Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 August 27



Category:Doping

 * 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. per C2B (disambiguation required) and C2C (lies between Category:Drugs in sport and Category:Doping cases in sport in the tree). Renamed to Category:Doping in sport as the tree uses the singular, not the plural. -  The Bushranger One ping only 02:01, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Doping to Category:Doping in sports
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. doping is a disamiguation page, so this category name is highly ambiguous. It only covers doping in sports, not doping in semiconductors, or construction materials, etc. 76.65.128.252 (talk) 23:37, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Support per nom as a means of establishing clarity. See also Talk:Use_of_performance-enhancing_drugs_in_sport. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 00:05, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Wold Newton

 * 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 as Category disambiguation page. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:24, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting wold newton


 * Nominator's rationale: Probably speedily. A cat page that is trying to be a dab page! Note that there is a Wold Newton dab page. -- Alan Liefting (talk - contribs) 22:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete, speedily as described. I see no potential for this as a category. Mangoe (talk) 23:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, plausible category. I cleaned it up by applying the Category disambiguation template. - Eureka Lott 03:22, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That's the template I couldn't seem to find. keep, as an empty place, as per the disambiguation template - to avoid two mostly unrelated topic being confused for each other.Oranjblud (talk) 03:26, 29 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is a dab-category page for a family and a place. The family is adequately populated.  I am dubious as to whether the place is big enough to warrant having a category for its three articles, but it does not seem wholly objewctionable to me.  Peterkingiron (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2012 (UTC)
 * By the way, Category:Wold Newton family (literature) should be watched because of its tendency to attract fancruft. I removed a few members, but it probably could use more pruning. - Eureka Lott 02:00, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Electro rock

 * 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 and create subcategory Category:Electro rock groups. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:33, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Electro rock to Category:Electro rock music groups
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Of the 25 entries in this category 23 are groups playing this music genre. The remaining two are an album and an individual musician. __meco (talk) 16:04, 2 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep existing Category:Electro rock and create Category:Electro rock groups; the current category is in two parent by-genre categories and should be kept as an appropriate parent cat for the -groups subcat. - The Bushranger One ping only 06:58, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.


 * Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 13:10, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep and create 3 subcats per example of Category:Dub music; albums, groups, musicians. Oculi (talk) 15:25, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep existing Category:Electro rock and create Category:Electro rock groups per Bushranger. tahc chat 06:02, 30 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece

 * The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.


 * The result of the discussion was: relisted at CfD 2012 September 16. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:49, 16 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece to Category:Ancient Greek sites in Greece
 * Nominator's rationale: Merge. No others in Category:Ancient Greek sites by country have a sub-cat called "archaeological", and neither category explains what the intended difference was (if any). I'm open to a reverse merge (probably leaving a redirect) to avoid ambiguity. – Fayenatic  L ondon 11:57, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep -- Category:Ancient Greek archaeological sites in Greece, but distribute the contents of Category:Ancient Greek sites in Greece between it and Category:Ancient Greek cities. I am not sure why we need Category:Ancient Greek sites in Europe as a separate category: it seems an unnecessary level of categorisation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per nom. I wonder if it is really true that all archeological sites in Crete are ancient in origin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Color 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: delete. The Bushranger One ping only 05:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting color albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Completely trivial association. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:42, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to Category:Colour albums. Then delete...  Lugnuts  And the horse 09:24, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete – I'm sure we've deleted something very like this before. Cat by shared naming characteristic. Oculi (talk) 15:26, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete while this might make a bad list topic, it definitely cannot possibly be a category.(mercurywoodrose)99.35.50.219 (talk) 14:33, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * 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:Klingon-language operas

 * 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. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 06:30, 14 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting klingon-language operas


 * Nominator's rationale: There is only one Klingon-language opera (so far), but even the whole parent-category:Klingon language has just six articles, with another four more in its two sub-cats. I propose deletion of category:Klingon-language operas, but at the very least it should be broadened to Category:Klingon literature or the like. tahc chat 02:41, 27 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep – per Categories for discussion/Log/2011 July 4. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:21, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to -category:Klingon language. This is an invented language, so that it is unlikely that this can ever be adequately populated.  I appreciate the other CFD is quite recent, but we do not need to slit the parent until it is much better populated.  Peterkingiron (talk) 13:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge per PKI.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please read WP:SMALLCAT, the part after "unless".
 * I didn't point to the July 2011 CfD because it was recent, but because of its arguments to keep this category. There is no need to repeat those arguments here; however, there a need to produce new arguments for the category's deletion. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:19, 28 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an established category tree. - The Bushranger One ping only 02:07, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Any arguments last year's CFD would also apply to Category:Klingon literature, but this fact was not noted then. I think most would agree we don't need both. Since Category:Klingon literature would have 3 or 4 pages, we should still either delete category:Klingon-language operas or broadened it into Category:Klingon literature. tahc chat 05:58, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand – there is no and, as far as I can tell, there never was a Category:Klingon literature. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:55, 30 August 2012 (UTC)
 * True, but not the issue. My point is that (while we don't really need either) renaming/expanding Category:Klingon-language operas into Category:Klingon literature would be much better than keeping the Klingon-language operas, for which some folks are voting for. You may vote to rename instead of just "Keep" or "Upmerge". tahc chat 00:25, 31 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per PKI and Tahc. This isn't like, say, Category:Norwegian-language operas, which also has only one article - Norwegian is a real language and there are, or are likely to be in future, more operas in it. Compare Namárië and A Elbereth Gilthoniel; they're in Category:Middle-earth poetry. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:00, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per the WP:SMALLCAT exemption as part of an Category:Operas by language, a long established and very useful category tree. The same applies to all the other "rare" language operas including Category:Sanskrit-language operas. As I said at the previous CfD, categories exist to help the reader. You want to see what languages operas have been written in? Go to Category:Operas by language and it's all there at a glance including an idea of the relative frequency of a particular language's use for that medium. Even more importantly, you can see that operas have been written in a surprising number of languages, including "dead" ones, "obscure" ones (see Kuratov) and "invented" ones. The "only one" argument doesn't really hold any water either. For the same reader-oriented reason we categorize operas by language of the libretto, we categorize them by their composer. Hence Category:Operas by Ludwig van Beethoven. It has one member, Fidelio, and there will never be another. Are you going to argue for that category system to be abolished too so the reader can no longer see at a glance the array of composers who have written operas, and what those operas are? Actually per BEANS, I probably shouldn't have asked that. Upmerging or deleting Category:Klingon-language operas destroys the usefulness of the Category:Operas by language by making it incomplete. So far no one has named a single benefit to our readers that would result from merging/deleting. Voceditenore (talk) 16:55, 31 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep per Voceditenore, as I read the whole argument, I felt that this was a needless category until reading the argument directly above and I wholeheartedly think it should be kept. Ncboy2010 (talk) 00:36, 1 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep - well it looks like User:Voceditenore said what I was going to say, and then some : ) - jc37 19:55, 6 September 2012 (UTC)
 * This is what I wrote last time and I don't see that anything has changed since then: "Keep Aside from the many excellent arguments put above by Voceditenore etc, it's worth pointing out that Klingon (whatever you or I may think about it) is in some ways a more alive language than the kind of Italian used in, say, the libretti of Handel's operas. The one opera written in it clearly has responded on an artistic level to the aural qualities of this (created) language, and it is far from unlikely, given the position of the concept of opera in the language's (created) mythology, that this will be the end of the matter. This category is a useful tool, and that should be the end of matter".  almost - instinct 12:02, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * 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.