Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 February 18

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. — ξ^xplicit 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lawrence Welk performers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Seems like a pretty straightforward case of overcategorizing by performance venue. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 07:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:OC#Performers_by_performance_venue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:40, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- A typical performance by performer category, which we always delete. I do not know the show, but have my doubts whether it is worth listifying. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 22 February 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:City Districts of Aalborg to Category:Neighbourhoods in Aalborg

Nominator's rationale: Aalborg has no City districts (They have no administrative power!), but more like some neighbourhoods. --Patchfinder (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* Informed Wikipedia:WikiProject Denmark. Debresser (talk) 19:58, 13 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Support. Seems reasonable and there is no opposition. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 25 February 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:19, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:The Faint songs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: No actual articles, just a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as there is
  talk) 10:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as aid to navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There should rarely be a "songs" category because very few songs have their own article. A List of XXX songs can contain redlinks (and such a list likely already exists in the band's article), whereas a category can only contain a song that has been found notable. The category misleads by suggesting very few songs exist. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Comment - as there is a song,
  talk) 10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Part of an established category tree; it's acceptable for categories to contain only redirects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ⁽Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:42, 18 February 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.

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal to rename the following per the main article: The Three Stooges. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Three Stooges films to Category:The Three Stooges films

Propose renaming Category:Three Stooges members to Category:The Three Stooges members

Propose renaming Category:Three Stooges to Category:The Three Stooges

• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep; it is common to drop initial articles in a proper name when used in adjectival form. No one says "What's your favorite The Beatles album?" or "Gandalf is a major The Lord of the Rings character"; The
  The Sudan.- choster (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment See Category:The Beatles albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:52, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, main article and
  naming guideline. Jafeluv (talk) 02:17, 21 February 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.

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:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest deleting Category:Chile articles with comments

Nominator's rationale: Trivial intersection. All Chile-related articles with talk pages would go here, but why bother? Cat is manually populated, created in '07, and unchanged ever since. Ruodyssey (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nominator. I shall inform
  Template:WPChile. The way to remove it is to add a parameter |COMMENTS_CAT=none. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong keep, because the nomination completely misunderstands the purpose and usage of the category. This is a maintenance category applied to talk pages by a WikiProject as part of its maintenance, and not part of the mainspace categories. The nominator is completely wrong that "all Chile-related articles with talk pages would go here", because as with 365 similarly-named WikiProject categories, it exists to identify those articles where a comment has been added in relation to the WikiProject assessment. This is a valuable and unobtrusive way of identifying articles whose assessment has raised issues; it is not a category of "articles with a comment on their talk pages". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even if the nominator would have misunderstood the purpose of this category, which I doubt, I didn't, and I also see no reason to have categories for those articles which belong to projects and have talk pages as opposed to those who don't have talk pages. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as clearly this is badly named as indicated by the nomination. It should be called Category:WikiProject Chile articles with comments. - and all the other categories should be similarly renamed. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 03:38, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The name is determined by the template, and all templates related to WikiProjects that allow for similar categories have the same structure, without "WikiProject". I think we should have neither of them and none of them. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 24 February 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:53, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hungarian film director templates to Category:European film director templates

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep As part of the wider category by country/nationality. If kept, re-cat this so it's in the European tree, rather than the all-encompasing director one. Lugnuts (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as part of a category tree. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and add other Hungarian entries currently in Category:European film director templates. Smetanahue (talk) 18:43, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as an appropriate and defining category within its parent and as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 19 February 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.

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:  Relisted at today's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:52, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Toho templates to Category:Film templates

Nominator's rationale: Only two entries, not likely to be many more. Can be upmerged into its two parents. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 18 February 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Songs using auto-tune (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category is really necessary. The article links to songs that use

auto-tune, when it has been used for a long time and it's a trend at the moment. The category might be focusing more on the songs that excessively use auto-tune effect on songs (ex. almost all of T-Pain's songs should be here) but there are songs that minimally use auto-tune (ex. Kanye West mentions using auto-tune on "Jesus Walks", which is hardly noticeable). This category is just redundant to have and there is no specific purpose to do so. Might as well make a Category:Songs using vocoders. Esanchez_{(Talk 2 me or Sign here)} 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete trivial feature of category; even more trivial than songs that sample other songs, songs that rhyme "girl" with "world" (boy, would that be a huge category), songs that peaked at #2 on Billboard but #1 on Mediabase, songs on which Hargus "Pig" Robbins was the piano player, country music songs about dogs (which, despite the stereotypes, would have at the most three actual songs in it), et cetera. That, and Fast Ryde's "Top Down" got left out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • ^{(Many otters • One bat • One hammer)} 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The use of an auto-tune is now no more notable than the use of compression or echo. It's just another studio effect. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not a significant characteristic, and an extremely common one too. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 20 February 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:100th episodes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that this is a defining characteristic. Many shows are likely to enter syndication with their 100th episode, but some do beforehand and others never do. This is a trivial categorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and per
  WP:OC#ARBITRARY. There's nothing even particularly special about these. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 12:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - interesting perhaps, but arbitrary, and in many cases entirely irrelevant. Robofish (talk) 00:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominominator and
  WP:OC#ARBITRARY. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:01, 22 February 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:SS Lanciano players to Category:S.S. Virtus Lanciano 1924 players

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The club name is

S.S. Virtus Lanciano 1924. Matthew_hk tc 04:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply

]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:08, 18 February 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:31, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following are renames based on the name of the main article (

In some instances, I have omitted words like "television series situation comedy", so please read carefully, if you oppose those kinds of changes. Please forgive me if I have merged these requests in a confusing fashion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Channel 4 sitcoms to Category:Channel 4 situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Scottish television sitcoms to Category:Scottish situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Sitcom characters by series to Category:Situation comedy characters by series

Propose renaming Category:South African television sitcoms to Category:South African situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Philippine television sitcoms to Category:Philippine situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Teen sitcoms to Category:Teen situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:ITV sitcoms to Category:ITV situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:BBC television sitcoms to Category:BBC situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Sitcom characters by series to Category:Situation comedy characters by series

Propose renaming Category:Singaporean television sitcoms to Category:Singaporean situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Ivorian sitcoms to Category:Ivorian situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Israeli television sitcoms to Category:Israeli situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Hong Kong television sitcoms to Category:Hong Kong situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Georgian television sitcoms to Category:Georgian situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Canadian television sitcoms to Category:Canadian situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:British television sitcoms to Category:British situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina sitcoms to Category:Bosnia and Herzegovina situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Australian television sitcoms to Category:Australian situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:American television sitcoms to Category:American situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Television news sitcoms to Category:Television news situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Black sitcoms to Category:Black situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Animated sitcoms to Category:Animated situation comedies

Propose renaming Category:Sitcom characters to Category:Situation comedy characters

Propose renaming Category:Sitcoms by country to Category:Situation comedies by country

Propose renaming Category:Sitcoms by genres to Category:Situation comedies by genre

Propose renaming Category:Lists of sitcom television series episodes to Category:Lists of situation comedy television series episodes

• Comment If the consensus is to leave these named "X sticom" then I will nominate
  situation comedy to be renamed sitcom; there is no sense in the main article and main category having different names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Comment - the word television should not be removed as this widens the scope to include radio sitcoms. Tim! (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Mildly oppose. "Sitcom" has no alternate meanings, so making people type more characters doesn't seem worth it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Mike Selinker and per
  WP:COMMONNAME. Sitcom is not an obscure word, and with 6 million ghits it is about 19 times as widely used as "situation comedy", which gets only 335,000 ghits. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:54, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose I think the word sitcom is used widely, far more than situation comedy and is a valid category name. For me Sitcoms by country etc looks more correct than Situation comedies by country. In fact the name situation comedy is used so rarely that I had to double take just to realise what it meant. While often doing things formally is a good thing I think sitcom has wide enough use to justify keeping these categories. However, I 'd recommend moving Ivorian sitcoms to Ivorian televisions sitcoms just for consistency sake.
  ΨMonastery 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose The main article begins "A situation comedy, usually referred to as a sitcom..." and then seems to use sitcom throughout. It seems ripe for a rename. We don't like to anticipate these here, but in this case I agree with those above. Omitting "television" causes problems, & including it with the longer term gives some long names. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- Sitcom is a well known term. It might be appropriate to rename the ultimate parent to match the article, but the "child" categories can be left as they are. I assume that
  situation comedy, but have not checked; if not the redirect needs to be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 22 February 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.

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 all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All of the following are navboxes that I propose renaming per their main category/article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:NWA navigational boxes to Category:National Wrestling Alliance navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:TNA navigational boxes to Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:WWE championship navbox templates to Category:World Wrestling Entertainment championship navbox templates

Propose renaming Category:WWE navigational boxes to Category:World Wrestling Entertainment navigational boxes

Propose renaming Category:WCW navigational boxes to Category:World Championship Wrestling navigational boxes

• In most cases, wrestling promotions go by their acronym so this isn't really a problem. I do not see the point is changing the names. This seems kind of trivial to me.--WillC 04:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as ambiguous acronyms. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support the reasoning being we try to avoid acronyms in categories; especially ones that could mean something else. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nominator to expand obscure and ambiguous acronyms. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The only one that is obscure is TNA. There is no other use for "WWE" besides the entertainment company, same with WCW. So I Oppose. TJ Spyke 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment See WCW (disambiguation). —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment. TJ Spyke is confusing ambiguity and obscurity. WWE may not be ambiguous, but it is obscure. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 22 February 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 06:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the following two categories, I feel the existing names are ungrammatical. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:World Championship Wrestling pay-per-views to Category:World Championship Wresling pay-per-view events

Propose renaming Category:World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-views to Category:World Wrestling Entertainment pay-per-view events

Propose renaming Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-views to Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-view events

• Support, per nom. I have for consistency within
  WP:PW also added Category:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling pay-per-views to that list. --  Θakster   09:26, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Support:--WillC 09:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The proposal is, indeed, better grammar. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:15, 19 February 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.