Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 September 28



Category:Barilla Group

 * 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. The Bushranger One ping only 13:18, 13 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting barilla group


 * Nominator's rationale: WP:OCAT, only four entries, zero chance of expansion Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:37, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep -- This is about a company with 20 divisions. We may well want articles on some of the subsidiaries.  Indeed, the Italian WP may already do so.  Peterkingiron (talk) 15:45, 29 September 2013 (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:Classical albums by date

 * 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 to delete these; I also don't see a consensus for the proposition that by-year categories should be created for every genre of albums, so I would recommend against creating them in favour of more discussion on this issue. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC)


 * Propose deleting classical albums by date


 * Subcats:
 * Category:Classical albums by decade
 * Category:Classical albums by year
 * Category:1900s classical albums
 * Category:1910s classical albums
 * Category:1930s classical albums
 * Category:1950s classical albums
 * Category:1960s classical albums
 * Category:1970s classical albums
 * Category:1940s classical albums
 * Category:1980s classical albums
 * Category:1990s classical albums
 * Category:2000s classical albums
 * Category:2010s classical albums
 * Category:1990 classical albums
 * Category:1991 classical albums
 * Category:1992 classical albums
 * Category:1993 classical albums
 * Category:1994 classical albums
 * Category:1998 classical albums
 * Category:1999 classical albums
 * Category:2000 classical albums
 * Category:1995 classical albums
 * Category:1996 classical albums
 * Category:2001 classical albums
 * Category:2002 classical albums
 * Category:1997 classical albums
 * Category:2003 classical albums
 * Category:2004 classical albums
 * Category:2006 classical albums
 * Category:2007 classical albums
 * Category:2008 classical albums
 * Category:2009 classical albums
 * Category:2010 classical albums
 * Category:2011 classical albums
 * Category:2012 classical albums
 * Category:2013 classical albums
 * Category:2005 classical albums
 * Nominator's rationale: /Merge (Listify if there is interest) There is no pre-existing scheme of Category:Albums by date and genre and no need for it as well. WP:ALBUM didn't deliberately create this scheme, nor is it a part of any project goal to segregate albums by genre and date. If you want to navigate classical albums by year, it's totally appropriate to create (e.g.) List of classical albums released in 1998 and there is some precedent to create lists of album by year and genre but not categories. Merge back into parent categories by genre/subgenre and year. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:40, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Either Keep or upmerge annual categories to decades and the equivalent annual album category. None of the annual categories seem that heavily populated.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:02, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Also see previous discussion: Categories for discussion/Log/2012 December 4. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 20:21, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep as per previous discussion and all the arguments there. The new rationale this time that rather than simply click on category to see what else is covered in each decade a list must be made manually that will not automatically be updated if new albums are added/deleted is just generating extra work to produce something much less useful. And how notable is a List of classical albums which en.wp just happens to have articles on. Such a topic is totally random and best covered by category, which is what categories are for. In ictu oculi (talk) 00:06, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Comment only. There are fundamental differences between classical music and other (pop) music which these categories do not address. Taking just one of the categories  Category:1980s classical albums, three of the entries are :-
 * Beethoven Sonatas, Volume 2, No. 3, Op. 69; No. 5 Op. 102, No. 2 which contains recordings of 19th century music on an album released in 1984 (date of recording not noted).
 * Mario Lanza Sings Songs from The Student Prince and The Desert Song is compilation of songs recorded in 1959 and released in 1989.
 * Porgy and Bess (Glyndebourne album) is a 1935 opera, recorded in 1988 and released in 1989.
 * Leaving aside that in the more pop ends of Wikipedia, different recordings of the same thing are supposed to be merged, but taking on board that in pop music there is incremental changes to style, genre etc by year in commercial music just about makes sense. Does it for classical music? Does grouping the 3 disparate entries above as 1980s classical albums actually help navigation in anyway?
 * I had started this with a firm decision to support deletion, but on reflection, feel my knowledge of classical music is not strong enough to cast a !vote. Thinking aloud with my fingers is a different matter! --Richhoncho (talk) 05:00, 1 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Keep all and expand to every genre.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:26, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Please don't expand to every genre. Most album articles are already categorized by year and by artist. The artist category is typically going to be in a genre catgory, so I don't see a need for this redundancy of categorization. It will also lead to overcategorization and more genre wars on articles. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 17:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Well edit warring is down to the individual article, so that's not really a good argurement not to do this.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 06:22, 3 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It leads to incorrect categorization that is not always going to be caught. So you want to see articles like 21 (Adele album) in Category:2011 pop albums, Category:2011 soul albums, and Category:2011 contemporary R&B albums?
 * Yes.  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:06, 5 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I would delete all, or at a minimum all for years before 1950. In addition to the issues surrounding the three specific recordings noted above, there's the matter that there were no or next to no "albums" in the 1900s or 1910s; records in those days were sold as singles, even when functioning as a set. For example, Victor issued a more or less complete acoustic recording of Cavaleria Rusticana in the teens on a mix of ten-inch and twelve-inch records that did not carry sequential catalogue numbers (quick history lesson for those not familiar: the 78 RPM records of the day played a maximum of around 4 minutes 30 seconds per 12-inch side, about a minute less for 10-inch ones, meaning that longer works were abridged to fit or split across multiple sides, generally with mid-movement breaks). These single issue records constituted a set, but not an "album," because (as far as I know) they were never offered to the public in a single binder or other container, and in fact any one of them was available for individual sale. Only in the mid-1920s did sets of records collected into bespoken multi-sleeve binders--or, to the point for this discussion, "albums," a term later carried over to LPs, which early on simply collected on one record the contents of a 78 album--and not available as singles start appearing in any numbers.  Such issues were common from that point forward, but even in the era of 78 RPM album issues there were plenty of singles--say, of individual opera arias, piano character pieces, or overtures. These latter are not properly termed "albums," but I strongly suspect that editors familiar only with records from the LP era and later will frequently categorize them as such.  Thus, at least for the duration of the 78 RPM era, the categories simply invite inaccuracy.  "Off with their heads," say I. Drhoehl (talk) 21:52, 23 October 2013 (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.

Lobbying firms

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Washington D.C. lobbying firms to Category:Lobbying firms based in Washington, D.C.
 * Propose renaming Category:Pennsylvania lobbying firms to Category:Lobbying firms based in Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Rename. To bring into line with parent categories Category:Companies based in Washington, D.C. and Category:Companies based in Pennsylvania. Discussed originally as a speedy nomination here. Tassedethe (talk) 18:30, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Category:Washington D.C. lobbying firms to Category:Washington, D.C. lobbying firms – C2B. Tassedethe (talk) 19:21, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Suggest Category:Lobbying firms based in Washington, D.C. instead of Category:Washington, D.C. lobbying firms, per the convention of Category:Companies based in Washington, D.C.—cf. Category:Law firms based in Washington, D.C.. -- Black Falcon (talk) 19:45, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Probably not speediable. There's also Category:Pennsylvania lobbying firms; do 2 cats make it an established naming convention? Tassedethe (talk) 19:57, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * You may be right, though I thought of listing the Pennsylvania category as well (per Category:Companies based in Pennsylvania). However, I don't think that two categories are sufficient to establish a convention, so maybe we do need a full discussion to establish one. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:13, 22 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Rename we use "based in" in most company cats.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2013 (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:Project-Class Mirza articles

 * 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 deletion. — Malik Shabazz Talk/Stalk 23:55, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting project-class mirza articles


 * category


 * category


 * category


 * category


 * category


 * category


 * category


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty categories created November 2012 Dougweller (talk) 13:52, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Speedy delete along with everything in Category:WikiProject Mirza articles. The whole wikiproject was created against consensus and is obviously made by someone with a major WP:COMPETENCE failure. Any article with "Mirza" in the name was tagged regardless of relevance. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:46, 28 September 2013 (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:I Am Weasel redirects

 * 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. Category:I Am Weasel characters redirects‎ was not tagged for this discussion and would therefore require a separate discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:07, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting i am weasel redirects


 * Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category; you may as well use What Links Here on List of I Am Weasel episodes. Possibly also the subcategories too. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:13, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete, and also delete Category:I Am Weasel characters redirects‎. - The Bushranger One ping only 13:19, 13 October 2013 (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:Relatives of Swami Vivekananda

 * 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) 23:08, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Relatives of Swami Vivekananda to Category:Datta family
 * Propose deleting Category:Relatives of Swami Vivekananda
 * Nominator's rationale: Consistency of categorization(this is the only "Relatives of " category currently in WP:En) and relatives-of categorization risks causing circular categorization. After the category is renamed the Swami Vivekananda article should be placed in it. DexDor (talk) 04:22, 28 September 2013 (UTC)  Changed to delete per comments below. DexDor (talk) 05:41, 29 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Datta/Dutta is a very common surname, I am also a Dutta, see Dutta. And Swami Vivekananda article should not be placed in this category. -- Tito ☸ Dutta 09:53, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Oppose if this indeed is a common name (see Datta). Liz  Read! Talk! 13:43, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete When people are just identified as amorphous "relatives" of a person even in their article, the connection is not worth categorizing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:59, 30 September 2013 (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:Charter 77 signatories

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:09, 5 November 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting charter 77 signatories


 * Nominator's rationale: Having been a signatory to something is not normally a WP:DEFINING characteristic of a person. Some of the articles in this category (example) don't even currently mention the charter. For info: This could be listified to Charter_77. Many of the (at least 242, according to the article) signatories don't currently have a WP:EN article so the category doesn't form a complete list.  An example of a previous CFD for signatories is Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_August_7.  For info: All of the articles in this category that I've checked are in a category that better describes the person - Category:Czech writers, Category:Czechoslovak democracy activists etc. DexDor (talk) 04:17, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete This is not a good way to define people. Listify if we really need to, but we don't need the category.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:01, 30 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep or create a list of Charter 77 signatories. This is an exception, in my opinion. Being a signatory to Charter 77 was and still is - to some extent - a defining characteristic of a person (at least in the Czech context, the connotations are both negative and positive). This is a very important category or list of people which is very helpful to uncover the history of Czechoslovakia under communists and after the fall of the regime. Many of the Charter 77 signatories have participated in building of the post-communist state from the highest positions. The term "Charter 77 signatory" is still widely used and well known in the Czech society. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 12:18, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Keep - Per Vejvančický's excellent comments above. Being a signatory to Charter 77 really was a defining characteristic of these individuals' lives and careers. The title of "Charter 77 signatory" was used in the former Czechoslovakia and still holds a great deal of importance in the present-day Czech Republic and Slovakia. Yes, the list on the Charter 77 article page needs to be fixed up and expanded, but the category should be preserved as well. The importance of Charter 77 (and its category in the case) can be seen in the number of its interwiki categories in other languages, some of which are very extensive, including Czech, Belarusian, German, Spanish, Lithuanian, and Slovak. Scanlan (talk) 02:06, 25 October 2013 (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:Waterfront Trail

 * 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) 03:09, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting waterfront trail


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is basically a follow up from this discussion which was closed as no consensus since there was a mix of trails, some of which probably should be deleted and others kept. So I'm sorting through that list to see which ones merit a separate deletion discussion. Again the question here is, are the places along the trail defined by the trail? Note that mamy articles do not mention the trail. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:31, 28 September 2013 (UTC)


 * Delete. Apart from the eponymous article (which should be upmerged to Category:Hiking trails in Ontario) the trail is not a WP:DEFINING characteristic of any of the topics currently in it. E.g. things like a canoe club and a lake shouldn't be under Category:Hiking trails.  For info: According to the article there are hundreds of places along the trail. DexDor (talk) 04:36, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete -- Nothing links tghe places except the trail. It should be called Category:Places on the Waterfront Trail, but that would be a performance type category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:05, 28 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Delete - I did find an article about a component trail of the Waterfront Trail, so now the category has content for which the trail is a defining characteristic, but that doesn't make the category worth keeping. --Orlady (talk) 14:32, 3 October 2013 (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.