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. This does not prove a point about
Category:Songs by theme, as the case is strongly made here that these songs are generally not about the days of the week, and even for those that are, this is not defining. This case is less solid for, say,
Category:Songs about drugs. Also, I'm not going to rule on a list; if you want one, make one, and then AFD can deal with it. --
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:11, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Most of the songs in the category are not "about" days of the week. The category is defined as "songs featuring a day of the week in the title", and indeed, that seems to have been the inclusionary criterion that was applied. This makes the category
overcategorization by shared name. I'm not sure if this can be salvaged by somehow limiting it to songs that are truly "about" days of the week, but how many songs really are "about" the day of the week itself?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:48, 19 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Even if we limited this category to songs that are actually about days of the week, I don't see how this is a defining song topic for categorization.
szyslak (
t) 12:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Strong keep. I sense a great disturbance in the force of common sense as if millions of categories suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.
This nomination logically ends with removing the entire
Category:Songs by theme hierarchy. It would be
WP:OR to start analysing whether songs are actually about things mentioned in their title or lyrics, but I don't think anyone would remove that whole category tree. For instance, "
California Dreamin'" is actually about somebody in a cold place (it was written in NY), but it is sufficient that California is prominently mentioned in the lyrics and/or the title for it to be included in
Category:Songs about California. At least some of the songs in the nominated category are about days of the week, and IMHO it is fine to include others named likewise. As for
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES, take it as a wise and generally-helpful principle rather than a law. It is aimed at ruling out trivial and unencyclopedic connections, but IMHO this category is non-trivial and a valid encyclopedic navigational option. At the very least, listify rather than lose the info. –
FayenaticLondon 21:10, 20 June 2012 (UTC)reply
That's kind of like saying, "I know this category violates the guidelines as it is applied, but so do all these other categories that we have created, so let's keep it." But on the merits of the category's application, how anyone could say that, for instance, "
Wednesday Morning, 3 A.M." is "about" that day of the week, I'm unsure. In other words, I think you've exactly hit on a major problem with
Category:Songs by theme that some of us have been trying to point out for some time now, but users just keep creating and creating and creating these.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:24, 20 June 2012 (UTC)reply
That sounds a weighty analysis, but I see it this way: if a song mentions something in the title, that is sufficient to count it as being a "song about" that theme, and it is neither required nor desirable to have to investigate further. It might be more precise to rename all the "songs about" categories as "songs about or named after" but IMHO (currently) that would be unnecessary. –
FayenaticLondon 16:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Your standard sounds an awful lot like what
WP:OC#SHAREDNAMES is getting at. It just so happens that every song with a specific word in its title is not necessarily "about" that word topic. Some artists, such as Bob Dylan, are notorious for giving songs titles that have nothing to do with what the song is about.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:18, 29 June 2012 (UTC)reply
At what point does using a single word in a song or a song title be considered defining? Unless it is set out in the lead of the article with
WP:V, it is NOT defining.
WP:OR applies when a song is added to a category without supporting text and reference.The idea of categorization is to unite articles with a defining categoristic - see
Wikipedia:Overcategorization and specifically,
WP:DEFINING.
Songs, and song titles, use
Simile,
Metaphor,
Analogy,
Allegory,
Parable,
Figure of Speech and every other linquistic known, but this category (and all others by theme) denies most lyricists and songwriters the ability to use english, or any other language, when writing lyrics.
It should also be noted that fiction/novels are not categorised by this sort of category. However, there are a few lists by theme at
Category:Lists of novels.--
Richhoncho (
talk) 20:25, 22 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment: although it would be a matter for discussion at AfD, it would be helpful if the closing admin would comment on whether making a similar list is viewed with any favour. A list could be more informative with sections on songs that are about the days, perhaps followed by a concise list of songs that merely mention the days in the title. –
FayenaticLondon 19:15, 25 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete and listify after purging those that just use the name, instead of being about. -
The BushrangerOne ping only 00:48, 27 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete I am not convinced that we need to categorize songs by subject, especially such a narrow subject.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 04:53, 28 June 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:Construction projects in Canada
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:Victoria Cougars players
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 C2B.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:12, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Adding the years because there are two teams with this name. This one is under
Victoria Cougars. The other is a juniors team under
Victoria Cougars (WHL) that played from 1971–1994 under this name. It is nominated for a different kind of renaming here. When we differentiate teams with the same names in categories, we either use the league name or the years. Here, surprisingly enough, both Cougars were in a (different) league called the WHL, so I think the years is the right call.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 22:36, 19 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. This is the standard dabbing convention in such instances.
Jrcla2 (
talk) 00:45, 20 June 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:Winnipeg Warriors players
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 C2B.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:13, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Adding the years because there are two teams with this name. This one is under
Winnipeg Warriors (minor pro). The other is a juniors team under
Winnipeg Warriors that played from 1980–1984 under this name. It is nominated for a different kind of renaming
here. When we differentiate teams with the same names in categories, we either use the league name or the years. Here, surprisingly enough, both Warriors were in a (different) league called the WHL, so I think the years is the right call.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 22:32, 19 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Support per nom. This is the standard dabbing convention in such instances.
Jrcla2 (
talk) 00:45, 20 June 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:Development projects in Shanghai
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:split. Louisville category was split to by country category as there are no appropriate state-level categories, and to appropriate Louisville categories as appropriate. FL
shanghaied for the other... -
The BushrangerOne ping only 21:22, 4 July 2012 (UTC)reply
Support and I have added the one for Louisville, Kentucky. That should be merged to city categories like proposed above if they already exist. If they don't exist merge to the state categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 22:19, 20 June 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:Germany in space
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 C2C.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:14, 24 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Rename. I think the best thing to do with this category would be to make it a subcategory of
Category:Space programs and to follow the naming convention used there.
Tim! (
talk) 21:14, 19 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Rename per nm, to follow the convention of
Category:Space programs ... and also to avoid the impression that this relates to a country which has been sent into orbit. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 12:26, 20 June 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:Angel video games
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: Significent enough a change not to qualify for speedy, I believe; "Angels in video games", the speedyable choice, would imply characters, not the games themselves. This category has a somewhat awkward name, and one that is badly ambiguous; I clicked on it expecting it to have video games relating to
Angel (TV series). The film category has the same problems...
The BushrangerOne ping only 08:22, 19 June 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:Pacific Wharf
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 C2B.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:14, 24 June 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:Future World
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 C2B.
Timrollpickering (
talk) 10:15, 24 June 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:Sparkle
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.
Comment: is two films + two albums enough to call it a franchise? in which case
Category:Sparkle (franchise) would avoid having to choose between "(film)" and "(films)". –
FayenaticLondon 21:14, 20 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I don't know if it could fairly be called a "franchise". The 2012 film has not even been released yet, so it's a little hard to assess at this stage.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:27, 20 June 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.
Films by studio and films by producer
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:move categories as described.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 06:13, 9 July 2012 (UTC)reply
I have noticed that the two categories
Category:Films by studio and
Category:Films by producer cover a very similar subject and think that these may need to be re-organised. The main issue I see is that in the Films by producer category, this lists people as well as production companies, whilst the films by studio category only lists production companies.
I think the best solution for this is to have two categories, one category for production companies/studios and one category for film producers (people). The easiest way to achieve this is to move all the production company categories in "Films by producer" e.g. Category:Film4 Productions films into the "Films by studio category", leaving only film producers (people) in the "Films by producer" category. This way we will have two categories, one for companies and one for people:
Films by producer should contain people such as "Films produced by James L. Brooks"
Films by studio should contain companies such as "20th Century Fox films" -
0800abc123 (
talk) 02:19, 19 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Is there an easy way of moving multiple categories from "Films by producer" to "Films by studio"? I'd do it myself but haven't really got the time to do it for that many pages. -
0800abc123 (
talk) 13:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC)reply
I would imagine that using AWB to sort the films into their respective companies and producers by using the search feature would speed things up. Take all the films on the page and search for just the ones who list Brooks as producer, and then add (not replace) his cat, and then repeat for the next big producer. Do the same process for companies--again, adding, not replacing. To keep it easy, don't remove the original cat until you've worked through both the companies and the individuals—otherwise you really will be making it time-consuming.
Aristophanes68(talk) 13:43, 21 June 2012 (UTC)reply
Make it simple: let a bot move the whole lot, then use
WP:HOTCAT to move back the small minority that are named after people. –
FayenaticLondon 08:42, 3 July 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.