Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< March 23 March 25 >

March 24

[edit]
[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: expand the small (six templates in total) category to allow inclusion of Category:Drama Desk Award templates, Category:Helpmann Awards templates, Category:Helpmann Awards templates, etc as subcategories. —⁠andrybak (talk) 23:10, 24 March 2020 (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:Current Honkbal Hoofdklasse team rosters templates

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:46, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category for a single team, that has a single template. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:47, 24 March 2020 (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:Clock templates

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:47, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: All of these templates are used on user and user talk pages. Merge the smaller, newer category into the older, bigger category. —⁠andrybak (talk) 22:27, 24 March 2020 (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:Hellboy films

[edit]
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 (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 07:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Seems like a bit of a WP:SMALLCAT, and a bit redundant given that there's already a relevant navbox. DonIago (talk) 20:22, 24 March 2020 (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.

Musical compositions

[edit]
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. The claims that WP:Naming conventions (music) is conclusive on this matter were rebutted by the proposer, and in any case CFD is a valid forum in which naming conventions can be revised. However, other opposers – while acknowledging the merits of the proposal – were simply not persuaded that the change is necessary, as in their context at least some of the current names are not ambiguous.
As for the speedy criteria WP:C2C/C2D, these have no application to cases that are in any way controversial. They are also not conclusive in requiring parent categories to match sub-cats in all circumstances; see e.g. the very germane precedent for suites (CFD 2019 Nov 7).
It is not clear why Category:Compositions needs disambiguating but not the categories for compositions by date or setting, so there may be scope for another more restricted nomination to gain consensus. (Perhaps broad consensus could first be sought for music category names at WP:NCM.) Nevertheless it is clear that no changes should happen on the authority of the discussion below. – Fayenatic London 21:13, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming 1,342 categories. These categories plus their subcats:
... plus subcats of each, giving a total of 1,342 categories to rename. The full list of renamings is at WT:Categories for discussion/Log/2020 March 24#Musical#compositions.
Nominator's rationale to resolve ambiguity, and match the parent Category:Musical compositions and the head article Musical composition.
The term "Compositions" is highly ambiguous: see the disambiguation page Composition, which has 9 entries under "Arts", out of a total of 26 entries.
Note that I have not included some subcats of Category:Musical compositions where the "musical" context is arguably inferred from the name, e.g. Category:Compositions by instrumentation+subcat, Category:Compositions by key+subcats, Category:Classical compositions + subcats. If there is consensus to rename the categories which are included in this nomination, then those edge cases can be considered in separate followup nominations.
Note that this seems to me to meet WP:C2D, since it is to match the head article Musical composition. If you support speedy renaming, please mention that in your !vote. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 19:46, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Musical compositions survey start
[edit]
  • Support - I too think this meets WP:C2D. Oculi (talk) 21:32, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - As long as we say "Composer", and not "Musical composer", the default meaning of "composition" seems to be "composition of music". Also: "musical composition" could be misunderstood as the composition of (Broadway) musicals. I'd prefer to avoid that. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC) - Adding: In the first type, "by composer", the addition of "musical" seems particularly redundant. We have such categories only for composers of some notability, who will be known as creating music. We don't have to clarify what kind of compositions Bach and Mozart created. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 21:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you want to argue that the default meaning of 'composition' seems to be 'composition of music', them WP:RM is thataway where you can argue the case for making a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT or even a WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. But the existing consensus is that musical composition is not the primary topic for "composition".
    As I made this nomination, I thought that that if anyone was going to oppose this renaming, it would be Gerda . It seems to me that as someone immersed in musical topics, you have overlooked the fact that Wikipedia is written for a general readership, for whom classical music is a minority interest. General readers don't start with the assumptions or knowledge of a skilled topic expert like Gerda. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:31, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I haven't examined the list, and will not, because I have no extra time. I read in Musical composition, "Musical composition, music composition, or simply composition ...". I have written hundreds of articles on compositions, and never felt that "is a composition" needed an adjective to clarify. My 2ct: not needed in categories either. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Gerda Arendt, your point about writing articles is not relevant, because in the text of an article the musical context is clear. A similar situation exists with many many terms, where the qualifying adjective can be omitted when it is clear from the context. Category titles may be seen in any context, where the musical meaning is not self-evident, which is why category title follow article names.
    I trust that the closer will draw their own conclusions about how much weight to attach the objections of someone who won't even look at the list of nominated categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I said what I wanted about needless redundancy, returning only to mention that you seem to have overlooked Category:Compositions by key, another one implying "musical", or are there compositions in keys that are not musical? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 06:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, Gerda Arendt, I did not overlook it.
    You noted above that you had not read the list of nominated pages. Now it seems that you didn't even read the nomination, where I wrote: Note that I have not included some subcats of Category:Musical compositions where the "musical" context is arguably inferred from the name, e.g. Category:Compositions by instrumentation+subcat, Category:Compositions by key+subcats, Category:Classical compositions + subcats.
    Which part of that is unclear to you? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 10:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I admit that my little brain could not imagine to treat these categories incosistently, on top of cluttered. - I was trained on "never change a working system", DYK? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, 1342 ambiguous titles is not "a working system". And adding a mere 8 characters to a category titles is not "clutter". The category title "1640 musical compositions" is still only 24 characters long, which is a long way from verbosity.
    As to "inconsistently", you should already be aware that the parent of all these categories is Category:Musical compositions (that fact is noted in the nominating statement, though as evidenced above you see unwilling to bother to read either the nominator's rationale or the list of nominated categories. so I don't assume that you are aware of this). If you now want to argue that context is irrelevant and that we should apply rigid consistency, then you should support the nomination and follow it it with a renaming of the other subcats such as Category:Compositions by key. But I am sorry to say that your responses so far (and those of Francis S) give a very strong appearance of being based in WP:IDONTLIKEIT rather than in policy or in logic. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What I don't like is wasting time, and I wonder for whose sake all this is. My little brain tells me that once the mother category is "Musical compositions", all below don't need to repeat that "musical". --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, the only waste of time here is the efforts by you and Francis to disrupt the discussion with FUD — in your case without reading either the nomination or the list of nominated categories.
    The nominated categories are not always seen in the context of a "mother category" whose name includes the phrase "musical compositions". The category name needs to be clear when read alone.--BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
    "to disrupt"? - "composition" is clear to me, and tell me who will not first think of music (song, rock, symphony, ...) when seeing "composition"? --Gerda Arendt (talk) 13:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Gerda, for what feels like the 5 millionth time;
    1. The answer to that is in the fast that composition is a dab page, as explained in the nomination which you didn't read. Musical composition is NOT the primary topic of "composition".
    2. You still fail to distinguish between your own responses as someone immersed in classical music, and our general readership which isn't.
    The disruption is in your repetition of canards. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tagging. The categories are now all tagged. To verify, use this Petscan query. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:54, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Even when writing prose I find myself often resorting to "musical composition" because without the modifier "composition" is ambiguous. - kosboot (talk) 23:37, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. Little Women and the "Battle Hymn of the Republic" were both composed in the 19th century, so one would expect Category:19th-century compositions to apply to both of them. Since the category is meant to apply only to music and not just anything that could be composed, it ought to have a name that demonstrates its scope. Nyttend (talk) 00:03, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, per key article name and to reduce ambiguity. The situation is not totally analogous to "Composer", which automatically implies musical composer - several other meanings of the word composition use "compositor" or do not have an equivalent noun form. Poems and essays are compositions, as (more trivially in the case of this category) are some chemicals, equations, and legal documents. Grutness...wha? 04:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Re. "... not totally analogous to "Composer", which automatically implies musical composer" – from that perspective at least:
    don't make any sense at all: if "composer" implies "... of music" then specifying the kind of compositions they make as "musical" is redundant cruft. --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    And yet we've quite happily got both Category:Visual arts and Category:Artists, something which was formalised quite recently, and which is entirely analogous to the current debate. What's more, there are (musical) composers who also write poems - should their poetry also go into Category:Compositions by composer, which is implied by the current name? Grutness...wha? 02:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose – clear enough WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Also, Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) has a category example that says "compositions ..." and not "musical compositions ..." (meaning: that guideline is not going to change if there's no preliminary notification on its talk page that a change is being discussed somewhere else – and the current proposal above is against the current guidance, and would from that perspective also be unacceptable). --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In short:
  • Category:Musical compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach does not conform to current guidance; also just on sight, it is redundant clutter all over, not conforming to policy.
  • Existing guidance on category names containing compositions by composers is not going to change: there's no consensus for it, and the whole proposal above is against current guidance, and would be overturned any time because of not conforming to guidelines.
--Francis Schonken (talk) 06:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply to Francis Schonken. Your first sentence is simply untrue as a point of fact. The page composition is a disambiguation page, where musical composition is not the WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Please do not disrupt this consensus-forming discussions by making such demonstrably a false assertion; it would be helpful if you would demonstrate your good faith by striking it.
Your comment about Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) is a disingenuous misrepresentation. There is no guidance there that says to use "compositions" rather than "musical compositions". The category name is mentioned in a section headed "Disambiguate by last name only?" (see WP:Naming_conventions_(music)#by_last_name_only, and its guidance is about use of full or last names; its purpose is not to guide on whether to use "compositions" or "musical compositions". Please do not misrepresent guidelines. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow, just soldiering on with the ill-conceived proposal instead of retracting it:
"clear enough WP:PRIMARYTOPIC" regards the 1,342 categories proposed for renaming here, not the parent category, which is not even under consideration in this proposal.
There's no misrepresentation: in the WP:NCM guidance the expression "composition(s)" is mentioned 88 times, of which only four times in the "musical composition(s)" sequence, and of these four instances not one in connection with categorisation. --Francis Schonken (talk) 11:43, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Francis Schonken, you serial misrepesentations give me no grounds for even considering withdrawing the proposal.
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC does not apply here. The WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "1940 compositions" is not "1640 musical compositions", per the ambiguity of the word composition.
WP:NCM does not at any point claim assert that category or article tiles should use the bare word "composition(s)" instead of "musical composition(s)". Please stop your blatantly dishonest attempts to pretend that it does. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:04, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, and hence to Category:Lists of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, the example I gave below. For precision: WP:PRIMARYTOPIC applies to too many of the 1,342 categories proposed for renaming here, so I oppose the bloated proposal as a whole, it completely lacks the nuance needed when talking about a group of 1,342 categories
Likewise, Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach is currently sanctioned as an example of how it should be done at the WP:NCM guidance. And that's the only example of composition-related categories in article titling guidance I'm aware of. It's not much, but overthrowing it is also not something for which consensus has been found (or even sought!) at the relevant guidance talk page. So we're very far from consensus on the matter, and my original assertion, "there's no consensus for it" is absolutely correct. Or do you propose to be judge-n-jury regarding what kind of consensus your own proposal garnered thus far (or not)?
The time sink aspect of this is growing really out of all proportion, so I'd suggest again, please, please, retract your behemoth of a proposal, which, as a whole, is untenable – which, really, should have been clear to anyone on first sight, like it was to me. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is absolutely clear from that section (see WP:Naming_conventions_(music)#by_last_name_only) that it is cited as an example of why to use the full name. It does not in any way stipulate the use of "compositions" rather than "musical compositions", and merely reports the current usage of the bare word "composition". Francis's repeated misrepresentations of the guidance are no longer excusable as an error; they are blatantly dishonest, and are a continuation of his exercise in FUD, which included an effort on my talk page to bully me into withdrawing this nomination (they include coming back to harass me[2] after I had explicitly asked Francis NOT to reply[3].) It is shameful to see that this exercise is continuing here.
@Francis Schonken: I will not withdraw this nomination, and per WP:CSK it is no longer in my gift to do so. Please see what consensus emerges, and stop trying to bully me into withdrawal.
One of the key principles in category naming is consistency: that's why we have speedy criteria WP:C2C and WP:C2D. That's why a decision on naming should be take in respect of the set as a whole, not in respect of the few exceptionally-well-known examples which Francis repeatedly cherrypicks. There is only one JS Bach, but there over 900 subcats of Category:Compositions by composer, and we need to use a consistent naming format, not one chosen to suit the exceptional example. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:C2D. It may be helpful to advertise this discussion on the talk page of the guideline that Francis Schonken mentions. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:C2D is a naming relation between a category and its eponymous encyclopedia article – not between hundreds of subcategories and their parent category. Example:
    --Francis Schonken (talk) 06:55, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Due to the size of this nomination, I have collapsed the larger portions of the list to east scrollability. Anyway, this is a clear support per C2d. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 08:51, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As illustrated with an example above, the WP:C2D guidance does not support the proposal, even if the initiator misrepresented it as such in their opening statement – as a consequence I've asked the initiator if they would consider to retract their ill-advised massive proposal. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Also, collapsed the lot: especially the subcategories illustrate the absurdity of this proposal, so, it is not these hundreds of subcategories that should be collapsed, while the (possibly less obvious) top parent categories are not. --Francis Schonken (talk) 09:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose since nobody has provided a convincing argument that the current categories are ambiguous. The only example given (Little Women) would never be called a composition and its author would never be called a composer, but a writer. Moreover, the proposed moves would result in clunky, redundant and misleading category names, as explained by Gerda and Francis. Neodop (talk) 10:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neodop, did you read the nomination? The word "composer" "is ambiguous, which is why it is a disambiguation page: see composition.
    There will be no clunkiness or redundancy in the new titles, e.g. Category:1640 musical compositions or Category:Musical compositions by Michel van der Aa . --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:02, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per WP:C2D. ——SN54129 12:30, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose As sympathetic as I am to the intention of the renaming, Francis' argument is irrefutable: Wikipedia:Naming conventions (music) uses "Compositions ..." throughout its guidelines and examples. It's worth noting that it is quite specific in stating how lists should be named, for example A stand-alone list of a composer's compositions is titled "List of compositions by <composer name>". I can see nothing in Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates that suggests we should use different conventions for naming categories as we do for any other Wikipedia page.
    The arguments that categories such as Category:Compositions by Michel van der Aa should be disambiguated by the prefix "Musical" is much weaker when we examine where the reader might actually encounter the category: either in a parent category such as Category:Compositions by composer, where there is no doubt that they are looking at musical compositions; or at the foot of an article such as One (opera), where again the reader is no doubt about the topic they are looking at. We should not be attempting to make exception to our MoS without very good reason, and I don't believe the supportors – especially those relying entirely on WP:C2D, which only concerns topic categories, not the set categories under discussion here – give good enough reasons to make an exception. --RexxS (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The last criterion in WP:C2D explicitly applies to set categories. Oculi (talk) 16:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please read more carefully: the last bullet point in C2D explicitly states "This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic" (my emphasis). That means that if we renamed the article Michael Nyman to Michael L Nyman, we would use C2D to speedy rename Category:Compositions by Michael Nyman to Category:Compositions by Michael L Nyman (i.e. to match the eponymous article). That's all C2D can be used for. In the proposed renamings, there are not 1,342 composers or years (or whatever defining item) that have been renamed, so C2D simply does not apply.
    On the contrary, @RexxS, WP:NCM does not support either your position or that of Francis. Nowhere in NCM is there any explicit guidance to use "compositions" instead of "musical compositions" ... and of course NCM uses 'Compositions ...' in its guidelines because that page is explicitly about music, so the musical context is clear. However, note that it doesn't do so exclusively: there are 4 uses of "musical composition".
    This is quote simple. If there was a consensus to use "compositions" instead of "musical compositions" for article or category titles, then that page would say so explicitly. Instead, you and Francis are trying to infer into the guideline something which it simply does not say.
    I have looked through Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions (music) and its archives, and I can find no discussions anywhere of the question of "compositions"/"musical compositions". So the issue has not ben raised there, either on the face of the guideline page or in talk-page discussion. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:50, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please observe WP:INDENTMIX; it is an accessibility requirement.
    Are you going to badger everyone who disagrees with you, BHG? Can't you rely on the closer to judge who adduces the better arguments?
    You are completely wrong about WP:NCM, which most definitely does support Francis' position every time "composition" is used in guidance or example. The four uses of "musical composition" are as follows:
    1. Use "(instrumental)" or "(composition)" for instrumentals and non-lyrical musical compositions (excepting classical music). Note not Use "(instrumental)" or "(musical composition)".
    2. If two or more musical compositions share the same title, and disambiguation is necessary: - necessary in that case to distinguish between two different kinds of composition that may share the same title.
    3. If two or more musical compositions share their title but they are not of the same type, simple disambiguation may still be used, - as preceding.
    4. Collaborative songs—those in which two (or more) performers release a musical composition together ... - necessary in that case to distinguish between cases where collaboration could exist in other kinds of composition.
    Contrast those 4, which do not suggest that titling should use the phrase "musical composition" with the other 84 uses of the unadorned word "composition" in WP:NCM. Take special note of this guideline:
    That guideline at WP:NCM couldn't be any clearer. It's stated in blue-and-white as Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, and not Category:Musical compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. Your assertion that "Nowhere in NCM is there any explicit guidance to use "compositions" instead of "musical compositions" turns out be false. That page is part of the manual of style, which enjoys project-wide consensus, and it will take more than a local consensus here to overturn it. I'm sorry, but that makes this is an invalid proposal. CfD doesn't have the authority to overturn MoS. --RexxS (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not convincing at all. In every of these instances the guideline makes a completely different point, unrelated to the issue at hand whether to use compositions or musical compositions. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:07, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    RexxS, you are simply inventing stuff. Please stop that.
    There is no point in WP:NCM where it says "do not use musical compositions", or any words to that effect. If you wish to dispute this, please post the full paragraph which you believes contradicts me, and underline the words which you think are relevant. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:10, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    User:BrownHairedGirl Please observe WP:INDENTMIX; it's an accessibility requirement.
    You are wikilawyering and bludgeoning. That needs to stop.
    WP:NCM is clear that the naming convention for music categories of compositions of composers is Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach.
    Naming conventions which tell you how to name a page don't need to tell you how not to name a page, no matter how much you pretend otherwise.
    Find the naming convention that supports your choice of Category:Musical compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, or drop it. Your proposal is fatally flawed because it contradicts MoS guidelines on the basis of spurious reasoning. Withdraw it before you waste any more of the community's valuable time. --RexxS (talk) 22:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RexxS, I am not wikilawyering. The only wikilawyering here is your attempts to misrepresent a guideline as saying something which it does not actually say, as a device to derail substantive discussion on the very simple matter of an ambiguous term in category titles.
    On the contrary, I am challenging your false assertions. The only bludgeoning here is your attempt to mislead editors by repeatedly posting a false claim.
    As I noted already, there is no point in WP:NCM where it says "do not use musical compositions", or any words to that effect. So I will ask you again: if you wish to dispute this, please post the full paragraph which you believes contradicts me, and underline the words which you think are relevant.
    As Marcocaelle noted, the brief fragments which you did quote are about other matters, such as the use of full names. They are not about "compositions"/"musical compositions", and that fact that the example says "compositions" is not prescriptive, because that is is not the issue being addressed. As a comparator, and a guideline about naming of categories for Irish towns noted the use of disambiguators for towns which share a name with the county, and cited the example of Category:Buildings and structures in Monaghan (town) ... that would not establish a convention to use "Buildings and structures", because that is not the point being made.
    And yes, I will keep this up until you either produce the evidence or withdraw the claim.
    BTW, note that even your misrepresentations of the guideline do not support your opposition to renaming the by-year/by-decade/by-century categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 21:53, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Why are you unable to comply with INDENTMIX? It's really thoughtless and unkind to screen reader users to continually change the type of list that is being used. Don't you care at all for the problems you cause for the disadvantaged?
    You've made 20 posts to this section, and that is classic WP:BLUDGEON. Don't blame me when you get your wings clipped for it. This is a survey not a dialogue between you and the rest of the contributors.
    Your assertions are the ones that are false.
    I've clearly shown that the guideline at NCM states that categories of compositions of composers is Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach.
    In contrast, you have abjectly failed to produce a single shed of evidence that any policy or guideline supports your choice of Category:Musical compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach.
    No matter how much you DIDNTHEARTHAT, I produced a guideline that supports the status quo; and you have produced nothing to back your personal preference.
    As Marcocaelle noted, the brief fragments which I quoted are about other matters, so that demolishes your prior attempt to read any significance to the four uses of the phrase. NCM contradicts your baseless assertions, no matter how much you try to minimise its overriding importance to this debate.
    If you're interested in addressing wider categories, then please explain why you are proposing to rename Category:Compositions by composer to Category:Musical compositions by composer? How much redundancy are you trying to introduce and for what purpose? Surely even you can see that such a proposal simply won't fly? --RexxS (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Lots of words, RexxS but still no sign of you quoting the paragraph which supports your interpretation. You seem to have DIDNTHEARTHAT problem with my repeated requests to quote the relevant para.
    And don't try that cheap trick of claiming that "musical compositions" is my personal preference, as if it's something I made up. As you will know from the nomination (which I assume you actually read), I have proposed it because it is the unambiguous term, per the dab page composition.
    If the guideline prescribed what you claim it prescribe, then you could quote the paragraph. You haven't posted it, because it doesn't exist ... and the more you make assertions without quotes, the more you underline the fact that it doesn't exist.
    Since you won't quote the passage which supports your claim (because it doesn't exist), let me quote for you in full the only paragraph which mentions of WP:NCM which mentions Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. Note that it appears under the sub-heading "Disambiguate by last name only?"

Only when period, style, way of naming compositions etc can be confusing the added first name can give additional clarity, e.g. Requiem (Michael Haydn). A particular example of this is Johann Sebastian Bach and his many composing namesakes. Conventionally J. S. Bach's compositions would be the primary topic in any genre, i.e. without disambiguating term (Brandenburg Concertos) if not needed, and disambiguated or serialized by BWV number (Passacaglia and Fugue in C minor, BWV 582) or (Bach) parenthetical disambiguating term (Orchestral suites (Bach)). Only descriptive titles (including category names) would usually give the full name for any composer after "by" (List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach). For the other Bachs, if parenthetical disambiguation by name of the composer is needed: add the initials (with periods and spaces) in the parenthesis:

  • As anyone can see, this para is all about when to disambiguate ambiguous surnames. It is very clear not giving about whether to use "compositions" or "musical compositions" ... and no amount of bluster and assertion by you can alter what the guideline actually says. Please stop making things up to suit your purpose, and do try to focus on the fact that composition is a highly ambiguous word. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 23:44, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see you're still demonstrating your disdain for those less fortunate, BHG. I'm glad you've found the section in NCM that specifically shows Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach. How about you finding one that shows Category:Musical compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach? And what about your proposed renaming of Category:Compositions by composer to Category:Musical compositions by composer? How are you going to defend that? --RexxS (talk) 16:56, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@RexxS, as already noted, the para is about disambiguating names. It is not about "compositions" or "musical compositions".
On the formatting, my disdain is solely for your disruption, bullying, personal insults and treats: see User_talk:BrownHairedGirl#INDENTMIX. I might consider your points if they were made with a civility, rather than by a disruptive bully who is maliciously weaponising a minor style issue (only against me). RexxS and has twice removed my posts entirely, and most recently has twice removed both indentation and paragraph breaks. Cool your jets. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:16, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The paragraph is about how to name musical articles and categories of the kind you want to rename and is absolutely pertinent to the question. You concede that Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach is given as a clear example of how to name them. Your proposal can't change the guidance in NCM. Avoiding disruption to screen readers is not a minor issue, and I find it appalling that anyone with your tenure on Wikipedia would treat it so. I tried politely pointing out the guideline at MOS:INDENTMIX and I tried refactoring your posts for you, but you choose to continually refactor the list style, causing greater and greater problems for screen reader users as the indents increase. I have tried everything to get you to cease. At this point you deserve no consideration beyond the removal of the offending markup, which I have done. --RexxS (talk) 20:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not so. The paragraph is explicitly about about when and how to disambiguate ambiguous surnames. My proposal does not try to change the guidance in NCM, because NCM does not offer guidance on this point.
Your cynical, bullying, abusive, edit-warring attempts to weaponise a minor formatting issue against only one editor are now at WP:ANI#User:RexxS. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 20:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom and others above. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as unnecessary. As RexxS observed, readers will encounter these categories invariably at the bottom of an article about a musical composition. It may be possible to construct contexts where "composition" may be ambiguous (although I find even that far fetched), but there's no ambiguity about the meaning when considering the context where these categories occur. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 06:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per BrownHairedGirl. "Composition" is a broader term than just music (At school I was asked to complete my compositions for English lessons, while my daughter's stage school teach her dance composition). Removing ambiguity to help readers is always a good step. - SchroCat (talk) 08:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment (weak keep) - The nomination doesn't make a strong case; it would benefit from some examples of problems the current category names cause (e.g. articles or categories that refer to these categories and the meaning is unclear or, even "better", cases where an article has been wrongly categorized). The 1st article in these cats that I looked at is in lots of "composition" categories so adding "musical" several times would lengthen the category list. Having "composition" in some cases and "musical composition" in others wouldn't be helpful. DexDor (talk) 18:37, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose at least for the "Compositions by $person" type. The word "composition", in and of itself, may be ambiguous, but in this type of context I really can't see how it would be. What other "compositions" could be countable works "by" someone? I might be convinced in favour of a renaming in some of the other cases, such as "$decades composition" or "compositions set in $country" (for the latter group, I don't really see why it should exist at all, because it is completely redundant to the "operas set in $county" it contains). Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per opposers. "Composition" is ambiguous by it itself, but when you get to "Compositions by JS Foo" it is not. Paintings have compositions, but it is just not idiomatic to refer to one as a "composition", still less a novel like Little Women. Johnbod (talk) 00:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose it is highly unlikely that anyone encountering these categories would become confused as to the meaning of their titles. As Johnbod observes, these titles are not ambiguous in their proper context. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 00:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as I do not think that the current categories are ambiguous in the context of “Compositions by” – a scheme commonly used for works which are categorized by author, genre, century etc. While composition is a disambiguation page, none of the alternative meanings listed on that page raise to the same prominence as musical works. Dance composition, for example, is just a redirect to Choreography (dance). There is the prominent field of composition studies about the art of writing but a literary work would not be commonly called a composition. In the case of visual arts, composition is just an aspect of a work. The article Musical composition, however, states immediately in its lead that a the term is commonly shortened: Musical composition, music composition, or simply composition, [..]. --AFBorchert (talk) 09:54, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the default meaning of composer / composition refers to music. There's no reason to complicate things. If this change were to proceed to next step would naturally be changing "Musical compositions by composer" to "Musical compositions by musical composer." It is fine the way it is. Mr Ernie (talk) 10:07, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • For people who are into music it may seem obvious that it refers to music, but that is not the case for everybody. It is not a coincidence that the article is named Musical composition. Having said that, I would suggest that Category:Compositions by composer and subcategories are withdrawn from the nomination, because here it is more obvious that it is about music. Marcocapelle (talk) 11:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • After some eloquent argumentation regarding "by [time period]" categories I considered the question whether it would make sense for these, but in the end, no, still too much of trying to fix things that aren't broken, a.k.a. a solution in search of a problem. There has been no demonstration of actual problems with the current arrangement. The Little Women example was a thought experiment, and a quite unconvincing one for that: its page length is currently a considerable 66,954 bytes, but nowhere, that is not *anywhere* in the entire article, is it referred to as a "composition" or something that was "composed", and of course even far less any reference in sight that calls the book a composition. Under these circumstances the basic conditions for it ever being categorised in a "compositions" category are not fulfilled, i.e. neither WP:CATV ("It should be clear from verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories") nor WP:CATDEF ("A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define the subject as having"). So, could someone please show some examples of actual, real issues the current arrangement of compositions categories would be generating? What has become quite clear, however, is that the current WP:C2D guidance is causing problems, and doesn't prevent people from losing some sense of proportion w.r.t. more fundamental principles of the categorisation system, so I'm seeking a rewrite of the criterion in order to prevent future mishaps in this sense. E.g. according to the current C2D it could be argued that this CfD discussion would have been unnecessary in order to proceed with the deletion of 1,342 categories. That is a real problem, it seems indicated to introduce some precisions in that guidance to avoid future mishaps. --Francis Schonken (talk) 16:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Nothing is being deleted. Plenty of speedy proposals which satisfy the speedy criteria are opposed at speedy (and an opposed speedy cannot pass, regardless of the quality of the oppose) and others which pass at speedy are brought back to cfd. Gerda's eloquent oppose was almost immediate, which rules out any speedy. Oculi (talk) 18:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, something is wrong with how the criterion is understood. This is not a speedy procedure, but CfD, yet C2D was used as a valid argument by most of the supporters above, even after Gerda's comments ... after which you also didn't retract your C2D rationale. After I intimated, above, that the C2D argument was invalid, yet more supporters continued to use it (and still none of the former supporters retracted their C2D rationale, instead doubling down on its validity), etc, etc. So no, as written currently, C2D is an invitation to organise timesinks, and the criterion should be rewritten more diligently, e.g.:
        I lost some time, because of the point being discussed above, to figure out whether or not the proposal here involved a "set category". Following links, reading guidance that was clear in itself but not on whether the "set category" principle applies here. Hence C2D is unclear and we shouldn't have the kind of discussion produced above on whether or not "set category" applies. Really, after reading and studying all that I still can't say whether the proposal involves a set category or not.
        Whether "set category" or not, the "eponymous article" principle applies – not only for the top parent category, but for each and every one of the 1,342 subcategories proposed in the set (duh!). I pointed to subcategories that should stay at their current name because they have eponymous mainspace articles matching the current category name... followed by more C2D-based supporters, and no sign of at least retracting these obvious non-starter C2D categories from the proposed set.
        So no, some precision is needed in the C2D description: as is currently it has proven, at least in this case, extremely counterproductive, soaking disproportionate amounts of editor time. --Francis Schonken (talk) 20:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If I can be helpful, Francis, a set category contains a set of the same type of articles, all of which belong to a given subset, so Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach would clearly be a set category because it contains a set of the same things ("compositons"), all of which belong to some defining subset ("by Johann Sebastian Bach"). If, for some reason, we renamed the eponymous defining article, Johann Sebastian Bach to J S Bach, then C2D is used as the reason to then speedy-rename the category to match: Category:Compositions by J S Bach. That's all it does. --RexxS (talk) 20:42, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I said the guidance is clear enough what a set category means: it is defined (as you do in the paragraph above) by the articles contained in it (however, its real definition is different from yours, see Wikipedia:Categorization#Set category). It is however *not* defined by its subcategories. So what C2D says about renaming subcategories (at least in the reasonng of those supporting the massive change above) is totally and utterly unclear. C2D is, however, without a shred of doubt clear that if List of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach is the uncontroversial and unambiguous article title for a category's main article, that I can can "speedy" whatever other name than Category:Lists of compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach for that category out of the way, including the one proposed for the category in the OP. And that's why the proposal above set out for failure from the start. Category experts should have figured that out long ago, but for some reason they didn't, so the language of C2D needs to be made more clear so that these time swamps can no longer be organised – and if one is initiated, that it can be checked sooner & with less drama. --Francis Schonken (talk) 23:46, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arbitrary break (musical compositions survey)
[edit]
  • But the comment above regarding C2C makes clear a category tree needs not only be well-established, but also "well defined" before the C2C "speedy" rule can be used – so, whatever comes out of this CfD, it would be wise to add a category tree naming convention to WP:NCM, so that if anyone would, e.g., start a category named Category:Torri's operas that it can be "speedied" to whatever the explicit convention is. --Francis Schonken (talk) 10:20, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Maybe we need to have another look at the precise wording, but it is obvious that both WP:C2D and WP:C2C aim at preventing that exactly the same arguments need to be repeated in multiple different discussions. After we have a thorough discussion about the article name, we do not need another identical discussion about the eponymous category name (unless there is good reason for it and different arguments apply to the category than for the article). Similarly, after we have a thorough discussion about the top category name, we do not need other identical discussions about the subcategories (unless there is good reason for it and different arguments apply to the subcategories than for the top category). Marcocapelle (talk) 11:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • A sort of speedy criterion for category trees, which could absorb both C2D and C2C? Laudable idea but unrealistic. If it were possible it would have been done already. C2C asks for a category tree convention being explicitly defined elsewhere before one can start applying the criterion to additional categories of that tree. Even a well-established (but undescribed) tree convention is not enough. That probably points to issues which can not be overridden by "speedy" proceedings. And the current CfD is an excellent illustration why "speedy" is an undesirable approach in such circumstances. --Francis Schonken (talk) 12:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose: There really seems to be a problem of English comprehension in this proposal. Yes, of course the verb "compose" has many meanings, and "composition" almost as many. ("Composer" somewhat fewer still, I think.) But in context there is no ambiguity at all, and the opinion of anyone who thinks Little Women was composed can and should be ignored. FWIW, if the category titles were supposed to be elegant English, it would be better to get rid of the repetition in "Compositions by *** composers", which could be "Works by *** composers", which unambiguously refers to music written by the people concerned. Imaginatorium (talk) 11:56, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose generally -- In theory a converse is literary compositions, but they are rarely so described. Composer is overwhelmingly used of musical works. I might accept the suggested change for a few categories at the top of the tree, but Bach, Mozart, Beethoven, etc did not compose non-musical works, so that the addition of "musical" is wholly redundant. I prefer category names to be kept short. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Categories can in general afford to be a bit more concise than article titles or running text, since 99% of users interact with them by starting with an article. Someone starting with an article on a Bach cantata is not going to get confused and think the category at the bottom includes literary compositions. SnowFire (talk) 01:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just clarifying that a Bach cantata would not even go into Category:Compositions by Johann Sebastian Bach, but a subcategory, Category:Church cantatas by Johann Sebastian Bach, and much of what is left in the the mother category should probably also be moved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 07:21, 31 March 2020 (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:Northern Virginia politicians

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:48, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Subcategorizing politicians by region of the state is overcategorizing. TM 17:27, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's a culturally distinct region (together with Richmond and bits of Hampton Roads, they basically run the state and ignore the rest of us), but the problem is that it doesn't have precise boundaries. Is a delegate from Frederick County from Northern Virginia? (It's the northernmost county in the state, but "Northern Virginia normally doesn't mean that far west.) What about a senator from Spotsylvania County? It's far southeast of Frederick, but it's linked by Interstate 95 to Northern Virginia and basically a part of the metro area now. Same with politicians from Culpeper County, another fringe county. And finally, what about a politician who moves from Arlington County to Dickenson County (like that would ever happen); would we categorise him as being Northern Virginia or Southwestern Virginia, or both? Much better to split up the politicians by city or county, if we need to split them up. Nyttend (talk) 22:56, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question -- Is there any robust or accepted means of splitting the state by cardinal points? If not, it must be deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:39, 29 March 2020 (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:Reform synagogues in West Virginia

[edit]
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 10:41, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Dual upmerge. Small category (2 articles) that is unlikely to substantially grow. TM 17:02, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this way is chosen, a new full nom should be done. Until then, this should be kept. Arguments that these sub-cats are incapable of expansion would be required, I think. Johnbod (talk) 16:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No one is arguing that they are incapable of growing, but that they are unlikely to grow substantially. The Jewish Virtual Library say that there were 2,310 Jews in the entire state of West Virginia as of 2017. It is unlikely that there are 5 or more notable reform synagogues in a state with such a small Jewish population.--TM 16:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:OCLOCATION can also be a criteria here. RevelationDirect (talk) 16:36, 2 April 2020 (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:Deaths from fire in June 2017

[edit]
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, moving the biography. – Fayenatic London 10:38, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: WP:NARROWCAT and there's no parent Deaths from fire in month, year categorization scheme. The category itself contains one structural fire, one wildfire, one explosion and one person, while Category:Deaths from fire is reserved for persons. Brandmeistertalk 16:29, 24 March 2020 (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:Iranian songs

[edit]
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 without prejudice against a fresh nomination to discuss Category:Songs by country (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Redundant - Songs should be categorized after language and/or genre (and Iranian is not a language). Semsurî (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Term 'Iranian' can be misleading since it can be understood as the the pan-ethnic term or confused for Persians (which many believe Iranian is a synonym of). The category could be renamed "songs from/of Iran" but again not relevant. --Semsurî (talk) 17:07, 24 March 2020 (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:LGBT members of the San Francisco Board of Supervisors

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 11:51, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Multiple upmerge. This is an overly narrow triple intersection of municipality, sexual orientation, and political office. TM 15:53, 24 March 2020 (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:Tank names

[edit]
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. The articles are already in Category:Set indices on military vehicles so a merge is not needed. (non-admin closure) Marcocapelle (talk) 08:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The existence of this category tree gives the impression that we have articles about the naming of tanks - we don't. What we have is 4 dab-like SIAs that are much better categorized in Category:Set indices on military vehicles.  Note: These pages would probably be better as dabs because incoming links are mostly/all intended to be to a specific article, but that's a separate issue. DexDor (talk) 14:31, 24 March 2020 (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:Municipalities of Negros (Philippines)

[edit]
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; no need for merge as the sub-cats are in Municipalities of Central and Western Visayas‎. – Fayenatic London 10:33, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Empty category of a defunct region. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 11:54, 24 March 2020 (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.

Eponymous categories about Czech politicians

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:40, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary eponymous categories that do not pass WP:OCEPON. For instance, these categories have been populated by elections in which the politician was a candidate, works where they appear as a character, places they have been, parties or cabinets they have been a part of, battles they have fought etc., most often not central either to the biography or the event. Once purged of ineligible content, there would be too few articles to justify a category. @Bedivere.cs: courtesy pinging creator. Place Clichy (talk) 11:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Buidhe, WilliamJE, and Oculi: more categories were added after your vote, I therefore invite you to check if your answer is still the same. Place Clichy (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom—I checked a few and they are correct that they violate guidelines. buidhe 11:34, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reaffirming !vote after more categories were added. These all appear to be a similar case. buidhe 16:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:36, 24 March 2020 (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.

More eponymous categories about Czech politicians

[edit]
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 to delete the first three; @RevelationDirect: please purge them. Delete the rest. – Fayenatic London 10:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These categories have comparatively more content than the first list above. They are listed separately to leave room for discussion about separate case-by-case outcome, as it is debatable in most cases if this content is indeed defining per our standards. E.g. the 1948 Czechoslovak coup d'état involved many actors besides Klement Gottwald, which is the only eponymous category for an individual featured in this article, but it would probably not make a good Wikipedia policy to add such a category for all the major actors involved in this event. In another example, I wonder if Je to na nás!, a demonstration against Andrej Babiš, is worth placing in a Category:Andrej Babiš. For these reasons I also believe that they do not pass the criteria set in the WP:OCEPON guideline. Place Clichy (talk) 16:49, 24 March 2020 (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:Jewish beverages

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:39, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 2 articles. No other religious beverages categories and these seem sufficiently categorised already. Rathfelder (talk) 10:53, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete beverages don't have religions last I checked. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:58, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- The content consists of an Israeli confection, which might also be bought by Israeli Arabs; and a liquor produced by Sephardic Jews in Morrocco, until most of them migrated to Israel. Both have links to Jewish ethnicity, but I doubt there is enough similarity to warrant a category.
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:Yemenite Jewish cuisine

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 10:50, 24 March 2020 (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:Television series created by Emily Spivey

[edit]
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. – Fayenatic London 10:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: only 1 article Rathfelder (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2020 (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:Herbert Baker

[edit]
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 10:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON. Contains only 2 articles about buildings by this South African architect. Place Clichy (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2020 (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:Paul Kruger

[edit]
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 to delete, so just purge Clarens (place of death), resting place, and things merely named after him. – Fayenatic London 10:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Fails WP:OCEPON and WP:SHAREDNAME. Category contains a mixture of unrelated or loosely related articles (such as Clarens, Switzerland) and things named after Kruger (Krugersdorp). Child Category:Cultural depictions of Paul Kruger‎ is not affected by this nomination. Place Clichy (talk) 10:26, 24 March 2020 (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:TV memes

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:33, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defined as "TV shows that became Internet memes." Too subjective to form the basis of a category. Only 1 article. Rathfelder (talk) 09:28, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — per nom rationale. N2e (talk) 13:59, 24 March 2020 (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:Jewish confections

[edit]
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 to Category:Israeli confectionery. – Fayenatic London 09:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No other ethnic confectionary categories. Rathfelder (talk) 09:26, 24 March 2020 (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:Books by Leszek Kołakowski

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only 1. He wrote quite a lot, but in Polish and no sign of any articles about his other books. Rathfelder (talk) 08:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. You know, I used to think exactly the same way you do about categories like this. So I nominated Category:Books by Tom O'Carroll for deletion. Feel free to review the discussion here. It was short, resulting in a quick decision to keep the category. Same exact issues apply here. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 09:39, 24 March 2020 (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:Films about struggles

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only one article. Undefined and uncategorised. Rathfelder (talk) 08:33, 24 March 2020 (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:Metal bands with Lord of the Rings names

[edit]
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 Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:34, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Undefining association Rathfelder (talk) 08:18, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom rationale. N2e (talk) 13:58, 24 March 2020 (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:Boeing spacecraft and space launch systems

[edit]
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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The latter one is more WP:CONCISE. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as although it is more concise, it is quite simply not correct to refer, for example, to a Delta IV rocket as a space vehicle, as only the second stage is ever a space vehicle, and then briefly for only a few hours, and then often just becomes space debris as a derelict rocket stage (but only the 2nd stage; not the entirel "Delta IV") is often left in orbit long term by its launch service provider (ULA) with full support of its customer (USAF). A second example: it is not the case that the Vandenberg Air Force Base Space Launch Complex 6 is a "space vehicle." Now one could remove those sorts of articles, and create some new subcategories for Boeing... ; but that's not the current proposal. Cheers. N2e (talk) 13:47, 24 March 2020 (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:United Launch Alliance space launch vehicles

[edit]
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: Not renamed Timrollpickering (Talk) 12:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The latter one is more WP:CONCISE. Soumyabrata (talk • subpages) 05:10, 24 March 2020 (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/2020_March_24&oldid=1073192647"