Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 30: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 07:08, 1 January 2010

< December 29	December 31 >

December 30

Greek Revival buildings

Propose upmerging Category:Greek Revival buildings in the United States by state - Template:Lc1

Propose renaming

"buildings" to "architecture" for Category:Greek Revival buildings in the United States and 22 descendents

Category:Greek Revival buildings in Alabama to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Alabama
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Connecticut to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Connecticut
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Hawaii to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Hawaii
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Illinois to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Illinois
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Kentucky to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Kentucky
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Maryland to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Maryland
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Massachusetts to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Massachusetts
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Minnesota to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Minnesota
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Mississippi to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Mississippi
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Missouri to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Missouri
Category:Greek Revival buildings in New York to Category:Greek Revival architecture in New York
Category:Greek Revival buildings in North Carolina to Category:Greek Revival architecture in North Carolina
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Ohio to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Ohio
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Oregon to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Oregon
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Pennsylvania to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Pennsylvania
Category:Greek Revival buildings in South Carolina to Category:Greek Revival architecture in South Carolina
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Texas to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Texas
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Vermont to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Vermont
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Virginia to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Virginia
Category:Greek Revival buildings in West Virginia to Category:Greek Revival architecture in West Virginia
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Wisconsin to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Wisconsin
Category:Greek Revival buildings in Washington, D.C. to Category:Greek Revival architecture in Washington, D.C.

Nominator's rationale: As with the discussion on Gothic Revival building categories, the broader "architecture" is preferable ("buildings and structures" is more commonly applied to categories about the type of building or structure, whereas "architecture" categorizes them by era and style). Based on the way similar architectural style branches are developing, I think the "by state" layer is unneeded but that there is plenty of growth to be had for all of the state-level subcats, which also addresses issues raised in Feb 2007.- choster (talk) 23:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support renaming as nominated. I also noted that there's a category Category:Greek Revival buildings, which is a subcategory of Category:Greek Revival architecture. I think those should be merged as well, but that'd probably require a separate CFD. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 03:29, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I deliberately excluded that cat as it will almost certainly be completely depopulated after a thorough cleanup— no need to move all the articles from one cat to another only to move them again to a third a few days later.- choster (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename Category:Greek Revival buildings in the United States by state to Category:Greek Revival architecuture in the United States by state. Nominator said 'upmerge' but there is no proper parent category to upmerge this to without losing the purpose of this category, which is to collect the 'by state' subcategories. I see I created many of the listed subcats for each state, but the rename proposal offers a better naming pattern. Hmains (talk) 05:10, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

They would be upmerged to Category:Greek Revival architecture in the United States (if the nom to rename there from Category:Greek Revival buildings in the United States is accepted). There are extremely few articles that would be listed in the main category, which is why I think the "by state" layer is superfluous.- choster (talk) 16:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Saturday morning television

Propose deleting :

Propose merging :

Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. Television schedulers do try to understand the different characteristics of their potential audiences in different timeslots, and have many different segments, but that does mean that it is appropriate to categorise TV programs according to which of these slots they occupy. I can see no argument for retaining this category which could not equally well be applied to sunday mornings, saturday afternoons, saturday evenings, sunday afternoons and evening, friday evenings, and so on ... but if we go down this path, we will clutter TV programmes with narrow categories related to the timeslot in which they are broadcast. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:38, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination now complete. WikiProject Television has been notified. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:05, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete first two per nom. Television series should not be categorized by such a category, particularly when so many air multiple times and multiple timeslots as they are rebroadcast and shifted around. Also support the merger, but request that each cat be checked and verified that all three contain only programming original to those specific channels, versus reairings of syndicated content. -- Collectonian (talk · contribs) 22:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American LGBT Jews

Suggest merging Category:American LGBT Jews to Category:LGBT Jews and Category:American Jews

Nominator's rationale: Merge. A triple intersection between nationality, religion/ethncity, and sexuality. This fails the requirement of WP:CATGRS that such a category shoukd be created only when an encyclopedic article could be written on the topic, and see no evidence that "American LGBT Jews" is a distinct topic from "LGBT Jews". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. Per CATGRS. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:11, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom; triple intersection that fails CATGRS. Is this ? .... yup, it is. :( Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:54, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:06, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States

Propose deleting: Category:College men's basketball head coaches by team in the United States - Template:Lc1

Propose merging

List of 206 categories to be upmerged

Empty categories already tagged for speedy deletion:

Nominator's rationale: Overclassification per WP:OC#SMALL, because most of these categories will never have more than a few entries. A short list of head coaches can easily be included in the article on each team. ---BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:24, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note. These categories all appear to have been created by the same editor, Levineps (talk · contribs). In the discussion at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#User:Levineps and categorisation there is a proposal that all categories created by this editor be deleted. I do not know whether that proposal will be accepted, but if is, then that may be relevant to this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I guess we should delete these categories since that guy is obvious moron, just on that alone--Levineps (talk) 19:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from making such facetious comments. They are not constructive contributions here, and they only serve to indicate that you are still not taking the problems seriously that were raised at the AN/I and unanimously confirmed by the community. postdlf (talk) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as over-categorisation. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:10, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All Being a head coach is a defining characteristic and lumping them all with other coaches loses a great deal of useful information for navigation purposes. I understand the issues involved in challenging the powers-that-be, and this appears to be a knee-jerk decision by BrownHairedGirl to oppose anything created by the editor in question regardless of its clear utility and benefit to the project. Alansohn (talk) 22:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You mischaracterize her proposal, under which head coaches would be grouped together with other coaches by team, but also together in Category:College men's basketball head coaches in the United States, so that "defining characteristic" would not be lost. The argument is that segregation of the head coaches by team split up what were already small categories, spreading the head coaches in near-isolation in sparsely-populated categories. You may reasonably disagree with that (I don't have a position yet myself), but regardless your characterization of BHG and her motivation here is extremely inappropriate, particularly given that other editors have criticized these categories on the creator's talk page and elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 22:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - (ec) Alansohn, that assumption of bad faith is both uncivil and wrong: my reasons for nominating these categories are as set out in the nomination, that they are all small and will remain small.
    Back to the substance of the discussion: what exactly is the "great deal of useful information for navigation purposes" which you believe will be lost by an upmerger? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've noticed you've attacked people who criticize as being uncivil. But isn't reverting edits a particular person "both uncivil and wrong" as well. Hypocrispy in action!--Levineps (talk) 22:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Levineps, you raised exactly that point at ANI, and not one editor has responded in your support. You have already been asked to stop disrupting this discussion with facetious remarks; now please stop disrupting it with personal attacks. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:55, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        I am merely pointing out your conduct and the hypocrispy involved. You don't seem to mind to slander others and are very disrespect. It is not a personal attack but merely pointing out some facts about your work.--Levineps (talk) 23:16, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        This is a discussion about whether to delete categories. if you have complaints about my conduct, take it to WP:ANI. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
upmerge all per nom; delete the empties. Putting aside the creator issue for a moment, this is objectively overcategorization. All the coaches should be grouped together; we don't want to slice these into assistant coaches, head coaches, defence coaches, etc. because it creates overly small categories and makes category navigation more tedious. Going back to the creator issue, this is a fine example of what everyone has been talking about at the ANI, and hopefully the situation will resolve itself soon. The completion of this nomination is an inspiring job, BTW. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Baltimore Bullets scouts

Category:Baltimore Bullets scouts - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overclassification. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For this and all the other sports-related categories you've just nominated here, is any upmerging appropriate, or just outright deletion? Seeing the likely merge targets will help others better evaluate why these particular categories are unnecessary subdivisions or intersections. Additionally, the category creator had a habit of removing many categories he apparently considered redundant when he would add his own, so all of that should be reviewed. No opinion on the merits of this CFD otherwise. postdlf (talk) 18:06, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Milwaukee Bucks owners

Category:Milwaukee Bucks owners - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overclassification. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Many other teams in the NBA and other sports have an owners page.--Levineps (talk) 13:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Detroit Shock executives

Category:Detroit Shock executives - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overclassification. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American rappers

Category:Jewish American rappers - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Overclassification. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep well-defined and defining category. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Jewish American musicians, Category:American rappers and Category:Jewish rappers. Per WP:CATGRS, intersection categories such as this between occupation and religion should be created only when the intersection is itself an encyclopedic topic distinct from . I see no evidence that "Jewish American rap" is a distinct genre, but if anyone has such evidence then please present it. This is also a triple intersection category between (ethnicity/religion, nationality, and occupation), and triple intersection categories are generally deprecated. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:43, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change of opinion to Upmerge per arguments above. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:08, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note Category:American rappers by ethnic or national origin, in which this category would belong, even though it was inexplicably left out. That structure is obviously relevant to the merits of this category, and it is likely that the contents of this category would (also) belong in Category:European American rappers if it is merged anywhere. postdlf (talk) 20:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- What makes you assume that all Jewish American rappers are white? Justin Warfield is an African-American member of this category. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 07:03, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ignorance. Or indifference to rappers. postdlf (talk) 21:13, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Sorry for being so snippy. There are perhaps as many as 200,000 African-American Jews and we're too often rendered invisible by the assumption that all Jews are white. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 22:15, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish American atheists

Category:Jewish American atheists - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Too strange. Very vague. Kittybrewster ☎ 12:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the nominator. Too obscure a topic. Lord Spongefrog, (I am Czar of all Russias!) 14:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this divides up the expansive American Jews category and being an athiest is related to religion so it's not just a random category--Levineps (talk) 19:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You didn't bother to make it a subcategory of Category:American Jews, and from what I've seen, you instead created it by merging Category:Jewish atheists and Category:American atheists. So it would seem to have absolutely no bearing on Category:American Jews. Incidentally, you also added this category to an individual who was not an American and whose article didn't even mention the U.S. in any way. postdlf (talk) 19:39, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep despite the apparent oxymoron, this is a defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 15:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Two concerns.

First, is this just a group of Jewish Americans who happen to be atheists, making this an arbitrary intersection of two unrelated characteristics, or are their Jewish Americanism [sic] and atheism substantially related and connected? The answer to that may be complicated given the dual nature of Jewishness as an ethnicity and a religion.
Second, will the existence of this category segregate these individuals either within either of the category structures that intersect here? In other words, will they only be categorized as Jewish Americans through their atheism, and will they only be categorized as atheists through their Jewish Americanism? Some may view the solution to that as permitting nonexclusive categorization, such as putting an individual in both this category and Category:American atheists. If that's to be the solution, it should be noted that the category creator removed all such categories he considered "redundant" when populating this one, all of which should be reviewed in any event given that editor's ban from edits category space. postdlf (talk) 17:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete People by religious belief is subcategorized by nationality, not ethnicity, so these individuals should be double-listed in "American atheists" and in "Jewish Americans."- choster (talk) 18:15, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- This would then be the first such ethnic subcategory of Category:American atheists, and also the first religious subcategory of Category:American Jews, in which it is inexplicably not included. postdlf (talk) 18:47, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American atheists and Category:Jewish atheists per choster as an unnecessary triple-intersection of people by nationality, ethnicity, and religious belief. We have category trees for people by nationality and religion, by religion and nationality, and even by religion and occupation for a limited number of occupations to which religion is directly relevant, but no Category:People by ethnicity and religion or Category:People by ethnicity, nationality and religion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 18:44, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American atheists and Category:Jewish atheists per choster and Black Falcon as a triple intersection. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:34, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Change of opinion to Upmerge per arguments above. Kittybrewster ☎ 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As a general note, intersecting every categorizeable fact with every other fact is not a good idea. You either end up with an exponential growth in categories when every permutation is categorized, or ridiculously narrow categories that combine multiple facts into an awkward conglomerate. Subdividing a large category is not a catch-all justification for any arbitrary subcategorization. postdlf (talk) 20:29, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- It is also a mistake to assume that large categories must be divided into sub-categories. Categories of biographical articles, in which people are sorted by name, continue to work well even with several thousand articles so long as category navigation templates are used appropriately. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:42, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American atheists and Category:Jewish atheists per above comments. Triple intersection that fails CATGRS. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical events occurring near Christmastime

Category:Historical events occurring near Christmastime - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Kind of a vague, flexible category. What is "near Christmastime"? (Judging by the store displays at Wal-Mart when I lived in the U.S. and Canada, I think it begins shortly after Labor Day.) For that matter, what is "Christmastime"? Dec. 25 only? Dec. 25 plus the day before and day after? Give or take 3 days, or a week? Or does it go all the way to Epiphany? What about the "orthodox Christmas" issue? Do things happening around January 6/7 work for this category if it happened in an "orthodox" country? Do we categorize everything that happened on December 25 into this category? It seems that this is why we have the articles December 25 and those for the other days in December and January. How does "near" fit into how we define the date range? ... (I could go on, but I would, as usual, be belabouring the point.) Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:52, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- the liturgical Christmas season runs for 12 days following Christmas... so, "Christmastime"? Advent all the way to Orthodox Epiphany? Why not just "Historical Events that Occurred in December?" Wal-Mart Christmas that runs from All Saints Day until the merchandise is gone? There's no standard for inclusion, and no objective basis for having this category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:14, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
'Delete per nom and per Bradjamestown. Vague and undefining. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of Georgia Alliance of African American Attorneys

Category:Presidents of Georgia Alliance of African American Attorneys - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete: The list in the category text is already in the main article. Further, none of these people appear to have articles to add to this category, resulting in a one-article category. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 10:46, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Creator of the category (as well as the main article) is among those listed, a possible conflict of interest. Kevin Forsyth (talk) 13:22, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. We are very unlikely to ever need a category for this. The subject may be notable but he still shouldn't be writing about an organisation he is involved in. I suggest somebody tries to clean up his article. I am just going to tag it a bit. --DanielRigal (talk) 13:33, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. All non-notable. Kittybrewster ☎ 16:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ngo Dinh Diem

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 (self-close). My concerns were taken care of by moving the article to the non-diacritical form. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:39, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Ngo Dinh Diem to Category:Ngô Đình Diệm

Nominator's rationale: Debate. This is more of a "test case"-type debate I want to see than anything else. I'm confused with how we treat diacritics in category names. The main article is at Ngô Đình Diệm; the category is without diacritics. So, in a situation like this: (1) do we add the diacritics to the category?; (1a) if no, why not?; (2) if no, does that mean we should be removing diacritics from other categories that have them? (2a) if no, why not? And if the answers to (1) and (2) are both "no": (3) how do we reconcile this? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Copy of initial discussion at speedy rename section (where rename was opposed)
Category:Ngo Dinh Diem to Category:Ngô Đình Diệm #1; I'm not always a big fan of diacritics but shouldn't this match Ngô Đình Diệm? — Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:13, 28 December 2009 (UTC)[reply] Oppose -- diactrics in category names are a nuisance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but recreate as a category redirect. We decided (discussion) that "appropriate conversion of hyphens into en-dashes or vice versa" should be performed and even codified it as a speedy renaming criterion. I can't think of a good reason for us not to apply the same principle to a different special character, though I will state that I have reservations about making "appropriate conversions into titles with diacritics" a speedy renaming criterion (mostly so that issues involving romanisation and diacritics in native-language spelling versus common English usage can receive full discussion). A few months ago, I probably would have opposed this proposed change; however, I am content to follow the consensus reached in the linked discussion. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 09:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Opposed as impossible to type. A category redirect could be placed in reverse, so if anyone copied the article title it'll still work, but I don't think diacritics in categories are necessary. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:54, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- You answered (1) and (1a); can you also answer (2), (2a), and (3)? I'm not challenging you, I'm just curious as how we work this more globally. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 11:59, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Why not just create the category redirects from the plain version when the diacritics are used; from the diacritics version when the plain version is used, and just accept that the status quo is logically inconsistent. Changing all these really strikes me as more work than it is worth, when category redirects can be used to achieve the benefits of both the accuracy of diacritics, and the ease of not having to deal with them. That way the whole question becomes a non-issue to editors and a bot will do all the work once the system is set up. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 12:26, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, that could work; I don't see why some of the "real" categories should be diacritic-filled and others diacritic-less, though. If we adopted one way or the other, it would be much easier to implement in the long run. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 12:30, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match full title of parent article, with a redirect available. Alansohn (talk) 15:57, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
do not rename for the reasons above: impossible to type in searches, in links etc. Useless time wasting to copy and paste. Create any redirects to this as needed. This should be done for all such similar situations: this is an English encyclopedia using 'English' alphabet; should go in the MOS if not already there. Hmains (talk) 05:18, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll note that the first two hits on google for "Ngo Dinh Diem" are for "Ngô Đình Diệm", both on wikipedia. The other 98 are for "Ngo Dinh Diem". Vegaswikian (talk) 07:43, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think that is a very good argument for moving the article. In the end, I don't really have an opinion one way or the other on how the article is named, but what I am concerned with is having category names that are inconsistent with article names when they are referring to precisely the same thing. How do we justify the divergence? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I did some digging and this article has been moved back and forth. The only discussion on the talk page seems to support the article at Ngo Dinh Diem which is where it now is and where the vast majority of the inbound links use. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - Interesting. Maybe we should move it back. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:36, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, I see that you did! In that case, my concerns in this discussion are redundant and I can withdraw this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:37, 1 January 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:Dance disambiguation pages

Category:Dance disambiguation pages - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: -- Delete. Disambiguation pages do not need, and generally cannot be categorised. All dab pages are categorised in Category:Disambiguation pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as superfluous category, because I can see no navigational benefit to readers in having a category of disambiguation pages. WikiProjects sometimes categorise disambiguation pages within their area of interest, but such categorisation is applied to talk pages, not to articles, and is generated through the WikiProject banners, so there is no easy way to merge this category to Category:Disambig-Class Dance articles. I will notify WP:DANCE of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ballet disambiguation pages

Category:Ballet disambiguation pages - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Disambiguation pages do not need, and generally cannot be categorised. All dab pages are categorised in Category:Disambiguation pages. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 08:49, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom as superfluous category, because I can see no navigational benefit to readers in having a category of disambiguation pages. WikiProjects sometimes categorise disambiguation pages within their area of interest, but such categorisation is applied to talk pages, not to articles, and is generated through the WikiProject banners, so there is no easy way to merge this category to Category:Disambig-Class ballet articles. I will notify WP:DANCE of this discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:01, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Prince protégés

Category:Prince protégés - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Kind of like a "students of ..." category. We generally don't categorize people (or groups) by mentoring relationship or connection to a notable person. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:51, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If all the artists were notable primarily for their association with Prince— and indeed the category charter specifies those "mentored" by him— I don't think it would be unreasonable. In practice, however, it is difficult to distinguish "influence" from "inspiration" from "association" from "collaboration" from "tutelage" from "mentorship," and indeed the contents of the category seem to include any artist who has ever worked with him on anything at any time. So I would list the truly intrinsically tied articles like The New Power Generation directly in the parent, and remove the category from the others.- choster (talk) 18:23, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There is no clear definition of "protégé", so this category fails WP:OC#SUBJECTIVE, and it is unclear what degree of association would be defining for the people who might be include in this category. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:07, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Post-disco

Category:Post-disco - Template:Lc1

Category:Post-disco music

Category:Post-disco musicians

Category:Post-disco groups

Category:Post-disco albums

Category:Post-disco songs

Nominator's rationale: Delete all. "Categorizations should generally be uncontroversial; if the category's topic is likely to spark controversy then a list article is likely to be more appropriate." I believe the controversy of the topic as shown in this AfD proves that categorization is not the right way to go here. The genre is suspect as are many of the inclusions within this category. Wolfer68 (talk) 04:50, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Edgar Degas

Category:Edgar Degas - Template:Lc1

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Unless populated, only creates an extra level of categorization before Category:Works by Edgar Degas is reached. Either populate with non-works articles or delete. I'm not sure what it could be populated with, otherwise I would do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I can not disagree with Good Ol’factory's argument, but it does make sense to keep a category for the author and another one for his works. Just for proper categorising. Debresser (talk) 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Presidents of the Swazi Senate

Propose renaming Category:Presidents of the Swazi Senate to Category:Presidents of the Senate of Swaziland

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Propose renaming to match main articles Senate of Swaziland and List of Presidents of the Senate of Swaziland. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:20, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. Looks uncontroversial, but it doesn't fit the speedy criteria. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:40, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Can't anticipate opposition since the list-article is so named. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 11:56, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:58, 30 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 07:06, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@@ Line 405: / Line 405: @@
 :[[:Category:Edgar Degas]] - {{lc1|Edgar Degas}}<br />
 :'''Nominator's rationale:''' '''Delete'''. Unless populated, only creates an extra level of categorization before {{cat|Works by Edgar Degas}} is reached. Either populate with non-works articles or delete. I'm not sure what it could be populated with, otherwise I would do it. [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]] <sup>[[User talk:Good Olfactory|(talk)]]</sup> 04:31, 30 December 2009 (UTC)
+*'''Weak keep''' I can not disagree with [[User:Good Olfactory|Good Ol’factory]]'s argument, but it does make sense to keep a category for the author and another one for his works. Just for proper categorising. [[User:Debresser|Debresser]] ([[User talk:Debresser|talk]]) 07:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)
 ==== Category:Presidents of the Swazi Senate ====