Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2017 April 1

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
<
Log
< March 31 April 2 >

April 1

Category:Finnish rock bands and singers

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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Selective merge to existing categories and then delete. Tassedethe (talk) 22:10, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and delete per nom. There's no reason to intermingle bands with individual musicians in a shared category like this, especially since the separate categories for bands and singers already existed to begin with. If they didn't, I'd understand why this got created even though it would still be wrongheaded and the split would still be needed — but with the correct categories in place already, the only possible response to this is WTFSMH. Bearcat (talk) 03:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

It had been my intention to continue adding artists to this page, since only W was completed. I was not aware of these other pages, which also clearly need a great deal of work. Indeed it was because so few artists were included in these pages that I had not found them! I had not intended to include singers associated with bands, but merely singers with solo careers. My concerns with these other pages are that 1] Placing bands into subcategories is always open to error and confusion with most bands falling into several categories, and the placement into such categories often being very subjective. 2] The subcategory approach is also not user friendly, with readers having to negotiate between many pages to find the band they are looking for.

However I would be more than willing for the merge to take place, and then to add singers and bands to these pre-existing category pages.Ianatheling (talk) 23:40, 6 April 2017 (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:Argentine companies established in 1971

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.
Also propose merging-
Category:Argentine companies established in 1962 to Category:Companies established in 1962
Category:Argentine companies established in 2004 to Category:Companies established in 2004
Nominator's rationale: Has only one or two entries. Also upmerge into establishments in Argentina for those years. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 20:32, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- EVen if there are (currently) few, I think that merging a national category into a worldwide one is going too far. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:07, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Object -- National categories need to be kept separate. If there are too few then merge them into either decades or centuries. Twiceuponatime (talk) 09:47, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment except for companies we don't have any other splits by type of establishment at the level of establishments by country by period (year or decade). It looks like Companies by country by year of establishment is a very narrow intersection. Only the United States has decently populated categories. Shouldn't we just fell the tree completely? Marcocapelle (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2017 (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:Presidents of Kent CCC

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. This appears to have already been implemented by
WP:CFDAC, this is not an appropriate way to do things. Also, it was a lot more work for you to move each page using HotCat than it would have been to let the admin bot do it. – Fayenatic London 13:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: the abbreviated form "CCC" for "County Cricket Club" is deprecated by
WP:NCA is appropriate as it says: "Acronyms should be used in a page name if the subject is known primarily by its abbreviation". County cricket clubs are invariably called by the name of the county only (e.g., Yorkshire) and the context is clear if the subject is cricket. Otherwise, the full name of the county club is used. Note, however, that the converse is true of certain non-county clubs – Marylebone Cricket Club
is invariably called MCC. Six categories:
Category:Secretaries of Warwickshire CCC to Category:Secretaries of Warwickshire County Cricket Club
Category:Presidents of Yorkshire CCC to Category:Presidents of Yorkshire County Cricket Club
Category:Presidents of Kent CCC to Category:Presidents of Kent County Cricket Club
Category:Secretaries of Middlesex CCC to Category:Secretaries of Middlesex County Cricket Club
Category:Presidents of Surrey CCC to Category:Presidents of Surrey County Cricket Club
Category:Presidents of Middlesex CCC to Category:Presidents of Middlesex County Cricket Club
Thanks. Jack | talk page 18:45, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nomination – Ianblair23 (talk) 06:35, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support to match the main article, and the same naming convention for the other teams. Lugnuts Precious bodily fluids 07:57, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- There is merit in keeping category names short (to limit clutter). CCC is a recognised abbreviation for County Cricket Club; and since all bios will be obviously be about cricket the use of an abbreviation may (unusually) be acceptable. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:05, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support it should be made clear to the reader what the abbreviation actually means rather them assuming or guessing. MilborneOne (talk) 07:50, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 12:58, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Calling admin. This one has surely run its course so could we please have closure per the consensus? Thanks. Jack | talk page 15:37, 20 April 2017 (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:IPad 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.
The result of the discussion was: merge. – Fayenatic London 13:37, 22 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:
talk) 17:16, 1 April 2017 (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:The Lookouts members

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 08:56, 15 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Grand total of two pages. Hardly necessary category. Defunct band, totally unlikely to grow. Geschichte (talk) 13:51, 1 April 2017 (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:Rus' people by period

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: merge; this is a soft delete, i.e. without prejudice to re-creation if multiple sub-categories should happen to be created in future. – Fayenatic London 21:07, 21 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: upmerge, contains only one subcategory and nothing else. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:34, 1 April 2017 (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:Walter Schreifels

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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not enough material to justify an eponymous category. Also, most of the articles are bands he was in--imagine what The Byrds would look like and all of the clutter that would be in Category:Jimmy Page and Category:Eric Clapton. Eponymous categories are discouraged generally and this isn't a compelling reason to extend that scheme. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:44, 1 April 2017 (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:Bolles School athletes

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: merge (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 05:54, 9 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Would follow all other sibling and parent categories for alumni by school in Florida / the United States. Classifying a high school's alumni by athlete is overkill; the general alumni category would suffice and could include even more alumni listed on the
Bolles School article who aren't "athletes". Jrcla2 (talk) 02:40, 1 April 2017 (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.

April Fool's Nominations

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:
WP:FOOLS. — xaosflux Talk 04:11, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply
]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be deleted as it degrades the content inside. [April Fools!]. -KAP03(Talk • Contributions • Email) 19:54, 1 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I disagree, all the content is stamped with "joke", and it is humerous and doesn't degrade anything. If it can be locked it should be. L3X1 (distant write) 00:59, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Is this a joke? L3X1 (distant write) 02:54, 2 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep no valid reason has been presented for deletion.
    Lepricavark (talk) 02:07, 2 April 2017 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2017_April_1&oldid=1138410473"