Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 15



Category:Severed Heads

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting severed heads


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:35, 15 October 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:Scouting for Girls

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:09, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting scouting for girls


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete. I agree with the nom. It is also confusing with the categories about Girl Scouts and Girl Guides. -- Bduke   (Discussion)  01:04, 16 October 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:Works by Szidi Tobias

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Works by Szidi Tobias to Category:Szidi Tobias
 * Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization, just upmerge —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:49, 15 October 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:Porcupine Tree images

 * 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) 13:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Porcupine Tree images to Category:Porcupine Tree album covers
 * Nominator's rationale: That's what they are. cf. Category:album covers by recording artists. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 17:57, 15 October 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:Anahuac Univeristies

 * 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) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Anahuac Univeristies to Category:Anahuac universities
 * Nominator's rationale: Typo. (Thanks to User:RoyFocker for raising this on my talk page.) —Tom Morris (talk) 13:35, 15 October 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:University librarians

 * 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) 13:11, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:University librarians to Category:Academic librarians
 * Nominator's rationale: The term Academic librarian is more commonly used, and it also allows using the category for Academic librarians working in college and other academic-level libraries. DGtal (talk) 09:57, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Rename also the term "university librarian" often is a designation of the head of the library, while there will in most universities be many people who count as academic librarians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:27, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment is this for librarians and library administrators working at a tertiary education institution's library, or researchers working in the field of library science ? -- 70.24.247.66 (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * The former, which is very evident from what the subcats are.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 19 October 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:Omidiyeh County geography 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: keep. Qetuth's advice on how to build a stub category could avoid such issues in future. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:29, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting omidiyeh county geography stubs


 * Nominator's rationale: Currently empty, only 3 articles seem to belong here. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep, obviously Moronic gun jumping. I created all the county stub categories - as approved in the stub categories for creation. And have been diligently populating them since. In a few short weeks this will have to be recreated in any event, now it's just a frustration that no one can plan and build ahead without some busybody trying to tear things down before it can be populated. A waste of everyone's time and effort. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep but amend stub template so that it populates  - this would become an upmerged stub template as described at WP:WSS/P. -- Red rose64 (talk) 17:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep: No longer underpopulated, was approved at proposals. For future reference, this is why we often create upmerged stub templates first then the category later after much of the tagging has been done: Populating a template takes at least 60 edits and sometimes some searching or other work. Once that's done, populating a category takes only 1 edit, so this saves leaving an empty category sitting around for more than a few seconds. --Qetuth (talk) 02:12, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep as sufficiently large.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 26 October 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:Piirpauke 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting piirpauke albums


 * Nominator's rationale: Redlink artist —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:50, 15 October 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:Paula Seling

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:13, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting paula seling


 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content--eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:42, 15 October 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.

Lesbian actors

 * 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 gender-neutral term "actors". – Fayenatic  L ondon 19:43, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Lesbian actors to Category:Lesbian actresses
 * Propose renaming Category:Lesbian pornographic film actors to Category:Lesbian pornographic film actresses
 * Propose renaming Category:Bisexual female pornographic film actors to Category:Bisexual female pornographic film actresses
 * Propose renaming Category:Transsexual female pornographic film actors to Category:Transsexual female pornographic film actresses
 * Nominator's rationale: Actresses is the term for female actors, and lesbians are female. The current category names just jars for me. Also fits with hight level cat Category:Actresses. --Salix (talk): 08:18, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose. The term actress is as antique today as poetess. It is only used where necessary to make a distnction as it most certainly is not in these instances. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 14:19, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Which probably explains why all featured articles on female thespians use the term actress in their bios. WP:FA --Salix (talk): 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, they don't see Helen Mirren among others. You will also want to note last February's Acadamy Awards telecast where, during the In Memorium segment, the women, including Elizabeth Taylor, who had passed away were labelled as Actor when their pictures were shown. MarnetteD | Talk 19:23, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW the use of the word lesbian already denotes gender. MarnetteD | Talk 19:39, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Oppose Same with aviatrix, the gender specific job titles are no longer used. --Richard Arthur Norton (1958- ) (talk) 16:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose Same with comedienne. Gender neutral terminology is covered by wikipolicy. Also as this edit shows there is precedent for moving away from the term actress for categories. MarnetteD | Talk 15:54, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * shouldn't exist at all, actually. This is not a case where gender segregation is useful or warranted, as there's no particularly meaningful or encyclopedic distinction between being an "actor" and being an "actress" beyond what type of sexy bits happen to be sitting between your legs while you're doing it. There might be a case for renaming the whole tree to "Actors and actresses" (though I'd certainly rather we didn't), but there's no valid case to be made for having separate categories for male "actors" and female "actresses". Oppose. Bearcat (talk) 18:15, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Men and women have separate careers in acting: the vast majority of roles are open only to people of one sex. This is recognised in all the major cinematic awards, which offer separate prizes for men and women. Categorising separately recognises the reality of a gendered profession, just as we do in gendered sports. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 01:16, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * As I pointed out in a previous discussion, the problem is that while "singers" and "hockey players" and the like can easily be divided into distinct gender categories because there's a natural ungendered parent for them (ungendered "singers" parenting "male singers" and "female singers", etc.), there's no ungendered category that can parent distinct male "actors" and female "actresses" categories -- because "actors" itself is simultaneously both the ungendered parent term and the "gendered" one for men, the female category can only ever be a child of the "male" one rather than the two being sibling children of a common parent, which means that the categories cannot be gendered because there's no way to do so without ghettoizing the women. Bearcat (talk) 14:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's not a very solid argument. "Singers" is indeed a natural ungendered parent, so and is "actors". The same solution can work for both. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:35, 29 October 2012 (UTC)


 * NB Category:Actresses is a category redirect, so there's no validity in the argument that these categories should be renamed to match the top-level category. BencherliteTalk 16:18, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * It wasn't a redirect at the time the initial nomination was made with that as a rationale -- it got speedy redirected afterward, in accordance with WP:CATGRS and past CFD consensus. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 16 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Support the claim that actress is obsolete is just hogwash.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:29, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Support the change seems better wording .MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 19:26, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose. I'm unconvinced that this gender segregation helps the reader.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:36, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Comment However either way we have gender segregation. If you want to end this being a gender-specific category you should urge it be merged to Category:LGBT actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I mean specifically the use of "actresses." "Lesbian" is of course gender segregated.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:42, 15 November 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:Outlandish

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting outlandish


 * Nominator's rationale: Very little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:10, 15 October 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:The Dirty Mac

 * 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:The Dirty Mac members and discard the non-members (which I'll leave to editorial discretion) - jc37 00:58, 15 November 2012 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting the dirty mac


 * Nominator's rationale: Just a collection of the musicians in this one-off supergroup. The main article can be subcategorized by those musicians if anything. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 05:36, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep - It's not "Just a collection of the musicians"; it also contains the main article and other related articles. It's a nice way of grouping the articles together. What's the point of deleting it?  McLerristarr &#124;  Mclay1  04:07, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:The Dirty Mac members and discard the non-members. (Standard procedure is to subcat members, songs, albums etc. The album present does not seem to be a 'Dirty Mac album' however.) Oculi (talk) 14:29, 2 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rename to Category:The Dirty Mac members and discard the non-members.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:37, 11 November 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.

LGBT actors

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting lgbt actors from england


 * Propose deleting lgbt actors from scotland


 * Nominator's rationale: Also per past CFD consensus, actors are not one of the categories for which the LGBT Wikiproject desires by-nationality subcategorization (as witness the fact that most of the comparable categories for other countries don't even exist); there's no substantive or encyclopedic difference between being an "LGBT actor from England" or an "LGBT actor from Germany". Delete. Bearcat (talk) 04:06, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete following Categories for discussion/Log/2012 February 15, its actually a weaker case for a category than comedians, for comedians their routines may build on their sexuality but actors its does not. --Salix (talk): 08:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete actor cats have less justification for this type of subdivision than do comedian cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 19 October 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:Gay men by nationality

 * 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 October 30. -- Brown HairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)


 * Propose deleting gay men by nationality


 * Propose deleting gay men from argentina


 * Propose deleting gay men from australia


 * Propose deleting gay men from austria


 * Propose deleting gay men from chile


 * Propose deleting gay men from china


 * Propose deleting gay men from cuba


 * Propose deleting gay men from denmark


 * Propose deleting gay men from england


 * Propose deleting gay men from finland


 * Propose deleting gay men from france


 * Propose deleting gay men from germany


 * Propose deleting gay men from greece


 * Propose deleting gay men from hungary


 * Propose deleting gay men from india


 * Propose deleting gay men from iran


 * Propose deleting gay men from israel


 * Propose deleting gay men from korea


 * Propose deleting gay men from nigeria


 * Propose deleting gay men from norway


 * Propose deleting gay men from pakistan


 * Propose deleting gay men from the philippines


 * Propose deleting gay men from portugal


 * Propose deleting gay men from romania


 * Propose deleting gay men from russia


 * Propose deleting gay men from scotland


 * Propose deleting gay men from singapore


 * Propose deleting gay men from south africa


 * Propose deleting gay men from spain


 * Propose deleting gay men from seden


 * Propose deleting gay men from taiwan


 * Propose deleting gay men fromthe united kingdom


 * Propose deleting gay men from wales


 * Nominator's rationale: Per numerous past discussions, the LGBT Wikiproject does not want overcategorization of this type. is an entirely sufficient layer of categorization at the nationality level, and does not need to be split out into separate subcategories for L, G, B and T people -- that level of subcategorization is warranted only in a very few specialized cases where a single merged LGBT category becomes extremely large and unwieldy, and the subcategories have already been created in every single case where that applies. In this case, however, it's just an unnecessary and unwanted triple intersection which is generating a lot of unnecessarily small categories with just two, three or four entries each. Delete all. Bearcat (talk) 03:47, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Comment. I'm split on this. I see a category with only 5 or less entries as being possibly over-categorized, but the second one I looked at has 69 entries. And in looking to find the L, the G, the B, and the T in a very large group - of even 20 articles - is arguably taxing to those seeking this information. Perhaps there could be a cut-off if there are only 2-4 entries the category is upmerged but leave the rest? Over time various factions of L's, G's, B's and T's, etc., have sought to find identity and culture within the larger LGBTQIXYZ umbrella so it would seem to be a benefit to have these categories as the numbers are only likely to grow. Insomesia (talk) 12:22, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * There are certainly a few categories where it's appropriate to separate the gay men and the lesbians and the bisexuals and the transfolk into distinct subcategories instead of keeping them together in a single merged category -- but there are many more where it's not a particularly useful or helpful thing for us to do. "LGBT people by nationality" categories are of the latter type, not the former. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Keep Gay men by country is just valid a categorization as gay men by occupation etc.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Except that we don't do it for most occupations either. There are only three or four occupations for which we allow the splitout (and even then only due to sheer raw size, not because it's actually a useful distinction for an encyclopedia to make); for the remainder we have merged "LGBT" cats and specifically disallow separating them into distinct subcategories for each individual quadrant. In other words, it's an invalid categorization in most cases, so if this one's "just as valid" then that ain't saying much for its validity. Bearcat (talk) 17:41, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * If we have lgbt people by country why not split it further into the likes of these. If anything they are more accurate as the cat wording is what the contained people are most commonly and specificly described as.MaybeMaybeMaybe (talk) 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Firstly, the splitout introduces gender segregation into the category system in a place where it isn't needed -- we don't do gendered categories for the sake of gendered categories, but rather restrict them to cases where the gender category is itself a genuinely encyclopedic phenomenon (e.g. the extensive volume of academic and social research into the evolving role of ). This, however, is a case where the gender distinction isn't the salient point of the category -- there's no meaningful difference between being a "gay man from England" and being a "lesbian from England" beyond that which is already inherent in the distinction between male and female (which is, again, not a distinction that we categorize on for its own sake.) What we care about for the purposes of the "LGBT people by nationality" tree is cultural identification with the broadly-constituted LGBT community as a whole, and not about the gender distinction. And secondly, it predominantly results in subcategories that are too small to be legitimate as per WP:OCAT. We only allow the splitout in a few specific cases where a merged "LGBT" cat would be populated in the thousands; it is not acceptable (or needed) in cases where the parent category has only seven or eight or 15 articles total. Bearcat (talk) 18:04, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * These categories however do not fit that definition - Avoid categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme - they are only going to get larger. I can see upmerging the categories that only have a handful but even the parent categories have large numbers in many cases. I say selectively upmerge only the smallest and allow recreation.


 * Delete per nom, WP:OVERCAT. Brandmeistertalk  23:20, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep the largest/Upmerge the smallest (for now), separating out which of the LGBT individuals is actually G, L, B and T, etc is a recurring facet of the LGBT experience, in a communities of minority communities searching for identity and culture. Yes, some of these are small categories but some are certainly not. And it is useful for those looking for the information to know which of hundreds of LGBT people are L, G, B and T for a variety of reasons. And logically these groups are all going to increase in size. Insomesia (talk) 23:40, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete there is no good level to split out LGBT at the national level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course there is, by nation and by the subgroup of being gay rather than lesbian, bisexual and transgender. This is noted in each article. Insomesia (talk) 18:49, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Question why do we not name these categories Category:Cuban gay men and such like every other by nationality category that uses that form. Why is this the one place where we change it from Fooian bars to bars from foo?John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 26 October 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:Works by Marika Gombitová

 * 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. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:16, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Works by Marika Gombitová to Category:Marika Gombitová
 * Nominator's rationale: Per other musicians categories and the fact that these are basically redundant as "works" —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:46, 15 October 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.

Mannheim Steamroller seasonal 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:17, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Mannheim Steamroller Halloween albums to Category:Mannheim Steamroller albums and Category:Halloween albums
 * Propose merging Category:Mannheim Steamroller Christmas albums to Category:Mannheim Steamroller albums and Category:Christmas albums by American artists
 * Nominator's rationale: It's not necessary to break them up by artist and genre--similar precedents include Category:Paul McCartney classical albums and other Christmas albums by artist. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:27, 15 October 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:Ma, Meyer, O'Connor 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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:18, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Ma, Meyer, O'Connor albums to Category:all parent artist categories
 * Nominator's rationale: Ma, Meyer, O'Connor is a redlink--these are just collaborative albums and can be recategorized by the three individual artists. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:08, 15 October 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:Harry Potter actors
<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: speedy delete due to mountains of precedents.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting harry potter actors


 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OC, we do not categorize people in this way. This is particularly true given that, while their roles in Harry Potter may be defining for some of the actors, especially ones still near the beginning of their careers, for others they range from utterly trivial to simply another role in a great career. (This has probably been created and deleted before.) –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 02:38, 15 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Delete Film and television categories like this were deprecated several years ago. Once you start down this road you can wind up with articles with more categories than main article info. MarnetteD | Talk 03:21, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Delete Per OVERCAT and long-standing precedent not to have these type of categories.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 17:51, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Avada Kedavra as the recreation of deleted content - "whatlinkshere" shows it was deleted as part of the grand debate in 2007 about the whole "actors by series" tree. Alternatively, Evanesco per extensive precedent and per Overcategorization which explicitly mentions "actors by series" as an example of what not to do. Speedy / normal delete, in other words. BencherliteTalk 18:07, 15 October 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.