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.
Delete - The extra writers category is redundant. (Presumably, these categories are for art historians who are American and not for art historians who specialize in American art. Am I correct?)
Dr. Submillimeter23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; we can give benefit of the doubt that those who write about a subject professionally can be called by the professional name.
Carlossuarez4620:11, 15 July 2007 (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.
Australian veterans
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Members of WikiProject disease
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:PR electoral systems
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Young and Restless
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Eponymous musicians - K
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, per many precedents, earlier this week. That some people consider these
useful is not really a strong argument. Note that this is not a wilful deletion of everything starting with 'K', but rather that it has been given thought.
>Radiant<14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - as with the categories for
musicians beginning with A and
musicians beginning with W, these categories contain one or more subcategories for albums, members and songs along with the band article and sometimes a discography. Per the standard of the linked discussions along with many other similar categories nominated individually, this is
eponymous overcategorization. The exception is
Category:Kisschasy which has a DVDs subcat. I don't believe this necessitates the category either.
Otto471117:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep any with more than one subcategory, as it seems merely willful to separate such closely related categories. The debates linked to above should have been closed as keep, so if anything they invalidate these latest nominations.
Nathanian23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Willful" would probably more accurately describe someone who !votes keep in the face of what by now must be approaching 200 deletions of eponymous categories for musicians, actors, families and others that reject the notion that the categories are needed simply because there happens to be more than one subcategory. Deleting the eponymous categories does not separate the material, as it is accessible through the main article, which is how the vast majority of people interested in a musician's work are likely to find it.
Otto471123:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, it's useful to have these subcategories grouped in one place. And I noticed that Otto4711 removed many items in
Category:The Kooks before putting the cat up for deletion. That's not good. --
Hera118706:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment almost looks like Otto's nominating these on the basis of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This leads me to express my concerns of having all these cats deleted en-mass. Maybe the policy on eponymous band/artist categories should be reviewed first before we go steaming in on the CFD's on these. Infact, if they're not allowed, why go through CFD anyway, as the result is going to be delete? Surely the hundreds of epon. cats for bands should of been CFD'd moments after their creation, if the policy is meant to be applied across the board?
Lugnuts09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Because that's how this works. While I am trying to nominate only those which are along the lines of what seems to have general agreement for deletion, individual cases even within those may garner additional attention (Duke Ellington in the Es for instance).
Otto471115:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The result will be delete because Otto and Kbdank have established precedent (Delete if only common subcategories, band article, and discography), and are now just acting on that precedent. I may think they're wrong (and in fact, I think these will all be recreated in time), but that doesn't mean it makes sense to try to stop the deletions at every nomination. The problem here is the Eponymous categories guideline, not these nominations. Delete.--
Mike Selinker14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, it seems that many Wikipedia readers have found these categories useful for navigation purposes, even if they are just for holding subcats. Whether or not all the articles are linked from within the main article, this is another method of navigation that some users prefer. I agree that eponymous cats have spun out of control in some cases, but I still fail to see the problem with these. The only category they're now placed in is
Category:Categories named after musicians, so it's not as if they are cluttering other categories any longer. This recent mass deletion of them is just a waste of time because in reality, they are useful rather than problematic, and they will most probably be re-created. --
musicpvm19:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete As per numerous similar deletions for other eponymous band categories that only contain songs, albums, band members and discographies. All those things are more properly handled using other schemes and the main article for the band acts as the central hub for navigation. See
WP:OCAT and many, many previous deletions.
Dugwiki15:30, 17 July 2007 (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.
Speedy delete - Infancy is often only a temporary status for fictional characters. Such categories are not useful. This should be speedy deleted as the recreation of deleted content.
Dr. Submillimeter23:06, 14 July 2007 (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:People Born in New Jersey
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Hey, I was born in New Jersey. Ok, I see how it is around here. (Sniff). and for those who don't appreciate a New Jerseyan's humor (or is it New Jerseyite?), delete --
Kbdank7114:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The form "People from" is used across the board. It may not be perfect, but sticking with it is better than having even more categories.
Postlebury17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lists of musicians by record or single chart
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The current name of this category is confusing. Also, single charts are a type of record chart, so it's unnecessary to mention both. I'm not sure if the proposed name is the best choice, but it is clearer and would be consistent with
Category:Lists of record chart achievements.
musicpvm00:55, 14 July 2007 (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.
Delete - The extra writers category is redundant. (Presumably, these categories are for art historians who are American and not for art historians who specialize in American art. Am I correct?)
Dr. Submillimeter23:03, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom; we can give benefit of the doubt that those who write about a subject professionally can be called by the professional name.
Carlossuarez4620:11, 15 July 2007 (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.
Australian veterans
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Members of WikiProject disease
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:PR electoral systems
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Young and Restless
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Eponymous musicians - K
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, per many precedents, earlier this week. That some people consider these
useful is not really a strong argument. Note that this is not a wilful deletion of everything starting with 'K', but rather that it has been given thought.
>Radiant<14:21, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete all - as with the categories for
musicians beginning with A and
musicians beginning with W, these categories contain one or more subcategories for albums, members and songs along with the band article and sometimes a discography. Per the standard of the linked discussions along with many other similar categories nominated individually, this is
eponymous overcategorization. The exception is
Category:Kisschasy which has a DVDs subcat. I don't believe this necessitates the category either.
Otto471117:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep any with more than one subcategory, as it seems merely willful to separate such closely related categories. The debates linked to above should have been closed as keep, so if anything they invalidate these latest nominations.
Nathanian23:11, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment - "Willful" would probably more accurately describe someone who !votes keep in the face of what by now must be approaching 200 deletions of eponymous categories for musicians, actors, families and others that reject the notion that the categories are needed simply because there happens to be more than one subcategory. Deleting the eponymous categories does not separate the material, as it is accessible through the main article, which is how the vast majority of people interested in a musician's work are likely to find it.
Otto471123:29, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, it's useful to have these subcategories grouped in one place. And I noticed that Otto4711 removed many items in
Category:The Kooks before putting the cat up for deletion. That's not good. --
Hera118706:39, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Comment almost looks like Otto's nominating these on the basis of
WP:IDONTLIKEIT. This leads me to express my concerns of having all these cats deleted en-mass. Maybe the policy on eponymous band/artist categories should be reviewed first before we go steaming in on the CFD's on these. Infact, if they're not allowed, why go through CFD anyway, as the result is going to be delete? Surely the hundreds of epon. cats for bands should of been CFD'd moments after their creation, if the policy is meant to be applied across the board?
Lugnuts09:10, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Because that's how this works. While I am trying to nominate only those which are along the lines of what seems to have general agreement for deletion, individual cases even within those may garner additional attention (Duke Ellington in the Es for instance).
Otto471115:41, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The result will be delete because Otto and Kbdank have established precedent (Delete if only common subcategories, band article, and discography), and are now just acting on that precedent. I may think they're wrong (and in fact, I think these will all be recreated in time), but that doesn't mean it makes sense to try to stop the deletions at every nomination. The problem here is the Eponymous categories guideline, not these nominations. Delete.--
Mike Selinker14:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Keep, it seems that many Wikipedia readers have found these categories useful for navigation purposes, even if they are just for holding subcats. Whether or not all the articles are linked from within the main article, this is another method of navigation that some users prefer. I agree that eponymous cats have spun out of control in some cases, but I still fail to see the problem with these. The only category they're now placed in is
Category:Categories named after musicians, so it's not as if they are cluttering other categories any longer. This recent mass deletion of them is just a waste of time because in reality, they are useful rather than problematic, and they will most probably be re-created. --
musicpvm19:33, 15 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete As per numerous similar deletions for other eponymous band categories that only contain songs, albums, band members and discographies. All those things are more properly handled using other schemes and the main article for the band acts as the central hub for navigation. See
WP:OCAT and many, many previous deletions.
Dugwiki15:30, 17 July 2007 (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.
Speedy delete - Infancy is often only a temporary status for fictional characters. Such categories are not useful. This should be speedy deleted as the recreation of deleted content.
Dr. Submillimeter23:06, 14 July 2007 (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:People Born in New Jersey
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was Hey, I was born in New Jersey. Ok, I see how it is around here. (Sniff). and for those who don't appreciate a New Jerseyan's humor (or is it New Jerseyite?), delete --
Kbdank7114:13, 19 July 2007 (UTC)reply
Delete The form "People from" is used across the board. It may not be perfect, but sticking with it is better than having even more categories.
Postlebury17:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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:Lists of musicians by record or single chart
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: The current name of this category is confusing. Also, single charts are a type of record chart, so it's unnecessary to mention both. I'm not sure if the proposed name is the best choice, but it is clearer and would be consistent with
Category:Lists of record chart achievements.
musicpvm00:55, 14 July 2007 (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.