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.
keep This category is a useful one, especially to categorize people who don't have a
Category:Lesbian (their job) category that already exists - many such cats have recently been deleted because they represented a non-defining intersection. --
KarlB (
talk) 22:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
keep. Even if all articles about lesbians were placed in a subcategory, the category would be keepable as a container category to hold the lesbians by occupation categories. Generally, I don't think lesbians should be broken down by occupation. They should be in an LGBT category by occupation and in the general
Category:Lesbians category.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep in light of in-progress deletion of occupation categories. Good Ol'factory's suggestion sounds right. –
Roscelese (
talk ⋅
contribs) 02:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep proper container category and there are always some that aren't broken into subcats by their job.
RafikiSykes (
talk) 18:09, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this category is of such a nature that it should only have subcats, but we have decided that really everything should be categorized as LGBT. The current hybrid metho just leads to cat clutter.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Keep with caveat that only people whose reason for notability is being a lesbian - that is, activists, entertainers who openly discuss it, things like that. We should make sure not to throw in someone who "happens to be a lesbian", just as we don't do that for Christians.
D O N D E groovilyTalk to me 04:12, 20 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:Black Welsh sportspeople
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: Historically, 'triple intersection' categories like this one have usually been deleted. From
WP:EGRS: 'Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.' I'm not convinced 'Black Welsh sportspeople' is a topic that has been the subject of such attention, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise.
Robofish (
talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Well, I simply came across this category as the only subcat of
Category:Black Welsh people and it struck me as odd and probably unnecessary.
Category:Black British sportspeople is probably worth keeping, but I don't see the need to further divide it into national subcategories.
Robofish (
talk) 16:54, 19 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete this is a categorization by race. We do not categorize by race.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)reply
It's actually more of an ethnicity, since "Black British" (and hence "Black Welsh") is a well-recognised ethnicity in the UK and is included in census forms, government statistics, etc.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:19, 20 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:Hertzsprung-Russell classifications
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:Rename. Normally article matching would apply, but it would be bizarre to name the category Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, so propose simple switch to singular form as there is only one Hertzsprung–Russell classification, not several.
Brandmeistertalk 21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose what do you mean there's only one? There's many, like asymptotic giant branch stars, or red clump stars, or main sequence stars.
70.24.251.208 (
talk) 05:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment the classifications are derived from the placement of stars on the H-R diagram, so the category is not about the diagram, but classifications derived from the diagram. As the diagram itself is not the classification, it is not singular.
70.24.251.208 (
talk) 05:26, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose There's one system, but many classifications in the system. Should stay plural.
Benkenobi18 (
talk) 14:59, 18 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:B-side 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.
Nominator's rationale: These songs are united by the fact that they were on the back sides of different singles. They have no real connection to each other, and it's hard to imagine the utility of trying to make such a connection.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 18:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
keep I think it's a useful collection to browse through. People actually make lists of B-sides that eventually became important (see
[1]. --
KarlB (
talk) 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete – this would be much better as a list. The criteria merely state "Songs that are B-sides to singles", which must apply to thousands of notable songs. (It seems to me that this is tangential to the song, however well-known its B-side existence might be.)
Oculi (
talk) 20:32, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete. I will however raise the question of, would
Category:B-side songs that charted or some such make sense? If done, would limiting to that be reasonable. However would navigation here be better served by a list?
Vegaswikian (
talk) 00:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Note that this category was nominated previously (see
WP:CFD/2011 Aug 2). I will abstain this time around, however. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 09:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete we should categorize songs by traits of the songs, not placement within retailing packages.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:47, 19 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per John Pack Lambert's pertinent comment.--
Richhoncho (
talk) 19:31, 20 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:Jazzland Records 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 result of the discussion was:no consensus, which defaults to "keep". A bizarre nomination with a rationale which makes no sense to me, and an alternate proposal which is equally unclear. However, the nominator's alternate proposal involves no action at CfD and is supported by one other editor, so the clear outcome is to do nothing. However, since it's unclear exactly what was being rejected, I am labelling the close as "no consensus", to leave open the option of a further nomination if anyone wants to explain what this is all about. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 22:06, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Agree with Aternate ProposalDISEman (
talk) 00:53, 18 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:Articles using divbox template
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 delete as housekeeping (G6).
BencherliteTalk 10:32, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Temporary cleanup category. The template which added pages to this category has now been edited so that it does not display on articles, so there is no longer a need to track inappropriate transclusions.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (
talk) 09:58, 17 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:Frenetic Records 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:Media workers in the West Midlands (region)
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: Categorising media workers by sub-national region seems to me to be a recipe for category clutter, since many journalists and broadcasters move between regions in search of employment. AFAICS there are no other "media workers in Foo" categories (see
this search), and there are no no other categories containing the phrase "media workers" (see
this search). --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 09:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
Oculi (
talk) 14:00, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Delete in this case it is even worse than "sub-national" because technically the nation is the United Kingdom, England is the sub-nation, and so the West Midlands is in some ways a tertiary region.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 18:49, 19 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:Showbiz TV shows
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:Media in East Midlands region, England
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) 18:40, 19 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:Radio stations in the West Midlands
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:World Circuit 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.
Nominator's rationale: Per
World Circuit. Alternate proposal: Close this and rename that page with a hatnote for the other use. (This is probably the wiser decision.) —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:05, 17 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:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated 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.
Nominator's rationale: Wu-Tang have marketed themselves as a brand and have a near-infinite group of extended affiliates. Previous discussions about categorizing albums as side-projects of a main artist have resulted in deletion. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
I know it's not a record label. I'm saying it's as defining as a record label and for similar reasons. There's definitely a Wu-Tang sound and a Wu-Tang approach to rap.
Pichpich (
talk) 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Comment. Like the nominator, it is my understanding that we have agreed several times by consensus not to categorize albums for being a side project or affiliated project of another musical group. I'm not familiar enough with rap or Wu-Tang to argue whether or not this is defining, but based solely on precedence, I would have thought this category should be deleted.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:10, 24 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:Think Fast! Records 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:Galatians
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:Wikipedia requested photographs of 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 result of the discussion was:keep. There was a local consensus here to change the infobox so that it populates this category, but that solution may be best discussed at
WikiProject Albums before action is taken. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 08:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Oppose: Although the infobox method it is the best is not widely known (a hidden category) or can it address all cases. More people are aware of the {{reqphoto}} template and often added it to the talk page of album articles. The imageneeded parameter in the talk page {{WikiProject Albums}} is also occasionally used.
Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums also allows for additional requests for images on a page that has a cover image or to request album covers for non album articles. --
Traveler100 (
talk) 12:29, 17 May 2012 (UTC)reply
Response This is probably the best option, actually. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 00:12, 19 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.
Relisted at
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2012 May 26. --
Black Falcon (
talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Rich
Farmbrough, 19:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC).