Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 February 28

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:20, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Ships sunk by mines to Category:Ships sunk by naval mines
• Propose renaming Category:U-boats sunk by mines to Category:U-boats sunk by naval mines

Nominator's rationale: Both are subcategories of Category:Naval mines, and these names would be better for consistency. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 21:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support for consistency, and also to distinguish from ships/submarines sunk by limpet mines. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:44, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The article Limpet mine is in Category:Naval mines. Its opening line begins "A limpet mine is a type of naval mine".
    So ships such as Rainbow Warrior which were sunk by limpet mines belong in this category (or in a sub-category if it is created). We don't need the word "naval" for that distinction. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • That needs to be clarified, then, to distinguish the common useage of the meaning of the term "naval mine" from limpet mines, which are, in fact, quite a different beast indeed from a moored or free-floating mine, seeing as they require the use of a human or robot to apply them, vs "firing and forgetting". - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • It needs to be clarified only in the sense that if we have a sub-category for limpet mines, we label it clearly. That's how we do it in any other context: we distinguish the sub-type. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose, per my objection at speedy. "Naval mines" are commonly known as "mines"; the word "naval" is added only as natural-language disambiguation. That disambiguation is un-needed here, because the context is clear. There is little likelihood of a ships being sunk by a coal mines, a Dolly Parton album, an inland Japanese city, or an American novel. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:16, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why should this deviate from the main category at Category:Naval mines? - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 02:17, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Because this category is neither a set of mines nor a topic category about mines; it is a category of ships. That adds a context which is not present in the other categories.
      These ships share a a particular defining attribute, which we already describe with adequate precision.
      If we were discussing a category of mines, such as Category:1977 mines or Category:Italian mines, then we shouldn't deviate from the convention. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:53, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
      • True enough, although I'm still concerned that having the name deviating from the parent's name is confusing to the reader. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 21:17, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • See my reply below to JPL about the terminology used in articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:36, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support some ships have actually been sunk by resource extraction mines (those underground things that miners work in, to remove ore) ; there was a very dramatic sinkhole event in Mississippi that swallowed a lake, and the spit that separated it from a bay, and had several bulkers drawn into the whirlpool and sunk. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 05:54, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I presume you are referring to the event in Louisiana (rather than Mississippi) which was described in a superb chapter of Perrow's book Normal Accidents. It was a unique incident which involved a few barges and a tugboat, but no notable ships; none of the vessels are even named in the book. There is no way we would have a standalone article on those vessels ... so we don't need to concern ourselves with distinguishing from events of that type.
    A little googling shows how the term "naval mine" is commonly not used elsewhere when referring to ships sunk by mines:

1. Google scholar search for ship "sunk by a mine": 202 hits
2. Google scholar search for ship "sunk by a naval mine": 0 hits
3. Google search for ship "sunk by a mine" -wikipedia: 348,000 hits
4. Google search for ship "sunk by a naval mine" -wikipedia: 47,300 hits

--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:37, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- The rare cases where a ship may be sunk by a land mine hardly matter. The kind of mine that the category relates to (excluding the results of subsidence) can adequately be covered in a headnote. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support consistent rfeferences to the same thing with the same name is helpful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:26, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • To help our readers, category names should also reflect the terminology used in articles. So I took a sample from Category:Ships sunk by mines, consisting of the 9 articles under letters F & G. Of those 9 articles, only one (USS Flier) refers in body text to "naval mine". The other 8 all just use "mine" (see HMS Felixstowe, SMS Friedrich Carl, SMS G37, SS Galeka, HMS Ghurka, HMS Gipsy, SS Goodleigh, HMS Grenville). --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:35, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are cases where the category name can deviate from article uses without a loss, or even a gain, of usefulness to the reader; this is, IMHO, one such case. Alternatively, the "naval mines" parent category should be renamed to simply "mines" - but that would make it ambiguous. Therefore, as it can't be renamed, these child categories of it should be. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 00:39, 9 March 2013 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Forms of Christianity to Category:Christian denominational families

Nominator's rationale: Merge. These two categories are essentially categorizing the same concept. The nominated category is new; the target category is older. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:41, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Support The target does a better job of categorising. Not perfect, but better. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:55, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Support -- This is certainly better, though certainly not ideal. Can any one think of somethign better? Peterkingiron (talk) 12:22, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, not merge, I think; otherwise keep. The current distinction is that one holds only articles, and the other has only sub-categories. If we merge, then the WP:SUBCAT rule means that the articles should not be kept in the target category, as each one is generally the main article of a corresponding sub-category; so once that has been corrected, we would end up having deleted this category. If we want to have a category where these articles can be found alongside each other, then we have to keep it. – Fayenatic London 20:29, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • What you discuss are details of categorization that can easily be adjusted depending on what we end up with. The more important issue is whether we want to keep the two categories as separate category concepts. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:28, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. The fact that sub-cats at one are articles in the other suggests they are the same thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:11, 14 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, merge. There are many examples where the lead articles of categories also populate the head category. I'm not sure whether there is any guidance about that, but it makes sense in practice, despite WP:SUBCAT. – Fayenatic London 20:32, 3 April 2013 (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.

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 both.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:21, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Diving ducks to Category:Aythyinae

Nominator's rationale: The articles Aythyinae and Diving ducks are the same. Taranet (talk) 16:14, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Reverse merge They are the same, but Aythyinae redirects to Diving duck. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:43, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge since article is diving duck. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:32, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Reverse merge we use common names for categories.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both, oppose reverse merge. All other subcatgories of Category:Anatidae, which are subfamilies of the Anatidae, are at the scientific names. However, upon further checking, these categories are in entirely different trees. Category:Diving ducks<Category:Ducks<Category:Waterfowl<Category:Birds by common name, while Category:Aythyinae<Category:Anatidae<Category:Anatoidea<Category:Anseriformes<Category:Birds by classification. Both categorisations for these articles are entirely correct. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:10, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both per The Bushranger. Very convincing. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 06:36, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Having two categories that cover the same thing creates category clutter. We should only have one category for diving ducks, and it should use the common name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not all diving ducks are members of the Aythyinae; the Merginae are also commonly known as diving ducks in some areas. "Diving duck" is somewhat ambiguous, and merging Category:Aythyinae to it would simply slash out part of another category tree. If we should have only one category for birds in general, then that needs to be discussed for the entire Category:Birds by classification tree, but we need not to merge just one category and leave it incomplete. The fact that these categories are in two entirely seperate category trees means that there is no duplication, and that merging would be inadvisable. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 19:15, 13 March 2013 (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.

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 both.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Dabbling ducks to Category:Anatinae

Nominator's rationale: The articles Anatinae and dabbling ducks are the same. this category has no interwikies. Taranet (talk) 16:05, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both per the reasoning in the nomination above; these are in two entirely seperate category trees. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:14, 13 March 2013 (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.

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: withdrawn.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:22, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:No wave musicians to Category:No Wave musicians
• Propose renaming Category:No wave albums to Category:No Wave albums
• Propose renaming Category:No wave EPs to Category:No Wave EPs

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. The category's main category is Category:No Wave and main article is No Wave. The main article uses "No Wave" even for musicians. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename To match the main article. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 19:11, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. I have opened a discussion at Talk:No Wave#Requested_move on de-capitalising the head article. I suggest that this discussion be put on hold pending the outcome of the article move discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:05, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose – No. You are misunderstanding. "No Wave", capitalised, refers to the No Wave movement of art, music and film, which is distinct from the specific music genre (known as no wave music, or, simply, "no wave"). Music genres are not capitalised. Lachlan Foley (talk) 10:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Support If reliable sources consistent capitalize an art movement (as they do with New Wave music as well as New Wave cinema), then I don't see why we would not capitalize it. The examples given in the MoS are all arbitrary caps of things that are not usually capitalized (such as "Science Fiction.") Either way, as BHG points out above, the categories should match the article and be consistent, so the discussion should really be at Talk:No Wave. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:53, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Withdraw nomination Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:24, 13 March 2013 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:16, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Logar Valley to Category:Logar Valley (Slovenia)

Nominator's rationale: Opposed speedy. Main article of the category is Logar Valley (Slovenia). Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 10:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator to match head article, and to ensure that topics relating to the Logar River valley in Afghanistan are not miscategorised with the Slovenian topics. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Rename (I was the original speedy nominator). This is a straightforward application of C2D. Categories are "pre-emptively disambiguated" in a way that articles are not. Category names are almost always matched the appropriate article name. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 20:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to match article. The question is not "do we have another category that might be confused with this one" but "is there another concept that articles might relate to that could be put here by mistake". I see no reason to leave this open to people accidentally putting articles related to the valley in Afghanistan with the same name here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 7 March 2013 (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.

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. It is very tempting to rename the witches category, but there's no rule that females can't be "sorcerers" (see Sorcerer (Dungeons & Dragons), which is gender neutral).--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

There's also Category:Fictional necromancers, but it's a very specific type of magic (and a gender-neutral category). Same with Fictional Druids, which I understand is about a religion. --Niemti (talk) 19:22, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional witches to Category:Fictional witches and sorceresses

Nominator's rationale: Rename. We had had (have) separate "wizards", "sorcerers" and "warlocks" for a reason, but all magician women are "witches". Niemti (talk) 18:51, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose merging Category:Fictional warlocks to Category:Fictional wizards and sorcerers
• Propose merging Category:Fictional sorcerers to Category:Fictional wizards and sorcerers

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Underpopulated and redunant categories. Niemti (talk) 18:44, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Fictional wizards to Category:Fictional wizards and sorcerers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Another redunant category in the same series, but most populated. Niemti (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment at present there are at least three females in Category:Fictional sorcerers. The one I know the most about I would not put in a witch category, however she might fit as a sorceress, although she is actually only described in the works as an enchantress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 19 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Warlock is not a synonym for wizard in all cases. It has its own connectations and a very different history of meaning and use. Are we sure we want to wipe out the use of that term in categorization?

In this case, why "warlock is just a redirect to simply "Magician (fantasy)"? Also, sign your comments. --Niemti (talk) 22:48, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Fictional witches to Category:Fictional witches and sorceresses and move to that category the females in Category:Fictional sorcerers. I am undiceded about what to do with the three male categories at this time.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:37, 25 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from CFD 2013 January 18 to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:00, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment how about using category:fictional male mages and category:fictional female mages instead? -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 09:23, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all so many fictional characters use magic that this is a trivial characteristic; see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_March_14#Fictional_characters_by_power where a slew of these types of categories were deleted and these ought to have been as well. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:54, 4 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually there are tons of categories by power of ability, but these here are more of a "by occupation" category. --Niemti (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom the female category, Keep the male category as is. The two suggested names are synonyms. Dimadick (talk) 15:09, 6 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment since warlock is the male equivalent of a witch, we should probably redirect that term to Witch until it can have its own article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:17, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Actually "warlock" is synonymous with "sorcerer": "a man who practises witchcraft; a sorcerer."[1] "1. a man who practises black magic; sorcerer 2. a fortune-teller, conjuror, or magician"[2][3] "1: a man practicing the black arts : sorcerer — compare witch 2: conjurer"[4] All 3 should become one simple 'job' category: "wizards and sorcerers". --Niemti (talk) 09:18, 8 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and rename both the female and the male compoents per the nom, but we still need to move some females to the renamed female cat. I have become convinced that these distinctions are not worth making. I think the gender distinction is still worth while though.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:44, 9 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Can we close it yet? --Niemti (talk) 14:37, 3 April 2013 (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.

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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:24, 4 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:No Wave musical groups to Category:No wave groups

Nominator's rationale: "No Wave" should be capitalised as "No wave" in this context as it is being treated as a musical genre rather than a movement, and music genres aren't capitalised. It is also more common to have "[genre] groups" than "[genre] musical groups" in category titles. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:31, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment The main article for No Wave is in caps. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 07:39, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but that article is about the No Wave movement in general; No Wave is not just a musical genre, it is also a film movement, etc. This category is referring to the music genre (known as no wave music, or, simply, "no wave"), and, as such, it should not be capitalised, since music genres aren't capitalised. Lachlan Foley (talk) 07:57, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose per Lugnuts. The main article is No Wave. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 16:46, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Note. The article has been moved to no wave via RM. Jenks24 (talk) 07:17, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename per C2D. Armbrust ^{The Homunculus} 07:25, 13 March 2013 (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.

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. The Bushranger _{One ping only} 06:18, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship Games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The 39 bowl games from 1951 to 1998 categorized here were in no way "NCAA Division I FBS National Football Championship Games". They just happened to influence the national championships in those given years. The process of determining those national championships was complicated and not decided by the NCAA. This is a totally misleading category that fabricates an utter non-entity. Jweiss11 (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are multiple problems with this category. First, the use of the "Football Bowl Subdivision" terminology is anachronistically applied, when the term was not used before 2006. Second, there was no such thing as a sanctioned "Championship Game" before 1992, when the Bowl Alliance created the first system for automatically pairing the No. 1 and No. 2 ranked teams in a bowl game after the conclusion of the regular season. Third, this category includes numerous games that were not match-ups of the No. 1 vs. No. 2 teams, and were not a "championship game" in a meaningful sense, but presumably decided the outcome of the final No. 1 ranking in estimation of the category creator. Bottom line: this is an ill-defined category that serves to confuse rather than clarify. Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 11:37, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Fix and keep: Just untag all the bowl games before 1992, and keep it for all the national championships since then pbp 20:50, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

So, then we'd be left with the subcategory Category:BCS National Championship Game, the three Bowl Coalition championship games (1993 Sugar Bowl, 1994 Orange Bowl, 1995 Orange Bowl) and the three Bowl Alliance championship games (1996 Fiesta Bowl, 1997 Sugar Bowl, 1998 Orange Bowl). The 1998 Rose Bowl would have to be removed by the same logic as removing all of the pre-1992 games. Would lumping this together be more meaningful or misleading? Jweiss11 (talk) 01:46, 2 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Prune, Keep and Consider Rename The purpose of the category is bath rather clear and completely appropriate, as a means of organizing games that were intended by design to pit the top two ranked teams in the nation against each other for the purpose of declaring the game's winner the national champion. Games played in an ere where the two top teams ended up playing each other don't meet this criteria. I agree that the name is not ideal, but the nominator describes how championship games were arranged from 1992 going forward, and an appropriate name could be considered as an alternate to the current title. Pruning the category will eliminate games that don't belong here; renaming might well come up with a better title; deleting the category only harms Wikipedia navigation, with no benefit whatsoever to readers. Alansohn (talk) 17:35, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Problematic category, and I don't see a fix.--GrapedApe (talk) 23:50, 3 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete we really do not need to categorize games in this way, especially when it creates so many problems and uncertainties.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The page would be in the way of and may confuse some readers. TheBigYellOhh (talk) 04:16, 12 March 2013 (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.

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 both. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:18, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Death rock musical groups to Category:Deathrock groups
• Propose renaming Category:American death rock musical groups to Category:American deathrock groups

Nominator's rationale: Deathrock is treated as one word on Wikipedia. See its article and its category. I believe it is also more common to have "[genre] groups" rather than "[genre] musical groups" as a category title. Lachlan Foley (talk) 05:21, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. The one-word format could have been speedily approved per deathrock and Category:Deathrock. As for the word "musical", 15 of 34 genres include it within the sub-cats of Category:Rock music groups by genre, and 7 of 17 in Category:American rock music groups by genre include "musical" and another 4 have "music". It's needed for clarity in some e.g. Category:Emo musical groups but I suggest that it is not needed for genres of "rock groups". – Fayenatic London 14:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. The two-word format makes it sound as a death-related category, instead of one covering a music genre. The less ambiguity the better. Dimadick (talk) 10:54, 1 March 2013 (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.

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. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:19, 7 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Category:National anthem singers
• Nominator's rationale This really does not seem to be an actual genre. It does not seem that there are singers that this is all they do, even for small sections of their career. There may be a few singers noted for doing this, but at least in the US most such singing is done by people who have already become noted for other singing. It seems to just be a way to add even more categories to articles on singers, something we really don't need.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:20, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete—anyone in New Zealand who attends one of the many Anzac Day services or parades around the country will sing the National Anthem. It's not something sung to us, it's something we all join in on. As a result, all notable New Zealanders belong in this category, therefore it's not something distinctive enough to classify by. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:28, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete analogous to performer by performance. Singing national anthems is so common at patriotic events and sporting events, and even in many schools (daily), that singing them - or even known for singing them (or lip syncing them, recently) - is trivial. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:19, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Most of the singers who have Wikipedia articles have sung the national anthem at some time or another. It's a meaningless designation pbp 20:51, 28 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, although this may be more precisely named Category:National anthem performers. This should not be distorted into a matter of people who non-notably sing national anthems; it is about those who have a defining notability in performing national anthems (e.g. Jeff Jimerson, and very clearly Roger Doucet). Of course, singing national anthems may not be all they do, but they have earned significance for doing so, analogous to an occupational category. Also, whether this is an "actual genre" is a red herring and not a deletion criterion, although it could be reparented directly under Category:Singers as seen in Category:Playback singers and Category:Child singers. Dl2000 (talk) 03:26, 1 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- This is clearly a "performance by performer" category of the worst kind. Peterkingiron (talk) 12:25, 4 March 2013 (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.