Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2015 October 28



Category:Adele (singer)

 * 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) 08:10, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Adele (singer) to Category:Adele
 * Nominator's rationale: Per main article: Adele. If this passes, the subcategories would be speedy renamed. —Justin ( koavf ) ❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:13, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * FYI Link to earlier discussion from 3 years ago: Categories for discussion/Log/2012 October 27. -- Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 23:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note that, during that discussion, the main article was named "Adele (singer)" and it's now "Adele". RevelationDirect (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Speedy/Expand Per WP:C2D. Since Adele has gained greater fame and none of the other items in Adele (disambiguation) seem plausible, the name is unambiguious. The subcategories should also be renamed. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep and merge the target back, leaving it as a cat-redirect. Sometimes it is necessary to have a disambiguator for a category, where the article has none.  The classic case is Birmingham, whose categories are at Birmingham, West Midlands to keep up articles related to Birmingham, AL.  In the same way, this category needs one, to exclude articles on other people called Adele.  I am sure that there will be many, though none as prominent as the singer.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:46, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename per nom. Unlike with Birmingham, "Adele" appears to be a valid mononym for only a few people, and aside from the singer, they're all mediæval people; everyone else on the Adele (given name) page has a surname, and we don't need a disambiguated category just because someone might put something related to Adele Megann into the singer's category.  What's more, we're not going to need a subcategory for any of these mediæval ladies (it's not like we have tons of articles related to either one of them), so we really don't need to worry about disambiguation in the first place.  Nyttend (talk) 05:46, 2 November 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:Wikipedia files for deletion

 * 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 Category:Wikipedia files for deletion to Category:Wikipedia files for discussion. Retain Category:Non-free content review requested until it is naturally emptied; once all of the discussions at WP:NFCR are closed and the category is thus emptied, it may be nominated for speedy deletion based on this discussion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:57, 10 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Propose renaming Category:Wikipedia files for deletion to Category:Wikipedia files for discussion
 * Propose merging Category:Non-free content review requested to Category:Wikipedia files for discussion
 * Nominator's rationale: Per rename of associated process, as decided at WP:Village pump (proposals) - see this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 21:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * To change "deletion" to discussion is something I am always in favor of, but why the same category for both? If that is the gist of the discussion, then that too is okay we me. Debresser (talk) 22:50, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * The renaming of Category:Wikipedia files for deletion to Category:Wikipedia files for discussion is obvious since the process is being renamed. If we are to keep the NFCR process for the pages currently listed there, then I suggest that we keep the NFCR files in Category:Non-free content review requested for the moment and delete the category as soon as it becomes empty. --Stefan2 (talk) 15:53, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I share Stefan2's opinion on this: rename Category:Wikipedia files for deletion to Category:Wikipedia files for discussion per nom, but oppose merging Category:Non-free content review requested to Category:Wikipedia files for discussion; in fact, I oppose any changes be made to Category:Non-free content review requested at the present time. Since WP:NFCR both has yet to be merged into WP:FFD as well as still has active discussions, the category acts as a way to maintain a list of discussions that are still active on WP:NFCR without the list getting mixed up with WP:FFD nominations, possibly making them more difficult to locate. After the merge is complete and all discussions on WP:NFCR closed, the better option may be to flat out delete Category:Non-free content review requested as an empty maintenance category that will no longer have any new pages added to it due to its corresponding page (WP:NFCR) being shut down. Steel1943  (talk) 18:38, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Hold wait for the processes to be merged first. Renaming "deletion" to "discussion" is easy, the merger part should be done after NFCR is shut down and its content migrated to FfD; as the files are tagged via template, the template change should automatically repopulate into FfD, clearing most of the work. -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 05:51, 30 October 2015 (UTC)
 * WP:FFD has already been renamed Files for discussion; that move could have been nominated for WP:CFD/S per C2D. Steel1943  (talk) 06:07, 30 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Rename -- The D in AFD and CFD had a different meaning. CFD is often not about deletion.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Rename the first one. This probably should have been moved without a CFD, since it's essentially a C2D case.  No opinion on the second; of course we'll have to merge a bunch of things, but as I'm not that familiar with the details here, I don't know whether the proposed merge is best or whether something else would be better.  Nyttend (talk) 05:27, 2 November 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:Ships in Norwegian history

 * 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) 23:30, 9 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose upmerging Category:Ships in Norwegian history to parent categories
 * Nominator's rationale: upmerge per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. Besides, in the end, all ships are or become part of history. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:20, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Upmerge per nom. DexDor(talk) 07:18, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment -- Why is it in a legendary category? It sounds as if it was a real ship.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:50, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point. Presumably it's because the ship appears in a legend-like song of later date, but I don't think we should keep the legendary category for that reason, I've removed it. Marcocapelle (talk) 22:04, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * In that case upmerge. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:59, 8 November 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:Kven history

 * 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) 04:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting Category:Kven history
 * Nominator's rationale: delete per WP:SMALLCAT, only one article. I don't think there is a need to merge to anything, the one article is abundantly categorized already. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:03, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete/upmerge per nom. DexDor(talk) 07:19, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete, although recreate of course if someone comes up with other articles that would fit into it. Nyttend (talk) 05:39, 2 November 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:Religious leaders in New Zealand

 * 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. (non-admin closure) sst✈discuss 03:54, 7 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose merging Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand to Category:New Zealand religious leaders
 * Nominator's rationale: Duplicate categories. gadfium 19:35, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Comment Category:Religious leaders in New Zealand seems to be better named, as it better prescribes what kind of content is to be contained within -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:37, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I'm easy on which way the merge goes.- gadfium 05:13, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Merge or Reverse Merge Per WP:OVERLAPCAT. No preference on target name. RevelationDirect (talk) 09:10, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep They are not duplicates. One is a "by nationality" category while the other is a "by place served" category. Admittedly in the case of NZ, there may may be a high degree of overlap (i.e. most NZ nationals will serve as bishops in NZ itself). However, this is not necessarily the case for other countries. Ireland, for example, has a long history of 19th-century emigrants rising to the episcopacy in their new homes. So while they are Irish bishops, they are religious leaders in Australia. Laurel Lodged (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * keep parts of two different category trees as can be seen by reading the two categories; Laurel explains it well. Hmains (talk) 05:41, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * REverse merge -- If there are Kiwi religious leaders serving abroad, they can go into a separate but appropriately named sibling category. However I doubt that it will be a large category.  Peterkingiron (talk) 19:54, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Keep per Laurel Lodged. I planned to vote for merging, but LL's argument explained quite well why there are two categories; deleting one such category out of many would be a horrid idea if there are a lot of other countries with two separate categories like this.  Nominator may wish to start a discussion on whether the current setup is good, although it seems worthy of keeping, as far as I can tell at first glance.  Nyttend (talk) 05:30, 2 November 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:Subdistricts of Karo Regency

 * 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) 08:08, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose renaming Category:Subdistricts of Karo Regency to Category:Districts of Karo Regency
 * Nominator's rationale: When this was created we did refer to them as subdistricts, but 4 years ago the parent article was renamed to Districts of Indonesia as a better translation of the actual Indonesian term. While most of the others of this type are eligible for speedy renaming, this one probably isn't because strictly speaking it doesn't have an article of the same name -- it goes Region -> Regency or City -> District, and our article structure is organised only by region. They're mentioned on Districts of North Sumatra instead. For accuracy and consistency with our naming style, this should be renamed. Buttons to Push Buttons (talk | contribs) 10:35, 28 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:Songs from We Will Rock You (musical)

 * 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) 04:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose deleting songs from we will rock you (musical)


 * Nominator's rationale: These are original songs by the band Queen and thus none are defined by their use in the We Will Rock You musical. Star cheers peaks news lost wars Talk to me 01:07, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Delete per nom (assuming that the nom is correct that these are all Queen songs). The text at Category:Songs from musicals (which currently says "Articles about songs that are part of a musical.") should be changed. DexDor(talk) 07:26, 29 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete. We Will Rock You is what's called a "jukebox musical", meaning that it did not comprise original songs written for the musical per se, but simply took songs that already existed and then recontextualized them in a new setting. Each song here is already categorized as, which is the appropriately WP:DEFINING characteristic on which they should be categorized. And as a point of comparison, we do not have a similar category for songs which appeared in Mamma Mia! — we categorize them only as , and do not redundantly categorize them as "Songs from Mamma Mia!" alongside that fact. And neither do we categorize songs for their having been featured in Moulin Rouge! — we just list them in the film's article, and don't categorize them as such because being used in that film doesn't constitute a defining characteristic of the songs. Original musical theatre songs should certainly be categorized by the musical from whence they came — but pre-existing "jukebox musical" songs should not. Bearcat (talk) 18:43, 1 November 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:America's Got Talent

 * 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 for the purge portion of the nomination; discussion on that can continue on the category talk page if desired. No consensus to delete the main contestants category, either, but a consensus does support deleting the Pennsylvania intersection. Bearcat (talk) 20:01, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Propose Purging Category:America's Got Talent of biography articles for hosts
 * Propose Deleting Category:America's Got Talent contestants
 * Propose Deleting Category:America's Got Talent contestants from Pennsylvania
 * Nominator's rationale: Per WP:PERFCAT, WP:SEPARATE and WP:G5
 * According to the article, the show consists of "a group of acts ranging from only a Top 20..., to as many as 60" contestants on each live episodes and some of those contestants also appeared on earlier audition episode. This is not like Big Brother where the cast is on screen for a full season. Including the showbiz hosts in the parent category is also non-defining because they were hired because they were famous rather than famous because they hosted the show. I do think the 12 winners are defined by the show so I created Category:America's Got Talent winners, and the 2nd and 3rd place for each season are in the template but this is overkill. RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Note:The the category creator is blocked as a sock puppet but this discussion has been included in the Reality television task force. – RevelationDirect (talk) 01:04, 28 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Oppose, on the basis I don't see the finer distinction between similar categories such as Category:Big Brother (TV series). If an umbrella category exists, I don't see how you can allow one type of related article to be added, but prevent another (e.g. presenters). Sionk (talk) 15:31, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * If the hosts/presenters are kept, they need a separate subcategory to avoid WP:SEPARATE. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:36, 31 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Oppose These people seem to be mostly notable due to their connection to the show. Dimadick (talk) 10:26, 14 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Purge main category of presenters, as this is over-categorization by performance; see the guideline at WP:PERFCAT. Upmerge Category:America's Got Talent contestants from Pennsylvania as this is a non-notable intersection with "People from Pennsylvania". I looked at several articles and believe that Dimadick may be mistaken, as most participants appear to have been notable already. However, I would not delete the main categories nominated, without reviewing the whole Category:Got Talent series hierarchy. – Fayenatic  L ondon 09:01, 25 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Comment: I created Category:America's Got Talent contestants from Pennsylvania for no reason other than there seemed to be a significant number of qualifying people sufficiently notable for articles. The fate of the category won't break my heart in any event. — ATinySliver / ATalkPage   11:17, 25 November 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: delete. Even in discounting the multiple !votes, I think there's a trending here towards a consensus to delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:31, 25 November 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)  Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
 * 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)

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Good Ol’factory (talk) 00:00, 28 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Delete the Elector of Baden (or at least the category thereof) and throw the sole holder of the title into Category:Electors of the Holy Roman Empire, and ditto for the Elector of WÞrttemburg. Simply trash the Electresses category, since its only article is List of consorts of Baden (odd title; it sounds like it's people who were married to Baden, not married to its sovereigns), and that article's "Electress of Baden" section says that there weren't any.  When there's not a single article that rightfully belongs in a category, the category shouldn't exist.  Nyttend (talk) 05:35, 2 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Oops, Württemburg, not WÞrttemburg. Hit the wrong alt code, 0222 instead of 0252.  There's a hazard to knowing the codes instead of picking them from a list, especially when you're touchtyping on the keypad :-)  Nyttend (talk) 05:37, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Support the last proposal. The target ought to be a container only category (or container and lists).  An explanation of the appearance of these two electors probably needs to be included in the headnote.  Peterkingiron (talk) 17:02, 8 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Uh, Peterkingiron—you realise that you don't get to !vote every time the discussion is relisted, right? You've posted three !votes above, all of which essentially advocate for the same thing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:55, 9 November 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.