Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 23

< April 22April 24 >

April 23

Category:Female British racing drivers

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) 09:30, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Female British racing drivers to Category:British racing drivers and Category:Female racing drivers
Propose merging Category:Female English racing drivers to Category:English racing drivers and Category:Female racing drivers
Nominator's rationale: These are the only regional/subregional subcategories of Category:Female racing drivers. I don't believe that the gender+geographical+sport intersection here is defining enough, especially in the absence of an established category tree utilising that intersection, to avoid WP:OC, and thus propose it for double-upmerging. - The Bushranger One ping only 21:08, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Theorems in Galois theory

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. However, the category is empty, so I will speedy delete it per WP:CSD#C1, without prejudice to recreating it.
Editors may wish to have a wider discussion on the "Theorems in" subcats of Category:Mathematical theorems, possibly at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Mathematics. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:23, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Theorems in Galois theory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. There is no reason to diffuse the self-contained Category:Galois theory into a microscopic subcategory. (Part of a massive campaign by Brad7777 (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) to totally screw with the existing mathematics categorization.) Sławomir Biały (talk) 13:22, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I have no opinion on the merits of this category, but it was emptied (and removed from all its head categories) out of process. I have left a note for the nominator about this. – Fayenatic L (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment To understand Professor Biały's comments, it suffices to consult the discussions of Brad's good-faith recategorizations, e.g. at the WikiProject Mathematics and Brad's talk page. Sadly, Brad's efforts are only several orders of magnitude more informed than the generic floundering at "Categories for Discussion/Deletion".  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 5:47 pm, Today (UTC+2) —Preceding undated comment added 17:50, 15 April 2012 (UTC).[reply]
  • Proposal: how about renaming it to Galois representations, which is clearly more than Galois theory. -- Taku (talk) 16:12, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming what? Sławomir Biały (talk) 16:15, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you proposing creating a category in lattice theory? (Birkhoff has a discussion of Galois correspondences in his monograph.)  Kiefer.Wolfowitz 17:51, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: from CfD 2012 April 15
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
WikiProject Mathematics has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:19, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • As far as I can see, looking at the related changes, this category only ever had 4 entries, and the parent has only 32. So I don't think that the parent is too large for browsing, but this one was indeed quite tiny and I don't see a high change of growth in the near future. So I agree with: merge this one to its parent (apaprently already done) and delete this one. — Carl (CBM · talk) 15:49, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Related changes looks only at the articles currently linked on the page. I'm not sure if it's useful for telling how many entries there have been in a category. (You can test this by removing an article from a category and then looking at that category's related changes – once you remove the page from the category, it disappears from related changes as well). Jafeluv (talk) 19:35, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    I looked at the related changes for the parent category, where the articles were moved back to. I noted only four edits on April 15 that restored the original parent category to various pages. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, that makes sense. Never mind then :) Jafeluv (talk) 20:08, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment delete, the further sub distinction doesn't seem necessary for navigation.--KarlB (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There may only be a few dozen theorems in Galois Theory notable enough for Wikipedia, and even before depopulation not many were listed here. But that's not a valid reason for deletion. CRGreathouse (t | c) 20:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. My general feeling is that having categories of the form "Theorems in..." is a mistake, because most of the categorization is based on the title of an article (a syntactic consideration) rather than on the semantics of what the article is actually about. As an example from a different category, Dilworth's theorem is categorized as a theorem, because it has "theorem" in the title, but with very minor changes the same article could instead have been titled Width (order theory) in which case it would not be classified as a theorem. But, this CfD does not do much to resolve the problematic nature of these categories, because it only affects one relatively insignificant category, and as long as we're keeping the rest of these categories I don't see the additional harm in keeping this one. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:59, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Sports in the Marshall Islands

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: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:25, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Sports in the Marshall Islands to Category:Sport in the Marshall Islands
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Merging two existing categories; unification with the other categories in Category:Sport by country. Gumruch (talk) 19:06, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
support speedy close if possible. this one looks like a no brainer. --KarlB (talk) 19:16, 15 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Relisting comment: Consensus seems to be leaning towards a reverse merge; tagging target and relisting to make sure that users viewing that category will be aware of the discussion and be able to give their opinions. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:18, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Reed aerophones

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: Reverse merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:55, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Reed aerophones to Category:Reedpipes
Nominator's rationale: In the Hornbostel–Sachs classification system, 'reed aerophone' is a synonym of 'reedpipe' and both they are designated as 422. Tijd-jp (talk) 13:00, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:History of Albania during Ottoman administration

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) 09:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:History of Albania during Ottoman administration to Category:Ottoman Albania
Nominator's rationale: Merge (or reverse merge) I believe the two categories have the same intended scope. There's no consistency within Category:History of the Ottoman Empire by country so I'm proposing a merge to the oldest and the most populated of the two Albania categories. Pichpich (talk) 12:54, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Old Westminsters

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 - Note that primary topic is typically trumped by precision when dealing with categories (as opposed to articles). - jc37 06:30, 9 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming: Category:Old Westminsters to Category:People educated at Westminster School, London
Nominator's rationale: Rename, to a standardised descriptive format (see WP:NDESC and note below) which combines a plain English phrase with the title of the head article. This clarifies the purpose of the category to the non-specialist reader for whom Wikipedia is written, by eliminating obscurity and ambiguity.
The proposed name follows the "People educated at Foo" convention of Category:People educated by school in the United Kingdom. Since 305 "Old Fooian" categories have been renamed in 82 separate CfDs, this convention is now used by by all but 11 of the ~1,045 people-by-school categories in the UK. It adds a geogrpahical disambiguator to distinguish the London school from the many other similarly-named schools listed at Westminster School (disambiguation).
Westminster School is one of the most prominent public schools in the United Kingdom. However, the term "Old Westminsters" is highly ambiguous. Westminster (disambiguation) list many different meanings, and an "old Westminster" could refer to all sorts of things, such as an old Westminster car or an old Westminster helicopter. The ambiguity is demonstrated by the fact that a Google News search for the singular form "Old Westminster" throws up masses of false positives. As shown by the table below, the plural term "Old Westminsters" is much less widely-used than the the Old Fooian terms for the two most prominent schools, Eton and Harrow.
In previous discussions, some editors have expressed a preference for retaining "Old Fooian" category names for prominent schools. However, there has been a consensus to rename such categories where the "Old Fooian" terms is obscure or ambiguous, including:
24 renamed categories for Old Fooians from prominent schools
Note that in previous discussions of "Old Fooian" categoiries, some editors who appear not to have read WP:NDESC have claimed that the full phrase "People educated at Foo School" must be sourced. This is incorrect: WP:NDESC explicitly says that such titles "are often invented specifically for articles", and that is the case here, where a plain English phrase is combined with the WP:COMMONNAME of the school. (A further paragraph of NDESC refers to the use of non-neutral terms in titles, which does not apply here). However, if editors do want sourcing despite the lack of a requirement for it, then please note that a Google News search for the phrase "Educated at Westminster School" throws up 87 hits, which is more than twice as many as the 37 Gnews hits for the jargon term "Old Westminsters".
Descriptive titles are used in tens of thousands of Wikipedia categories, including the closely-related example of the heavily-populated Category:People by city. The use of demonyms as category names for people from towns and cities is specifically deprecated in the Categorization of people guideline. That issue was settled at CfD back in July 2006 and has been incorporated in the guideline since at least August 2006. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:20, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion (Old Westminsters)
  • Support (with regret that we're so obsessed with "standardisation" nowadays on such things that WP:COMMONNAME can go hang) rename to "People educated as Westminster School", but not "People educated as Westminster School, London"; we're meant to use Primary topic disambidguation on Wikipedia, I believe. Disclaimer: Theoretically I have skin in the game as an OW, but I'd consider it de minimis. :-) James F. (talk) 18:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Yes (band) Yessongs

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) 09:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Yes (band) Yessongs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is a pointless category for one album, which is un-needed because the relevant articles are already adequately interlinked.
See also the related discussion further down this page about Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Johann Strauss II

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: Upmerge to Category:Strauss family. Timrollpickering (talk) 09:20, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Johann Strauss II (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Eponymous categories are discouraged--only contains main article and one subcat. Why does this exist? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 09:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Watches (specific model)

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:Watch models. Timrollpickering (talk) 11:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Watches (specific model) to Category:Watch models
Nominator's rationale: Natural disambiguation, matches category:Watch brands. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC) ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 07:16, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. I don't agree with the risk of confusing what "watch models" means in this tree. --KarlB (talk) 21:51, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I agree a rename should be done, but "watch model" to me indicates different procedures for standing watch (in a military context) The current name also suffers from this, as does "model of watch". I suggest Category:Watch (product)... 70.49.124.225 (talk) 04:32, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Another alternative would be Category:Makes of watches. It's a bit awkward, but avoids every issue brought up here. ▫ JohnnyMrNinja 05:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    "Makes" doesn't quite work. Casio and Rolex are makes of watches, but both produce many different models of watch. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. This is an improvement. While not perfect, it likely has fewer issues then the current name and the other options. I can see may problems with the alternatives proposed. By renaming we start moving to a better title (if there is a better one to be found). Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. "Watch models" is reasonably clear and I don't think the possibility of confusion with scale models of watches is a big problem. As for 70.49.124.225's comment: If we want to avoid that interpretation, we could use Category:Wristwatch models. However, I would prefer sticking to "watch" since that's what the parent article is called. The article for the military term is titled watchstanding and we don't seem to have any categories directly related to it, so the potential for confusion is not overwhelming. Jafeluv (talk) 19:27, 3 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Supergroups

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Supergroups to Category:Supergroups (music)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match main article and remove ambiguous current name. I also wonder how subjective the inclusion criteria is? So deletion could be on the table. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:12, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Slovene painters

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) 16:06, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters
Nominator's rationale: Merge.
  • This was an opposed speedy, and raises an issue that could become confusing. The copy of the speedy nomination should be read for full context of the nomination. This particular category is for ethnic Slovene painters; the suggested target is for painters of Slovenian nationality. The merge was opposed on the grounds that we need the distinction because the concept of a Slovenian nationality did not emerge until the 1840s. However, it was countered that in WP categorization, we categorize Dante Alighieri as "Italian" even though there was no Italian nationality at the time, and the same goes for most other nationalities. I agree with this basic approach when it comes to categories, which is a relatively blunt instrument to describe someone's national/ethnic background and group it with others. The difficult subtlties are best dealt with by actual article text, not by categories with extremely fine distinctions.
  • At the time of the speedy nomination, this was an isolated issue, with only one article being categorized as "Slovene", but following the discussion below, the user who opposed the merge created a fairly expansive new structure of "Slovene FOOs" categories, which sometimes involved the emptying out of corresponding "Slovenian FOOs" category. So this is a bit of a test case to get a broader view of what we are going to do with this new Slovene/Slovenian dual categorization scheme. Right now, the parent categories for both are Category:Ethnic Slovene people and Category:Slovenian people.
  • Adding further complication to the issue is the fact that most dictionary definitions of "Slovene" include a definition that is equivalent to the meaning of "Slovenian" on Wikipedia, and in many cases the two different words are simply treated as synonyms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:02, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
copy of speedy discussion
  • Category:Slovene painters to Category:Slovenian painters – per C2B. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hugo999 (talk • contribs) 10:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
    Oppose: I disagree. There was no 'Slovenian nationality' in the time when Franz Caucig (member of category) lived, the concept of Slovenia emerged only in 1840s. He was a Gorizian painter by nationality and Slovene painter by ethnicity (this is notable, because he achieved the highest position of them). He is not the only one, because there were numerous Slovene painters before 1840s. In addition, there are minority members in Italy and Hungary that I feel reluctant to include in the category by nationality. --Eleassar my talk 10:41, 27 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or we should populate the category. Per WP:CAT: "Categorization must be verifiable" and "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial." So because 'Slovenian painters' (by nationality) is controversial and unsourced, if this category is deleted, only 'Gorizian painters' remains, and this introduces bias, because a main characteristic of the subject is ignored. I also don't see anywhere written that a category must have a minimum number of members (except for being empty). --Eleassar my talk 10:35, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • He could be included in the “Slovenian” category, as many countries are regarded as existing before their unification/creation, with Australia having an article and category for 1788. Many present-day countries were only unified in the 19th century (Canada, Germany, Italy) or 20th century (Australia, South Africa). Hugo999 (talk) 22:54, 8 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • In light of the large issues involved here, I strongly suggest that this decision take place pursuant to a Full CFD discussion that includes the entire category tree. Cgingold (talk) 23:17, 11 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - not only was there "no Italian nationality at the time" of Alighieri, there was no "nationality" (in the legal sense) full stop. To take another slant, yesterday I was horrified to discover that Wikipedia was describing the Roanoke Colony as a "British colony" (sic) in its Infobox and categories (although thankfully not in the actual article text). Now this was122 years prior to the establishment of the British state, and over 350 years prior to the legal invention of UK citizenship. So, how on earth those poor men, women and children could ever be called "British" colonists is totally beyond my comprehension. Wikipedia is, I'm afraid, jam-packed full of such idiocies. I blame the very early Users who first decided to categorise by nationality alone, and not by citizenship too. Please note that our wiser colleagues at WikiMedia Commons have Category:People of the United Kingdom, cat:People of the United States etc. This is a very intelligent and useful scheme and ought to be adopted here, in addition to our categorisation by nationality. For example, Bermudan people are British, but are currently excluded from all our British biography cats. Now, they ought to be excluded from all our UK biography cats, but never from our British cats. --Mais oui! (talk) 04:48, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The idea of British or American sportspersons as meaning sportspersons from the United Kingdom or United States is preferable to me without having an additional category of (say) sportspersons from the United Kingdom. Many countries have overseas territories or dependencies, with people generally classified seperately eg people from American Samoa. Are you regarding Bermudan people as "British" by descent (which some are probably not) or as people of a former British colony? The Caribbean has many political entities; the Netherlands Antilles is linked to the Netherlands as (several?) overseas territories, but not now Bermuda and the UK. And the idea of "British" people certainly predated the adoption of 20th century citizenship requirements. Roanoke is described (accurately) as an English colony in the article. though the categories include both "Former English colonies" and "Former British colonies". Re Europe, I favour using the terms German and Italian for people who lived before before the 19th century unification of those countries. Hugo999 (talk) 22:27, 24 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, to avoid duplication of categories and because it is hard to delimit ethnicity from nationhood (per [2][3]). However, the category Ethnic Slovene people should be retained for cases where this is verifiable and "relevant to the topic" (like Franz Caucig or France Prešeren), per Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality. --Eleassar my talk 08:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment If people did not self-identity as with the Slovenian nation, we should identify then as part of the nationality they did identify with (that would be Austrian in 90% of all cases). In the case of writers the issues will be more complexed, because there the language is the medium.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:38, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and maybe perge. The distinction between ethnic and by nationality Slovenians is not just a process over time. This is especially if we date the issue back to the 1840s. We do not get an independent Slovenia until 1991, and it was only a semi-defined nation from 1918 forward. The idea of the Slovene nation might date to the 1840s, but for all intents and purposes we are dealing with Ethnic Slovenes with Austrian nationality until 1918. From 1918 until 1991 Slovenes have a semi-autonomous state to identify with. Things get more fun because you have many people who are Slovnian by nationality and Italian by ethnicity. The Slovene/slovenian distinction will always be too subtle to be useful. It is also open for a lot of debate in some cases.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 29 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Orders with sash worn on the left shoulder

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Orders with sash worn on the left shoulder (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like a trivial characteristic. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Yes (band) Yessongs songs

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:Yes (band) songs. Jafeluv (talk) 07:31, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Yes (band) Yessongs songs to Category:Yes (band) songs
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. I believe that we have had consensus in the past not to subcategorize songs by particular album. This is an example of such a subcategorization—Yessongs is a particular album. I suggest upmerging to the parent category that contains all songs by the band. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Artists' muses

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. Jafeluv (talk) 07:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting: Category:Artists' muses (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Calling someone a "muse" for an artist or writer is often a subjective call. We've deleted categories very similar to this in the past: Fashion muses; Muses of famous writers, but the discussions have not been heavily participated in. I'm wondering where we should go with this type of category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:10, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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:Television series by HIT Entertainment

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 rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 08:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Television series by HIT Entertainment to Category:Television series by Hit Entertainment
Nominator's rationale: Correcting capitalization per WP:MOSCAPS. Trivialist (talk) 02:07, 23 April 2012 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_23&oldid=1087824944"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 April 23, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.