Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 2



Incorrect rodent "breeds" categories

 * 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. All entries in the nominated categories are alreasy in the category trees of the species, so there's nothing to merge. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 18:23, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting
 * mouse breeds
 * mouse breeds


 * Nominator's rationale: These are not breeds, and contain nothing but a) Category:Laboratory mouse strains & Fancy mouse, and b) Category:Laboratory rat strains, respectively. Both of the strains categories are already present in their parent biological categories (Category:House mouse and Category:Rats, respectively), and listed as items at Category:Mammal breeds. The article (and similar articles or section on pet rats, gerbils, hamsters, and chinchillas) are already categorized correctly under their parent species categories or subcats thereof), and in Category:Rodents as pets. Note: Category:Rabbit breeds is legitimate, and correctly categorized.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:21, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge back to the species category. I see no merit in having that split.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 4 October 2015 (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:Biographical films about fashion designers

 * 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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:45, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Biographical films about fashion designers to Category:Films about fashion designers
 * Nominator's rationale: Upmerge A film about a fashion designer -- i.e. a person who designs fashion -- is by definition a biographical film. So I can't see why all such articles can't be in parent Category:Films about fashion designers, including the documentary category Category:Documentary films about fashion designers. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 22:56, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, I suppose in theory one could put out a film about a fictional fashion designer, which would thus not be a "biographical" film — but that's rare enough (I'm not aware of any offhand, and none have been categorized as such) that even if a handful of such films actually did exist, having separate categories to sequester them from the biographical films about real-world fashion designers would still fall afoul of WP:SMALLCAT. Merge per nom. Bearcat (talk) 13:55, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oh right. Thank you Bearcat. Well, if people feel like retaining this, fine. "Category:Films about fashion designers" is currently an otherwise empty container category for the doc and bio film sub-cats. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete no indication that this is a notable film genre; moreover, it has the same failures (inviting WP:OR and WP:SUBJECTIVE) as almost all "films about" categories: how much about the subject must the film be and what reliable sources tell us it's at least that much? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:18, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the existence of some grey areas, where inclusion may be debatable, is not in and of itself an argument against the creation of a category for the clearcut cases where there's no room for debate — of the films in the nominated category, I don't see a single one where there's even a question, as every last one of them is so fundamentally 100% about the fashion designer that said designer's name is even embedded right into the film's title. There may indeed be an argument to be made that both categories should be deleted entirely — but that argument isn't it. It's a good argument in cases of "artworks about abstract/generic concept", absolutely — "films about love", "songs about coffee", "books about rain", etc. — but it doesn't work across the board for all categories that happen to have the word "about" in them, because sometimes the subject is an objective and quantifiable and specific thing whose degree of "aboutness" can be concretely determined. Bearcat (talk) 17:28, 7 October 2015 (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 actor

 * 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) 08:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting works by actor


 * Nominator's rationale: This seems to me to simply be a recreation, in altered form, of what was previously deleted in Categories_for_discussion/Log/2014_May_27. Yes, the "x" of "x by y" has changed -- but is there a logical reason why the consensus at the previous Cfd shouldn't apply? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 20:03, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete – 'works by actor' doesn't make sense (a work has a writer, or a producer, but not usually an actor). 'Works by actors' would make sense and would make it clear that it is not a sensible form of categorisation. ('Works by Americans' would be an equally valid parent for the 2 categories.) Oculi (talk) 21:18, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete per both nominator and Oculi; either rationale by itself is sufficient, and together they are a one-two knockout.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:24, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete That some directors or producers are also actors is irrelevant. We treat their careers in different categories. Dimadick (talk) 20:39, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete performer by performance type category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:19, 5 October 2015 (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.

Brandenburg-Prussia

 * 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 and delete as nominated. After weighing the comments in this discussion, the opposition had very weak arguments to retain the categories. Other stuff exists, which should not impede in this discussion. If a plethora of articles can be created to allow the categories to properly expand, then so be it; however, that time is not now, and these categories were created a little too soon. —  ξ xplicit  08:45, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:1653 in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:Treaties of Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1653 in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1655 in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:Treaties of Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1655 in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1656 in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:Treaties of Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1656 in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1657 in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:Treaties of Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1657 in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1660 in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:Treaties of Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1660 in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1679 in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:Treaties of Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1660 in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1653 establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:17th-century establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1653 establishments in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1669 establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:17th-century establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1669 establishments in Europe
 * Propose merging Category:1680 establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia to Category:17th-century establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia and Category:1680 establishments in Europe
 * Propose deleting intermediate container categories that become empty after the above mergers:


 * Category:Centuries in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:Establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia by century
 * Category:1650s establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:1680s establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:17th century in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:1650s in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:1660s in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:1670s in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:1680s in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:1680 in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:Years of the 17th century in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:Decades in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:Establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia by decade
 * Category:Millennia in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:2nd millennium in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:2nd-millennium establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:Establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia by millennium
 * Category:Years in Brandenburg-Prussia
 * Category:Establishments in Brandenburg-Prussia by year


 * Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:SMALLCAT, too few "by period" articles in a relatively short-living (1618-1701) state, there are just a few treaties and a few establishments. Currently we have many times more categories than articles, including millennium categories, that is pretty absurd. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I can't abide this slavish adherence to tree structures. Just because some entities justify granular categories is no reason for every category to follow suit. Such a policy only puts stumbling blocks in the path of navigation which defies the very purpose of having categories in the first place. Where there is a paucity of article volumes, don't create a category unless there is some higher reason for splitting a parent category. Down with slavery! Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:23, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support with adjustments to targets but with the additional target Category:17th century in Brandenburg-Prussia. This was a major state of the Holy Roman Empire and should have its own category.  I am far from sure that merging direct to Europe categories is appropriate.  Brandenburg was part of the Holy Roman Empire, whereas Prussia was not: this is a difficulty, which I cannot see an easy solution to.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:42, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Since Brandenburg-Prussia fits nearly entirely within the 17th category (except for one year), wouldn't it make more sense to skip the Category:17th century in Brandenburg-Prussia and instead parent the entire Category:Brandenburg-Prussia immediately to Category:17th century in the Holy Roman Empire and Category:17th century in Europe? Marcocapelle (talk) 06:41, 5 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep for now pending a fuller discussion of which countries are going to be kept; for example contains 1 article and that article is Kingdom of Tungning. Also we can go for a less drastic solution such as keeping decades and deleting the millennia which can easily be achieved by susbt'ing the templates.  Tim! (talk) 06:18, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Please nominate as well. No reason to stop this nomination per WP:OSE. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:04, 9 October 2015 (UTC)
 * No compellong argument has been provided to delete it though. Tim! (talk) 12:12, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes it has, namely WP:SMALLCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:18, 13 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep Prussia and its predecessor states were major political institutions in Europe at the time. These categories have significant scope for expansion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:16, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That's a matter of perspective. With the knowledge of now we know how powerful Prussia has become. In the 17th century Brandenburg-Prussia was just one of multiple medium-size states. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:56, 22 October 2015 (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:Makradeo

 * 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) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting makradeo


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT Shyamsunder (talk) 16:53, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. No upmerge needed, as member article is already in the parent category. The same goes for the next two proposals on this page. – Fayenatic  L ondon 10:12, 6 October 2015 (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:Newa Talai

 * 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) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting newa talai


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT Shyamsunder (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (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:Kherwara Chhaoni

 * 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) 23:22, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting kherwara chhaoni


 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT Shyamsunder (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2015 (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 music articles by quality

 * 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; without prejudice to re-creation if things change and the relevant wikiproject desires to begin using this system. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:48, 15 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting classical music articles by quality


 * Propose deleting a-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting b-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting c-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting fa-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting fl-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting ga-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting list-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting na-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting start-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting stub-class classical music articles‎


 * Propose deleting unassessed classical music articles‎


 * Nominator's rationale: According to WikiProject Classical music/Assessment, Wikipedia:WikiProject Classical music does not assess articles and so all these categories (absent the articles one) is empty. Suggest deletion and upmerger of Category:WikiProject Classical music articles to Category:WikiProject Classical music Ricky81682 (talk) 11:58, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Keep: Nothing prevents individual participants in WP:CLASSICAL from assessing articles; wikiprojects do not tell their participants what to do, and article assessment is a normal WP-wide process. These categories are expected by the wikiproject banner metatemplating system, and would result in category redlinks on thousands of articles' talk pages. Persons outside participation in the wikiproject also have an interest in how an article has been assessed.  Finally, WP:CLASSICAL could decide next year, or five minutes from now, that they do in fact want to collectively work on article assessment, so these categories would just need to be recreated. Such an outcome is  in the long haul.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  00:48, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * On a technical level, I don't think Template:WikiProject Classical music allows for assessments. The articles aren't going into the various subcategories so I don't see why it's better to keep categories that have been empty for five or six years (it's been discussed and rejected since 2009) rather than recreate them if the project changes its mind. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete: per nominator.  Klein  zach  06:19, 13 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete all. There has been no means for populating these categories since the class parameter was removed from with  in December 2009, discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Classical music/Archive 25. The categories have therefore been empty and redundant for getting on for six years.  shouldn't be upmerged to  but should be adjusted so that it is a direct subcat of the latter, rather than indirectly via . -- Red rose64 (talk) 08:56, 13 October 2015 (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.

Late medieval earthquakes

 * 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/delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:20, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:1303 earthquakes to Category:14th-century earthquakes and Category:1303 natural disasters
 * Propose upmerging Category:1343 earthquakes to Category:14th-century earthquakes and Category:1343 natural disasters
 * Propose upmerging Category:1531 earthquakes to Category:16th-century earthquakes and Category:1531 natural disasters
 * Propose deleting intermediate container categories that become empty after the above mergers:
 * Category:1300s earthquakes
 * Category:1340s earthquakes
 * Category:1530s earthquakes
 * Category:1300s in science
 * Category:1340s in science
 * Category:1303 in science
 * Category:1343 in science
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, too few notable earthquakes in these past centuries. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:11, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Support I can't abide this slavish adherence to tree structures. Just because some entities justify granular categories is no reason for every category to follow suit. Such a policy only puts stumbling blocks in the path of navigation which defies the very purpose of having categories in the first place. Where there is a paucity of article volumes, don't create a category unless there is some higher reason for splitting a parent category. Down with slavery! Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Support -- another unnecessary tree of twigs. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 4 October 2015 (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:Stephen Foster 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; merge article to Category:Tribute albums and the new Category:Stephen Foster. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:15, 11 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting stephen foster tribute albums


 * Nominator's rationale: This category has one article listed. The article itself is in pretty poor shape and certainly doesn't need its own category. The article smacks of spam since the only ref takes you to a music review site that sells the album Barbara (WVS) (talk) 02:09, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per WP:SMALLCAT, unlikely to grow beyond 1 article. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:25, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Weak keep Currently the only unifying trait of this album is that all songs were written by Foster. Dimadick (talk) 20:42, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think he might be one of the few people that an eponymous category might work with and this would fit there. And we could throw in that horribly racist sculpture that Pittsburgh has hidden behind a giant dinosaur because the historical commission wouldn't let them move it. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:48, 5 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note Created Category:Stephen Foster as parent category. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2015 (UTC)
 * upmerge to Category:tribute albums and Category:Stephen Foster The tribute album category has dozens of one album subcategories, and it seems to me that pretty much all of them are well-categorized as tribute albums and under the subject of the tribute. We do not need all these tiny categories. Seyasirt (talk) 00:52, 6 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Dual Upmerge to Category:tribute albums and Category:Stephen Foster per Seyasirt. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:35, 7 October 2015 (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:Electors of Baden

 * 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:  at 2015 OCT 28 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:01, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting electors of baden


 * Propose deleting electresses of baden


 * Propose deleting electors of baden


 * Nominator's rationale: delete as a pointless category since Baden existed as an electorate for only three years, from 1803 to 1806. Before 1803 Baden was a margraviate, while after ending the Holy Roman Empire in 1806, Baden became a grand duchy. Likewise for Württemberg which became an electorate in 1803 and a kingdom in 1806. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:52, 20 September 2015 (UTC)

 Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * Support If there was a government of Baden category I'd say upmerge. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:41, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
 * keep as part of a set found in Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire. No valid reason to delete.  Hmains (talk) 01:05, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete or Cat-redirect to the succeeding kingdom or Grand Duchy. Single member categories are really rather pointless.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:19, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * keep as part of a set of categories. Dimadick (talk) 17:46, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:33, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * For further clarification, the elector of Baden during these three years is also classified correctly in Category:Grand Dukes of Baden, Category:Margraves of Baden-Durlach and Category:Margraves of Baden-Baden so there is no loss of information. The same applies for the other two nominated categories. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:49, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I still say delete -- This was a briefly held title. I suspect that the holder was also a margrave or duke at the same time.  At worst retain as a cat-redirect; it is a credible search term and this should also prevent officious re-creation.  Peterkingiron (talk) 16:50, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * (In relisting, I'm not expecting users to reconsider their previously stated opinions and to try to work out a consensus among themselves. Ideally what we're looking for is the participation of more editors to supplement the views we already have.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:52, 5 October 2015 (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:Inmates of Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale

 * 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. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting inmates of federal correctional institution, oakdale


 * Nominator's rationale: Having been a prisoner at Federal Correctional Institution, Oakdale is not defining for a person in the same way that being a prisoner in a particular prison might be. It is a low-security prison and there is nothing particularly "notorious" about it or its inmates. There are several categories in which don't need to exist, and this is one of them. A list has been started here, so there is no need to listify. All of the articles are also in, so there is also no need to merge to it. Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete (or merge back) -- I do not know about USA, but in my country, prisoners are periodically moved between prisons, so that being an inmate of any one of them is a NN temporary characteristic. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:45, 4 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete we don't categorize people by where they live from time to time (even if it's 25 years to life) except through the "people from" tree; this doesn't fit that and putting in a whole new structure for prisoners or dorm-inhabitants, or fraternity-house-inhabitants, or whatever one's living conditions may be or once have been doesn't seem a good idea. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:21, 5 October 2015 (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.