Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 17



Category:Lesbians

 * 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) 04:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting lesbians


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete as completely unnecessary, general category; scores of categories already exist under Category:LGBT people and Category:Lesbians by occupation, for instance. Quis separabit?  22:27, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * keep This category is a useful one, especially to categorize people who don't have a category that already exists - many such cats have recently been deleted because they represented a non-defining intersection. --KarlB (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * keep. Even if all articles about lesbians were placed in a subcategory, the category would be keepable as a container category to hold the lesbians by occupation categories. Generally, I don't think lesbians should be broken down by occupation. They should be in an LGBT category by occupation and in the general category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep. It is Category:Lesbians by occupation that is superfluous and could be safely upmerged to Category:Lesbians (as there is no other subcat scheme for the latter). Oculi (talk) 00:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in light of in-progress deletion of occupation categories. Good Ol'factory's suggestion sounds right. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep proper container category and there are always some that aren't broken into subcats by their job.RafikiSykes (talk) 18:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this category is of such a nature that it should only have subcats, but we have decided that really everything should be categorized as LGBT. The current hybrid metho just leads to cat clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep with caveat that only people whose reason for notability is being a lesbian - that is, activists, entertainers who openly discuss it, things like that. We should make sure not to throw in someone who "happens to be a lesbian", just as we don't do that for Christians. D O N D E groovily   Talk to me  04:12, 20 May 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:Black Welsh sportspeople

 * 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 to  and . Timrollpickering (talk) 12:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting black welsh sportspeople


 * Nominator's rationale: Historically, 'triple intersection' categories like this one have usually been deleted. From WP:EGRS: 'Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.' I'm not convinced 'Black Welsh sportspeople' is a topic that has been the subject of such attention, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Robofish (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. If deleted, should it not be merged to and ? Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:49, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why pick the Welsh out of ? (It is customary to split 'British' cats into constituent subcats.) Oculi (talk) 23:59, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, I simply came across this category as the only subcat of Category:Black Welsh people and it struck me as odd and probably unnecessary. Category:Black British sportspeople is probably worth keeping, but I don't see the need to further divide it into national subcategories. Robofish (talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete this is a categorization by race. We do not categorize by race.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually more of an ethnicity, since "Black British" (and hence "Black Welsh") is a well-recognised ethnicity in the UK and is included in census forms, government statistics, etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:19, 20 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Merge to  and .  I agree with the nominator's concern that this is not a notable intersection, but per  Good Ol’factory the solution is upmerger rather than deletion. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:09, 25 May 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:Hertzsprung-Russell classifications

 * 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 (i.e. no rename). -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:51, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Hertzsprung-Russell classifications to Category:Hertzsprung–Russell classification
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Normally article matching would apply, but it would be bizarre to name the category Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, so propose simple switch to singular form as there is only one Hertzsprung–Russell classification, not several. Brand meister talk   21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose what do you mean there's only one? There's many, like asymptotic giant branch stars, or red clump stars, or main sequence stars. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment the classifications are derived from the placement of stars on the H-R diagram, so the category is not about the diagram, but classifications derived from the diagram. As the diagram itself is not the classification, it is not singular. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose There's one system, but many classifications in the system. Should stay plural.Benkenobi18 (talk) 14:59, 18 May 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:B-side 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: delete. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:55, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting b-side songs


 * Nominator's rationale: These songs are united by the fact that they were on the back sides of different singles. They have no real connection to each other, and it's hard to imagine the utility of trying to make such a connection.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * keep I think it's a useful collection to browse through. People actually make lists of B-sides that eventually became important (see . --KarlB (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete – this would be much better as a list. The criteria merely state "Songs that are B-sides to singles", which must apply to thousands of notable songs. (It seems to me that this is tangential to the song, however well-known its B-side existence might be.) Oculi (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete. I will however raise the question of, would Category:B-side songs that charted or some such make sense?  If done, would limiting to that be reasonable.  However would navigation here be better served by a list? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Note that this category was nominated previously (see WP:CFD/2011 Aug 2). I will abstain this time around, however. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 09:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per my last non. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:34, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete we should categorize songs by traits of the songs, not placement within retailing packages.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete per nom and per John Pack Lambert's pertinent comment.--Richhoncho (talk) 19:31, 20 May 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:Jazzland Records 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: no consensus, which defaults to "keep". A bizarre nomination with a rationale which makes no sense to me, and an alternate proposal which is equally unclear. However, the nominator's alternate proposal involves no action at CfD and is supported by one other editor, so the clear outcome is to do nothing.  However, since it's unclear exactly what was being rejected, I am labelling the close as "no consensus", to leave open the option of a further nomination if anyone wants to explain what this is all about. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose merging Category:Jazzland Records albums to Category:Jazzland Records (1960) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Per Jazzland Records/Jazzland Records (1960s)/Jazzland Recordings. Alternate proposal: Close this CfD to retarget Jazzland Records and put a hatnote there directing users to Jazzland Recordings (this seems like the wiser option to me.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:17, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Agree with Aternate Proposal DISEman (talk) 00:53, 18 May 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:Articles using divbox template

 * 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 delete as housekeeping (G6). BencherliteTalk 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting articles using divbox template


 * Nominator's rationale: Temporary cleanup category. The template which added pages to this category has now been edited so that it does not display on articles, so there is no longer a need to track inappropriate transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:19, 17 May 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:Frenetic Records 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.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:10, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting frenetic records albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Redlink label —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:50, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 19 May 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:Media workers in the West Midlands (region)

 * 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) 00:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting media workers in the west midlands (region)


 * Nominator's rationale: Categorising media workers by sub-national region seems to me to be a recipe for category clutter, since many journalists and broadcasters move between regions in search of employment. AFAICS there are no other "media workers in Foo" categories (see this search), and there are no no other  categories containing the phrase "media workers" (see this search).  -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom. Oculi (talk) 14:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete in this case it is even worse than "sub-national" because technically the nation is the United Kingdom, England is the sub-nation, and so the West Midlands is in some ways a tertiary region.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 19 May 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:Showbiz TV shows

 * 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 as nominated. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Showbiz TV shows to Category:Television series about show business
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Showbiz" is slang and "TV" is an abbreviation. 68.190.166.40 (talk) 06:46, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nom. Brand meister talk   21:42, 17 May 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:Media in East Midlands region, England

 * 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) 18:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Media in East Midlands region, England to Category:Media in the East Midlands
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. East Midlands is not ambiguous; add article for better grammar. Tim! (talk) 06:30, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per everything else in Category:East Midlands. Oculi (talk) 13:58, 17 May 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:Radio stations in the West Midlands

 * 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) 12:11, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Radio stations in the West Midlands to Category:Radio stations in the West Midlands (region)
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. Ambiguous, seems to be for the West Midlands (region) rather than West Midlands (county) judging by parent Category:Media in the West Midlands (region). Tim! (talk) 06:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator for clarity. should be created as a subcat, and Category:Radio stations in the West Midlands recreated as a disambiguation category. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 17 May 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:World Circuit 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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 12:12, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:World Circuit albums to Category:World Circuit (record label) albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Per World Circuit. Alternate proposal: Close this and rename that page with a hatnote for the other use. (This is probably the wiser decision.) —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:05, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename to match head article World Circuit (record label), and to avoid ambiguity. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:04, 24 May 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:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated 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: [[Image:Symbol move vote.svg|16px|link=|alt=]] Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 26. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wu-tang clan affiliated albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Wu-Tang have marketed themselves as a brand and have a near-infinite group of extended affiliates. Previous discussions about categorizing albums as side-projects of a main artist have resulted in deletion. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Meaningful categorization with a clear scope and an accompanying list List of Wu-Tang Clan affiliate albums. I don't see the problem. This is best understood as a variant of Category:Albums by record label. Pichpich (talk) 19:41, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response But it's not a record label. How is this any different than Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_October_3? —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:03, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know it's not a record label. I'm saying it's as defining as a record label and for similar reasons. There's definitely a Wu-Tang sound and a Wu-Tang approach to rap. Pichpich (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. Like the nominator, it is my understanding that we have agreed several times by consensus not to categorize albums for being a side project or affiliated project of another musical group. I'm not familiar enough with rap or Wu-Tang to argue whether or not this is defining, but based solely on precedence, I would have thought this category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:10, 24 May 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:Think Fast! Records 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: withdrawn by nominator.  Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:57, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting think fast! records albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Redlink record label —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:21, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Now a blue link. Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC).


 * Response Withdrawn, then. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 19 May 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:Galatians

 * 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) 12:13, 25 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Galatians to Category:Ancient Galatians
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. This category is for the people from Galatia, but the primary meaning of Galatians is probably the Epistle to the Galatians—that's where Galatians redirects to. If we rename it, the meaning becomes clear. The proposed name would make it similar to other category names which without the "Ancient" could be confused with books in the bible, such as, , etc. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:20, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename per nominator. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename I immediately thought of the epistle, not the people group. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename Per nom, and exact example in "Ephesians". Benkenobi18 (talk) 15:00, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 19 May 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:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums
<div class="boilerplate vfd" style="background:#bff9fc; margin:0 auto; padding:0 10px 0 10px; border:1px solid #AAAAAA;">
 * 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. There was a local consensus here to change the infobox so that it populates this category, but that solution may be best discussed at WikiProject Albums before action is taken. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting wikipedia requested photographs of albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicates Category:Album infoboxes lacking a cover, which is automatically added and removed by infobox usage. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:54, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Although the infobox method it is the best is not widely known (a hidden category) or can it address all cases. More people are aware of the reqphoto template and often added it to the talk page of album articles. The imageneeded parameter in the talk page WikiProject Albums is also occasionally used. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums also allows for additional requests for images on a page that has a cover image or to request album covers for non album articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose per . I would prefer changing the infobox template to update Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums. —Tim Pierce (talk) 13:21, 18 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Response This is probably the best option, actually. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:12, 19 May 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.