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:11, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
Oppose Georgia the US state does not compete at the World Championships in Athletics so there are no grounds for confusion. Compare for example Georgia at the Olympics. SFB 21:11, 27 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Support per consistency with Georgia country and US state articles, which use parenthetical disambiguators by default. -- 70.51.200.101 (talk) 00:05, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
My gosh, we've been through this issue so many times in full CFDs. We always end up adding the parenthetical—it's seriously getting to "waste of time" stage to continue to send these there. @Sillyfolkboy: you point of Georgia at the Olympics, but note that the corresponding category is Category:Georgia (country) at the Olympics. The categories are always disambiguated to match the parent Category:Georgia (country). Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:14, 1 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory: Perhaps a little tiresome, but I don't see any other way of challenging the idea that we should disambiguate things that are unambiguous. Note that I'm happy for the other nominated Georgia categories to proceed due to their inherent ambiguity. This should only take quick comments from a couple of others if I'm in the minority in this case. SFB 00:13, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Sillyfolkboy: I understand why users would oppose it. It just seems to me that there should come a point where the issue is considered more or less settled, and that even those who disagree with the consensus should allow the previous consensus to be used to make speedy changes consistent with that consensus. (We've quite literally had several dozen discussions on this exact same topic.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:22, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Good Olfactory: I think it's fine as long as it isn't repeatedly the same sole person objecting to the same point, or if the point is clearly an inadequate one. While I can see you frustration, I think any alternative is to make consensus ossified, which isn't desirable at all. I don't think it too burdensome to wait a week for a couple of people to support you – or perhaps it gets more drawn out, which would suggest that a full discussion was warranted. SFB 19:05, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
You're right—these Georgia ones sometimes do get opposed, but it's not typically the same user. That would be more of a problem if it was one user opposing on the same issue repeatedly. I don't regard it as a personal burden on me to take it to a full CFD, but in the grand scheme of things it starts to be a bit tedious and bureaucratic and calls into question why we have speedy criteria at all if there are worries about ossification of consensus. In any case, I'll move this to a full CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2015 (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:Nancy Ajram

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 09:34, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Strange category to have it seems-also given that it has a bunch of categories in it that wouldn't go in a category (like living people and 1983 births) Wgolf (talk) 22:03, 2 March 2015 (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 about food

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. MER-C 12:10, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This list is just a collection of "songs" that have a food mentioned in the title. Hardly defining. Then, at least two of these songs that are "About food" are instrumentals. A Taste of Honey is nothing to do with honey, but it is included here. Most of the entries in this category do not state what the subject matter of the lyrics are so should NOT be included in the category. That, my friends, is why these "about" categories are pointless and a waste of time. That's without mentioning parable, metaphor and other literary tricks used in lyric writing. Richhoncho (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2015 (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:Wikipedians with red-linked categories on their user talk page

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, but do not empty. MER-C 12:11, 11 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The creation of this category defeated its very purpose. It was intended as a humorous self-referential category which must itself be red. There are currently eleven pages in the category, and in ten of those, this had been the only non-existent category; by creating the category, it no longer applies to most of its members. Note that when this is deleted, a bot should not remove it from the pages which use it. MANdARAX • XAЯAbИAM 19:14, 2 March 2015 (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:Television programs set in grocery stores

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 12:07, 5 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. A category for this particular setting is believed to be unnecessary. NeoBatfreak (talk) 18:50, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comments below make good points about this form of categorization potentially being a mess. DexDor (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2015 (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:Briton deities

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:Deities of the ancient Britons, Category:Gods of the ancient Britons and Category:Goddesses of the ancient Britons. – Fayenatic London 19:22, 9 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Using "Briton" as an adjective is awkward (this might have been standard usage for a while during the 18th century or so, but it's not now). The alternative adjectives aren't very satisfactory: "Britannic" sounds too Victorian, "British" is immediately understood to refer to something else (i.e. pertaining to the Kingdom of Great Britain and its successor states), and "Brythonic" and "Brittonic" are a bit technical-sounding and belong properly to the domain of linguistics, not religion. "Category:Deities of ancient Britain" seems like the best solution to me. I'm open to suggestions, but "Briton deities" just grates on my ear. The same goes for the subcategories "Category:Briton gods" and "Category:Briton goddesses", which should be renamed to match what we decide for "Briton deities". Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:38, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support alternative's principle, maybe even easier is: Category:Deities of the Britons. (And if "ancient" really needs to be added, it's probably with a lowercase.) Marcocapelle (talk) 21:42, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not a bad idea. (And thanks for giving feedback on this proposal!) I do think "ancient" is probably advisable to avoid chronological confusion. Now, in some cases, changing the focus to ethnicity, rather than territory, might complicate matters (for example there are one or two deities worshipped by Germanic soldiers stationed along Hadrian's Wall; they definitely belong to the history of Roman Britain, while people interested in Germanic religion are less interested in them). But perhaps the category is more interested in ethnicity than territory after all. Q·L·1968 ☿ 23:40, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also a possibility. The disadvantage is this: figures from Welsh mythology (or even Cornish and Breton folklore) would creep into the category, and the articles pertaining to the ancient Britons would be submerged. Also "Brythonic" is, I suspect, not a widely known term outside of linguistics circles (and Wales itself, presumably). Q·L·1968 ☿ 18:49, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a thought. My idea had been that by saying "ancient" we could include the Roman period for sure, while at least implying we were covering the pre-Roman period too. (There's much less material for that period, so it tends to be annexed onto the Roman period.) Sub-Roman Britain too, to the extent that paganism continued there.
    So far we seem to be evenly divided between those who want a territorial designation ("of ancient Britain" or "of Roman Britain") and those who want an ethnic one ("of the Britons" or "of the ancient Britons"). Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:39, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems pretty obvious that it should be by ethnicity. Otherwise we would need to include Roman deities in this category as well. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:03, 4 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be in favour of moving to Category:Deities of the ancient Britons. Wikipedia generally seems to use more of an ethnic than a territorial organizational scheme for things like this. IMO, "ancient" is just ambiguous enough to cover pre- and sub-Roman Britain (which we want), and clear enough to avoid confusion with the UK since 1707. Q·L·1968 ☿ 17:29, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd be happy with it, although I think that "ancient" is redundant in this case. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:30, 17 March 2015 (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:Albanian former Shia Muslims

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. MER-C 12:25, 13 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This currently only contains Enver Hoxha. The parent category was just merged to Albanian Sufis, see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 22#Category:Albanian Shia Muslims. Hoxha's father was a Bektashi, and they are Sufis rather than Shias, but I do not think we need to categorise him so precisely, in the absence of any info about personal religious allegiance on the part of Enver Hoxha. – Fayenatic London 15:36, 2 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • But the point of the outcome on Category:Albanian Shia Muslims was that the Bektashis are not Shia but Sufi, so merging to "former Shia Muslims" would be incorrect. – Fayenatic London 16:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Catholic category is subdivided by the new religious conviction of the former Catholics, but this kind of information is often lacking for former Shia Muslim people. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:38, 8 March 2015 (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:Audio Adrenaline songs

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:38, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Two entries? Not at all necessary. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:14, 2 March 2015 (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:Nine Lashes albums

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:39, 10 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Minor band with three albums to date. Not needed. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:01, 2 March 2015 (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