Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 6



Category:People educated at Bishop Gorman High School

 * 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: already speedily deleted. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:11, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting people educated at bishop gorman high school


 * Nominator's rationale: Empty category. Recently created Category:Bishop Gorman High School alumni seems more relevant. —Bagumba (talk) 19:14, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment – 'foo alumni' is the convention for the US and the creator has requested deletion, so this could be speedied. Oculi (talk) 19:44, 6 December 2014 (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:Wikipedians by alma mater: University of Ulster

 * 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) 09:03, 18 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting wikipedians by alma mater


 * Nominator's rationale: Delete. The article Ulster University had been renamed from University of Ulster to Ulster University, in line with this move I have modified the associated userbox to be directed towards Category:Wikipedians by alma mater: Ulster University. As a result of this the category in question is now empty and will not become active again. This category is now redundant and obsolete and requires deletion as it no longer has a purpose. 01Chris02 (talk) 15:27, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Comment -- Would leaving a category redirect be useful? Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * No, IMHO, as it was populated by a template, and is an ungainly name which is unlikely to be typed manually. – Fayenatic  L ondon 18:14, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete Technical name category. Also, what's with the funky colon naming instead of using Category:University of Ulster alumni Wikipedians? SFB 19:36, 10 December 2014 (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:Twisted Sister tribute 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. As KConWiki is presenting the case for creating these categories as an open "comment" rather than a !vote to "keep", there are 3 for deletion this time against 1 for keeping. See also the related discussion Categories for discussion/Log/2014 December 5. (In case a future discussion reverses this outcome, the member page to be moved up is Twisted Forever.) – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:38, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Twisted Sister tribute albums to Category:Tribute albums
 * Nominator's rationale: Too little content to split from the main category. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 10:04, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep – it would be nice if Koavf could link to previous discussions which support this sort of merge. Here is a recent cfd (26 Oct 2014) which does not. User:KConWiki supplies a very persuasive argument there for retention. And 'Twisted Sister tribute album' is a (the) defining characteristic of a Twisted Sister tribute album. Oculi (talk) 10:25, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment - Let me start by thanking Oculi for having considered my rationale and finding it persuasive, but let me also thank Koavf for the many contributions he has made to WP, particularly regarding music categorization, but in other areas as well. As for this question, also raised about Dusty Springfield and Petra, let me ask if there is a better venue where we can have a discussion of all of these Tribute album subcategories at once, rather than looking at them one by one. Additionally, I have pasted in my rationale for why I believe it is a good idea to have specific categories in the expandable below. Let's discuss further as appropriate. Thanks KConWiki (talk) 18:47, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I would not strongly object to this, but let me explain why I created that and numerous other single-entry subcategories within Category: Tribute albums. The Tribute album category was populated with many entries, some of which were easy to eyeball and identify with the artist or band to whom the tribute was being made, but many of which were not immediately clear. The Shelby Lynne album currently in the category in question, Just a Little Lovin', is an example of this. If users were not familiar with that song, they would not be able to at a glance tell who the artist was whose work was being covered. It seemed much more browsable and user-friendly to minimize the number of album articles directly in the category for Tribute albums, and categorize them by the artist or band (or other uniting theme, such as Category:Tribute albums to music-related organizations). This allowed them to be identifiable at a glance as to who the artist was that was the subject of the tribute, and it allowed alphabetical organization by the covered artist (in this case, under "S" for "Springfield".) Now, I understand that there are also concerns about over-categorizing, and I want to be respectful of that. Additionally, this is one of those jobs that I started a while ago, and meant to come back to sooner, but got sidetracked and so put off on to the back burner. However, I still think that the general approach has merit. If the consensus on the Dusty category is to keep it, then I would return to the Tribute album category and continue work on creating subcats for artists being tributed on the individual articles remaining in that category. Please let me know if I can expand on any of these comments. KConWiki (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)

Comment: I don't know if there are additional relevant articles, but I do want to encourage my fellow Wikipedians to ask themselves if in this specific situation (that is, tribute albums) it is of greater service to WP users to use subcategories even when there is only one article. It is my belief that it is. KConWiki (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)


 * delete - Category:Twisted Sister tribute albums - there just are not enough of them, at least not enough wikipedia notable ones - Govindaharihari (talk) 19:25, 27 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Delete One-article category with no group- or country-based tree that does not serve the function of categories (navigation between articles with shared attributes). In reference to the Dusty Springfield example, a better way to subdivide the tribute albums would be by genre of the artist, e.g. Category:Pop tribute albums. I do not think having a tribute album category for every single artist who has a tribute album is a useful way to proceed – ultimately the content is better navigated by artist by listing it on the artist's article. This is the way the great majority of readers would actually look to find that content on an artist-specific basis, rather than scanning through the tribute album tree for their known artist. SFB 20:58, 27 December 2014 (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:Women fencers

 * 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 Category:Female fencers. – Fayenatic  L ondon 21:58, 28 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Women fencers to Category:Female fencers
 * Nominator's rationale: Per others in Category:Sportswomen by sport. Or possibly delete, as there is no equivalent categorisation for male fencers. — This, that and the other (talk) 06:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep as is, per the reverse CfD from a few years back. Note that not all the sub-cats of Category:Sportswomen by sport have "female" - many of them use "women" (Women cricketers‎, Women's ice hockey players‎, etc).  Lugnuts  Dick Laurent is dead 09:56, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis that both terms are in common use, but this change will align the women's category term with that present at Category:Male fencers (which the nominator bizarrely said doesn't exist despite using the exact name!). SFB 20:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * I assumed the male fencers category didn't exist because essentially no male fencers are actually in it! It obviously needs to be populated. Thanks for letting me know. — This, that and the other (talk) 09:51, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Lots of work is still left to do in this area (both male and female). It's difficult because for virtually all the potential contents, it will be the first time they've been brought into the "Men" and "Women" trees. More widespread use of the national level cats like Category:Romanian sportsmen would help too. SFB 19:39, 10 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Male fencers, female fencers, yes. Woman fencers, man fencers? - no Govindaharihari (talk) 17:53, 27 December 2014 (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:Isaac Asimov's Golden Years of Science Fiction anthology series

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


 * The result of the discussion was: Keep. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:27, 23 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting isaac asimov's golden years of science fiction anthology series


 * Nominator's rationale: Non-notable category of non-notable anthologies Orange Mike  &#124;  Talk  00:59, 6 December 2014 (UTC)


 * Keep categories are not about notability, it is about organizing articles. If you think the articles are on non-notable subjects, get them deleted first. Deleting the category while it is properly categorizing articles that have not yet been deleted is bad process, since the articles may survive deletion, and therefore would need a category to organize them. If you manage to delete them, then come back and nominate the category for deletion. -- 67.70.35.44 (talk) 05:44, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Keep – as the ip states, these articles (if they continue to exist) should be categorised together. Oculi (talk) 10:49, 6 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment: I can't altogether remember now why I created this category, but it was probably (as 67.70.35.44 says) to organize some articles that were hanging around somewhere else. I notice that I created Category:Isaac Asimov's Great SF Stories anthology series around the same time, presumably for the same reason. But if there's stuff to go in a category, it makes sense to keep that category, unless there is somewhere better for the stuff to go to. Is there? Swanny18 (talk) 01:05, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Speedy close as procedurally incorrect: if the contents of this category aren't notable, then get the articles deleted at AFD first, then delete the category as empty. There's no such thing as a "non-notable category", and we don't use CFD to make judgments on articles. Another possibility is to merge all the stubby articles together into just one about the whole series of anthologies, then the category could be deleted per WP:SMALLCAT. postdlf (talk) 21:48, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
 * Comment. It appears that all of the contents have been deleted now. One of them was discussed here and then the nominator speedily deleted the rest (using some dubious deletion reasons). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:37, 15 December 2014 (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.