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. --Xdamrtalk 20:05, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. And both created by the same editor?? The relationship of a song's title to its lyrics is not a defining characteristic. It's a trivial factoid.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:49, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment, By the same author, so what? See what I have put below, this IS a characteristic of a song in my honest opinion. --
Cexycy (
talk) 00:00, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I just thought you might have thought twice about creating it after the previous one was deleted.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:12, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Well you thought wrong. This has got nothing to do with the other category other than they were both started by me. Any idiot can tell the difference. Despite the flack I got from the last category, I bounced back with another idea. I think you should commend people like that instead of making silly jokes about their efforts. Don't forget, many Wikipedians like myself do not get paid for this work. --
Cexycy (
talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I am calm thank you. There is a time and a place for this sort of thing and here is not it. --
Cexycy (
talk) 10:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)reply
OK. Suggesting that other users might be "idiots" suggested to me a bit of an upset writer.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:56, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I suggested nothing of the sort, just that you should be focusing on the category in question and not something which has been and gone. A couple of people saying that they thought I would not bother again is just absurd. Can't someone come up with another idea, especially if their first ones were bad? There's no rules about stopping them here. --
Cexycy (
talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
"This has got nothing to do with the other category other than they were both started by me. Any idiot can tell the difference." To me this seems at least like "something" of the sort.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:38, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I used the term idiots loosely, okay replace "idiot" with "person". Any person can tell the difference. --
Cexycy (
talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Ah. Well, your comments below using the term seem to be a bit more tightly focused, and I'd suggest you avoid suggesting other users are idiots.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:25, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
There is no need for this childish drivel. Just state your cases for keeping or deleting the category, that's what the discussion is for! You should all be ashamed of yourselves! --
Cexycy (
talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Om! Delete as above. Lugnuts (
talk) 18:09, 10 March 2010 (UTC)reply
How is it trivia? When you think about it for some of these songs to go to number one despite only using the words in the title, is quite a bit of an achievement. --
Cexycy (
talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep Okay it may sound a little dry for a category, but I honestly believe in this case that this is a notable feature of a song. Two out of the three songs currently in the category made the UK number 1. Not bad for a song which is very lyrically challeged or lyrically limited. This categeory really does focus on quite an important part of the songs concerned. After all, would they be as popular if they did not have this characteristic? Btw, Lloyd George knew my father would not count as the second line is NOT the title and so on. It would also be nice if you could take this discussion a little seriously and state why or why not the category should be kept instead of coming up with silly suggestions. The two I came up with may not be brilliant, but at least the content of them could be easily and clearly determined as being suitable or not, as opposed to silly ones like "Songs whose lyrics I can never remember" and "Songs whose lyrics are only ever remembered by drunk people who can't sing but do". Come on folks, I never had a dig at you lot!--
Cexycy (
talk) 23:58, 11 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. Yes, there was a failure of
WP:AGF here, but I have to admit I had to bite my knuckles, not to make my own inane suggestion, too, but so soon after the last CfD was closed? You were opening up yourself. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 10:48, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Anyone with a brain would know that the two categories have nothing really in common (apart from the creator). As I said before just try and appreciate what unpaid work Wikipedians do despite the flack instead of making silly jokes. I have already stated a reason why this category should be kept, so really you all should challenge this arguement or just shut up. --
Cexycy (
talk) 23:24, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I would complained to Jimbo if you were paid more than me! The arguments against this cat are the same as for your previous creation, but much more so. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 23:37, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I can see that and I think its very pathetic and immature. This is a discussion on the category itself and not for silly comments about nothing. --
Cexycy (
talk) 10:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)reply
As I said before, why can't you come up with reasons why the category should be removed instead of absurd comments? --
Cexycy (
talk) 10:15, 13 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Here's the summary of the closure of your last category that was nominated, "The result of the discussion was: delete. While interesting, consensus is that this is trivial, not a defining characteristic, and overcategorization of unrelated subjects by a shared naming characteristic," I suspect the summary will be pretty much the same this time. I think there's your reasons already. Whereas I had a little sympathy for the other category, I have none at all for this one, after all, as every songwriter is taught, "hooks are for hammering" and listing songs where they have done that is trivia to the nth degree. Reason enough for you? --
Richhoncho (
talk) 10:36, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Well any idiot can write a song of this nature, but it is not any idiot who can make quite successful songs out of doing so! Which is what this category is about. As mentioned before this category is about such songs which became notable enough to have an article. --
Cexycy (
talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
No more idiotic than the person who continues to fight the battle that is already lost. --
Richhoncho (
talk) 18:02, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Can't be as idiotic as someone who thinks that adding stupid comments consitutes a reasonable arguement! For your information many songs have the "hooks" hammered frequently, some not at all and very few hammer them all the time, which is what the category is about. --
Cexycy (
talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Let's (everyone) stop suggesting that anyone else is an idiot or acting idiotically. Please.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:27, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm afraid that absurd categories tend to generate absurd comments. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:19, 13 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Well I have already provided a reason why the category should be kept. If you can prove otherwise, please do so, but silly comments do not prove anything. --
Cexycy (
talk) 10:20, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Cexycy, the overwhelming consensus is that the category captures a trivial aspect of a song, just like your previous category based on the relationship between the title and the lyrics. There are many aspects of a song which we could in theory categorise by, but trying to accommodate them all in the category system would cause massive category clutter on articles, as well as becoming a maintenance nightmare. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 10:42, 14 March 2010 (UTC)reply
As I have already stated, for a song to be successful (and therefore notable enough to have its own article) with only the lyrics in the title is quite an achievement and therefore quite a notable feature, thus warrenting a category as such. There's not really that many songs to put in it anyway. How can you say it is NOT a defining feature? If the songs contained did NOT have this feature, they would be totally different. If anything it is MORE defining that being written by someone or the year it was released! --
Cexycy (
talk) 00:56, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Can you REALLY see where this is going? All I can see is this forum being filled up with more and more stupid comments (and not by me). I have already stated my reasons for this category. No-one has to agree with me, but no-one has to be funny about it either. --
Cexycy (
talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Have you read what I've said about it? How can it be trivial? If anything it is quite notable. --
Cexycy (
talk) 22:58, 15 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I read every word you wrote in this discussion. We don't make categories for every feature of our articles- notice that
Category:Redheads is a, well, red link despite most people agreeing hair colour is an important feature of a person. This should be mentioned in the individual songs articles, not used as a category.
Bradjamesbrown (
talk) 20:16, 16 March 2010 (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:Songs written by Tetsu (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.
Rename per nom to
Category:Songs written by Tetsuya (musician), but re-create the old category name as a {{category redirect}}, in case people are looking under the old name. Include a headnote in the category to the effect that Tetsuya was previously known as Tetsu and as TETSU69, or by his birth name of Tetsuya Ogawa. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 11:51, 15 March 2010 (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:Munich sports
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.
Merge per nom as duplicate.
Kingjeff (
talk) 01:49, 10 March 2010 (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:Members of the Revolutionary Cells (RZ)
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. --Xdamrtalk 20:00, 19 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessarily fine division. This category's equivalent on the German Wikipedia has five articles in it, so it's unlikely this category will ever have more than that.
Prezbo (
talk) 08:42, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Tend to keep: The RZ had hundreds of members, so proceeding converage may lead to maybe ten articles in this category. The German Wikipedia is not the measure of all things either. While deleting it now and maybe recreating it in a few years wouldn't hurt much, I don't see the necessity. Rather it should be renamed along with its parent category.
PanchoS (
talk) 11:18, 9 March 2010 (UTC)reply
I guess the necessity is that right now
Category:Revolutionary Cells (RZ) only contains one article and this category, so it's irritating to navigate. You may be right though. It probably should be renamed but I'm not sure to what.
Prezbo (
talk) 12:41, 9 March 2010 (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 merge for speedy 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.
Use "Wikipedia" in the naming, since this is a maintenance category, not a content category.
70.29.210.242 (
talk) 04:41, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per nominator. Do not include the word Wikipedia, because that could make it seem that the category is solely for the Wikipedia namespace, which it isn't. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 18:05, 12 March 2010 (UTC)reply
According to naming guidelines for categories, there is no such requirement that maintenance categories include the word "Wikipedia", only where such is needed to avoid confusion.
Debresser (
talk) 22:11, 13 March 2010 (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:Martin Scorsese Presents the Blues albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Joujouka
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.
Nominator's rationale: Confusing to relate, so please just see
Jajouka (which is an article),
Category:Jajouka (the parent of this category), and
Joujouka (a dab page.) Simply put, there is too much overlap and the names are confusingly similar. Since they're tranlisterated from Arabic, there is every chance that they are actually identical anyway. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 04:55, 9 March 2010 (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.
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 March 17.
עוד מישהו
Od Mishehu 14:13, 17 March 2010 (UTC)