Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 30

< September 29October 1 >

September 30

Category:Lords Provost

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy rename C2A. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:26, 6 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
added 3 October 2012 by BHG
Nominator's rationale: Provost is the noun, lord is the adjective. Also cf. the article titles in Category:Lists of provosts of places in Scotland all of which have the correct plural. Opera hat (talk) 23:37, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Opera hat (talk) 23:24, 5 October 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:Paul Kelly (musician)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:21, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. Some of these are works he's scored, so I'm not sure if they should be included. Either way, a footer should comfortably navigate these. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:10, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I would like some clarification please:
  1. How much content is enough? Does this content count include sub-categories?
  2. Eponymous are discouraged? See Wikipedia:Categorization#Eponymous categories. There are guidelines supplied and I don't draw the conclusion that these categories are discouraged. Since you're using this as a justification for lots of nominations for proposed deletions shouldn't there be a consensus on this issue and a note in the above link to this effect?
  3. If he's scored these works why aren't they suitable for inclusion in this category? Perhaps another sub-category is needed: Works scored by Paul Kelly (musician)?shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 22:45, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Pursuant to my comment above I've had a look at other categories named for musicians/bands and find many with fewer articles inhabiting them. As for eponymous categories: they exist, certainly guidelines ought to be followed but I see no support for the claim that they are discouraged.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 02:31, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are more than suffienct articles to warrant this category. Dan arndt (talk) 04:31, 2 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose although I think the category should be cleaned up. In particular, I don't think the films should be in there (see for instance Category:Ennio Morricone and see the absence of Category:Category:John Williams). But still, I count at least five articles that definitely belong there and at least two categories (I think Category:Professor Ratbaggy albums should be created). That's enough for an eponymous category. Pichpich (talk) 13:16, 2 October 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:Operation Ivy (band)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:08, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. Lugnuts And the horse 17:56, 1 October 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:Beat Happening

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content; eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:06, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. Lugnuts And the horse 17:56, 1 October 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:Models (band)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too few articles, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:01, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. Lugnuts And the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there is enough articles for this to be covered in its own category. Dan arndt (talk) 04:28, 2 October 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:Images of Kara

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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal unless it is set out clearly. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:08, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All images are up at WP:FFD, upmerge subcat to the parent. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:53, 30 September 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:Do-Re-Mi (band)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. Lugnuts And the horse 17:56, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose sufficent articles for the category to be retained. Dan arndt (talk) 04:29, 2 October 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:Goldfinger (band)

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. Timrollpickering (talk) 21:47, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Too little content, eponymous categories are discouraged. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 18:41, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Spurious, nomination does not fit named criteria - David Gerard (talk) 13:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Discouraged does not equate to forbidden. Enough material to warrant a category. Lugnuts And the horse 17:56, 1 October 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:Former Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects

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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal which contradicts itself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:13, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge to parent's parent--no need to subcategorize at all, let alone by time period. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 30 September 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:Arjen Anthony Lucassen bands or projects

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. The nomination is incomprehensible without guesswork. The suggested action is "delete", but the rationale talk of upmerger without listing what the merge target is. Editors cannot meaningfully comment on a proposal which contradicts itself. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:11, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:14, 30 September 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:Rangers F.C. articles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete'. WaggersTALK 10:45, 8 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge as duplicate. BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:14, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The reason i created a new category is there is some articles that relate to rangers like Old firm Glasgow green but there not a direct rangers article like rangers f.c. i have not had time to add the new category to other pages, ive got nothing against the merge but i think it might be better in the reverse order as this category covers far more whereas the rangers one only covers rangers articles by name as far as i am awareAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:17, 30 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
in that case renaming it to sometihng that covers other things would be more appiorateAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:02, 3 October 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:Water transport

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If i am readin git (edit i mistype it and put git, i never inteneded to insult anyone this was honest mistake) right the caterogy is about transport on water, in that case another alternative could be Water Transportation.Andrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 16:30, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Water transportation also means the transportation of water. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:36, 1 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it means other things to but is a little ambgious in my mind than the current one but i dnt think neutrical transport worksAndrewcrawford (talk - contrib) 12:01, 3 October 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.

Fairy tale adaptations

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 all per nominator. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:01, 7 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Fairy tale adaptation categories
Nominator's rationale: Per the parent Category:Works based on folklore and all other "Works based on" categories. I used the article title for each fairy tale; Goldilocks redirects to The Story of the Three Bears. (See also Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_September_23#Adaptations_of_Chinese_literature.)-- Mike Selinker (talk) 02:55, 30 September 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_September_30&oldid=1143714785"
Uses material from the Wikipedia article Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 September 30, released under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license.