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:Delete. OCAT. Small category for a private island that is not likely to be expanded. There is a
List of tenants of Jethou which should provide ample navigation and currently provides significantly more information that is not available from a category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. While I generally agree- the island is so small as to not really warrant its own category - I have managed to expand the number of articles in the category, so part of the justification above is misleading.
Grutness...wha?01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Surely you know I will not watch a category for maintenance purposes. Also if I follow your argument, any settlement with, let's say a building, should have a category. I think that is overkill.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, and based on the contents the list of tenants serves much of the proposed purpose of the category, drawing together the island's tenants.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a well-defined category for a geographic feature within the parent
Category:Islands of the Channel Islands. There is no evidence that there will be no additional articles forthcoming and the excuse justifying deletion based on the fact that a list "serves much of the proposed purpose" is in direct conflict with
WP:CLN's mandate that lists AND categories should work together in synergistic fashion, with absolutely nothing in WP:CLN stating that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." WP:CLN never states anywhere that a category should be deleted because a list is "better".
Alansohn (
talk)
19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
There is no evidence that there will ever be another article related to this island, so that argument cuts both ways. Should a sudden rush of Jethou-related articles suddenly materialize the category can be re-created. CLN is not a mandate, despite your mischaracterization of it as such. No category is mandated by CLN and CLN clearly states that there are times when a list is superior to a category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Additional articles have been created recently in this category and there is no reason other than your foot stamping insistence that it is unlikely there will never be any more.
WP:CLN never mandates that a category be created or deleted, but does specify that they should co-exist. It does specifically reject the disruptive deletion of any category or list with the argument that the other is better, rather clearly stating that stating that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources." If this were only followed even in spirit, so much wasted time and effort would be freed up to build this encyclopedia rather than destroy what we don't like based on arbitrary preferences.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
And clearly the articles that were added could be removed since they are not defining for that individual and are a brief mention in the articles and not of any significance for the individuals. So it is not clear that these inclusions meet the guidelines of
WP:COP especially the caution to limit the number of categories in people categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
(ec) There are currently four articles in the category.
Compton Mackenzie was created in May 2004,
Peter Ogden was created in April 2008,
List of tenants of Jethou was also created in April 2008 and
Jethou was created way back in 2002. Care to reconsider your claim of recently-created additional articles? Or perhaps you'd just care to stamp your foot at getting caught in another falsehood? As for CLN, it most assuredly does not "specify" that categories and lists "should co-exist". It states: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." The line you quoted obviously does not mean that categories with associated lists cannot be brought up for discussion. CLN obviously does not "specifically reject" arguing against a category by claiming that a list would work better because CLN explicitly includes reasons why one navigational tool works better than another under different circumstances. Perhaps if you spent less time mischaracterizing CLN, making the same tired bad-faith accusations of disruption, arbitrariness and "you don't like it" against fellow editors, making demonstrably false claims like the ones above and acting like you're some kind of Wiki-savior barring the door from the barbarian hordes bent on its destruction whenever anyone disagrees with you, we'd all have more free time to build the encyclopedia.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:31, 29 July 2009 (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:Barack Obama presidential controversies
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:Merge. Duplicate categories. Only one of the two needs to exist. The proposed target is the older of the two, but I have no preference on which is kept.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:36, 22 July 2009 (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.
Remixes
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:Delete - there is no theoretical limit to the number of people who can remix a particular song. The typical CD single includes several mixes by several different producers. Categorizing songs by people who choose to remix it strikes me as overcategorization.
Otto4711 (
talk)
22:34, 22 July 2009 (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 associated with Bedford College
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.
American river shipwrecks
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: New names reflect the full name of each river and are less likely to be confused with potential state-only shipwreck categories. Also, the "of the" styling matches styling of many other shipwrecks categories and avoids the implication that the wrecks remain in place. (A wreck that occurred in one of the rivers but was salvaged is no longer "in the river", for example.) Both Mississippi categories, however, should be merged regardless of the final name decided, because both cover the same topic. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
20:44, 22 July 2009 (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:XxxHolic characters
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:VJs
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:Taxes
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 per nom. While there were points made about keeping this as is, the significant amount of overlap and the lack of parent categories that were appropriate for the content really support the merge as nominated. If anyone really thinks that we need to leave a redirect, drop a note on my talk page after the bots move the articles and I'll create it.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:00, 29 July 2009 (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:Jamba!
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:Delete - discussed once previously under the name
Category:Jamster ringtones, ended up
renamed to the current name. Two years later I don't think a single article has been added to the category, not even
Jamba! as a lead article. It's a
small category with little or no growth potential. A template for the character
Crazy Frog links all of this material and a link to Jamba! can certainly be added to that template.
Otto4711 (
talk)
06:36, 22 July 2009 (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:Joke characters
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:Delete - we deleted a category for fictional characters used for comic relief some time ago but I can't recall its exact name to find the old CFD. The reasons for deleting that apply to this similar category, specifically that fictional characters can serve a wide variety of roles within a given fictional narrative. Deadly serious characters sometimes crack the best jokes or are the butt of humor and one-note comedy characters are used to advance the dramatic narrative. Fictional characters frequently evolve over their history, starting out as "jokes" and later becoming integral to the dramatic story.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:07, 22 July 2009 (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.
Video albums
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 per nom. Very interesting discussion. The nomination points out that there was no standard for these categories. The one proposed did receive support and while there were some questions, nothing that I read was really an objection. So there was consensus for a rename. Having said that, there may well be a need for additional cleanup. If said cleanup affects some of these newly renamed categories, this decision should not be viewed as an impediment to renominating small subsets of these categories for rename as part of a larger consensus scheme.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I closed a single nomination for the Ricky Martin video category to join it here. My concern with "video albums" is that I'm uncertain that a concert video constitutes a "video album". We have no
video album article and
Album doesn't talk about the concept. "videos and DVDs" matches the category
Category:Music videos and DVDs in which at least some of these are currently parented. I'm not going to weep bitter tears if his ends up at "video albums" though.
Otto4711 (
talk)
04:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support all - 'video album' seems a reasonable shorthand for the material collected here (something with images in some format that would be called an album if recorded on an audio CD). This is assuming that all the listed ones are albums as opposed to 'video songs', which might be the best corresponding name for individual pieces such as Thriller: cf
Category:Albums which disregards the medium (cylinder, 78, 45, cassette, 8-track, CD, ...) and
Category:Songs. (There is however an interesting article
Music video which relates to individual songs, and supports
Category:Music videos.)
Occuli (
talk)
08:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
At 14 minutes in length, I'd argue that
Thriller (music video) could make the leap to a video album category. I can think of no other articles that are solely about an individual hit song's video, though I haven't done much of a search.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
After a 10-minute search I too have not found any other articles solely about a video for a particular song, but there are plenty of substantial subsections (eg in
Scream/Childhood) about videos which were notable for one reason or another (expensive, banned, controversial etc).
Occuli (
talk)
15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
If such an article is in an "(artist) songs" category, then I don't think it needs an "(artist) videos" category. Seems redundant to me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, just putting
Scream/Childhood in the songs category is not entirely satisfactory as it is not one song (but 2) and ignores the fact that 2 music videos are comprehensively covered in the article. Putting
Scream/Childhood in a 'music video' category is not satisfactory either as it is not a music video. The neatest solution is to create and categorise some redirects, one per song, one per music video; see
WP:Categorizing redirects, subtopic categorization. I might do this. (I don't think a song should be put in a music video category unless the song article contains at least a stub, a sentence or 2, about the video.)
Occuli (
talk)
16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I suggest holding off on creating redirects for the videos section pending a discussion on the category talk page.
Category:Music videos is currently swamped with song articles, causing the handful of legitimate articles to be lost in the morass. Starting in on redirects is just exchanging one problem for another.
Otto4711 (
talk)
22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Except redirects are italicised in categories, and would be something like 'Scream (music video)'. However my appetite for creating redirects which might be promptly deleted or recategorised is limited, and I shall take this sage advice.
Occuli (
talk)
11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Ok. The term "video albums" doesn't make sense to me, but I'm tired at the moment. Take
Category:Yanni videos, these are actually live concert films? I'm sure there are more that are concert videos. So where does something like this fit in?
♫ Cricket02 (
talk)
23:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
In my rationale above, I say that concert videos are video albums, in the same way that the audio recordings of the same concerts are called live albums. So concert videos would go in the video albums categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
04:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Would "Video releases" be a better term ? It would cover video compilations, concert videos and Michael Jackson's Thriller video.
Cjc13 (
talk)
10:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I like that term. Because what if all live concert videos weren't made into albums. And another example is that this one,
Yanni One on One, is a video release, but neither a live concert nor album, more of a documentary, but a release nonetheless.
♫ Cricket02 (
talk)
13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I considered that possibility, but it seemed to me that "video releases" covers individual song videos, which this nomination is trying to prevent.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
How does one tell whether a 'live concert video' is or is not an album? The Yanni template lists the concert videos under 'live albums' which I would accept without a second thought (until now).
Occuli (
talk)
11:42, 24 July 2009 (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:Video covers
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 to
Category:Images of video covers. Consensus was to rename. The target was open to discussion. Since the result is a rename, nothing is really lost by selecting among the options. This decision does not prevent someone from renominating if they feel that the chosen target is unacceptable.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support – there is also
Category:Album covers which could perhaps be considered at the same time. It would seem reasonable to include the word 'images' in any category comprising only images, regardless of ambiguity. Eg there is
Category:Book covers which is less ambiguous but would still benefit from 'images'.
Occuli (
talk)
09:16, 22 July 2009 (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:Glossary of German terms
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:Merge. No way a category can be named "glossary". The inthention of the creator was to distinguish German
loanwords from German words used in English texts, but still "alien" to English language. - Altenmann
>t00:11, 22 July 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. OCAT. Small category for a private island that is not likely to be expanded. There is a
List of tenants of Jethou which should provide ample navigation and currently provides significantly more information that is not available from a category.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. While I generally agree- the island is so small as to not really warrant its own category - I have managed to expand the number of articles in the category, so part of the justification above is misleading.
Grutness...wha?01:30, 25 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Surely you know I will not watch a category for maintenance purposes. Also if I follow your argument, any settlement with, let's say a building, should have a category. I think that is overkill.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
06:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete - per nom, and based on the contents the list of tenants serves much of the proposed purpose of the category, drawing together the island's tenants.
Otto4711 (
talk)
00:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This is a well-defined category for a geographic feature within the parent
Category:Islands of the Channel Islands. There is no evidence that there will be no additional articles forthcoming and the excuse justifying deletion based on the fact that a list "serves much of the proposed purpose" is in direct conflict with
WP:CLN's mandate that lists AND categories should work together in synergistic fashion, with absolutely nothing in WP:CLN stating that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources. Instead, each should be used to update the other." WP:CLN never states anywhere that a category should be deleted because a list is "better".
Alansohn (
talk)
19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
There is no evidence that there will ever be another article related to this island, so that argument cuts both ways. Should a sudden rush of Jethou-related articles suddenly materialize the category can be re-created. CLN is not a mandate, despite your mischaracterization of it as such. No category is mandated by CLN and CLN clearly states that there are times when a list is superior to a category.
Otto4711 (
talk)
19:21, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Additional articles have been created recently in this category and there is no reason other than your foot stamping insistence that it is unlikely there will never be any more.
WP:CLN never mandates that a category be created or deleted, but does specify that they should co-exist. It does specifically reject the disruptive deletion of any category or list with the argument that the other is better, rather clearly stating that stating that "the 'category camp' should not delete or dismantle Wikipedia's lists, and the 'list camp' shouldn't tear down Wikipedia's category system—doing so wastes valuable resources." If this were only followed even in spirit, so much wasted time and effort would be freed up to build this encyclopedia rather than destroy what we don't like based on arbitrary preferences.
Alansohn (
talk)
19:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
And clearly the articles that were added could be removed since they are not defining for that individual and are a brief mention in the articles and not of any significance for the individuals. So it is not clear that these inclusions meet the guidelines of
WP:COP especially the caution to limit the number of categories in people categories.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
(ec) There are currently four articles in the category.
Compton Mackenzie was created in May 2004,
Peter Ogden was created in April 2008,
List of tenants of Jethou was also created in April 2008 and
Jethou was created way back in 2002. Care to reconsider your claim of recently-created additional articles? Or perhaps you'd just care to stamp your foot at getting caught in another falsehood? As for CLN, it most assuredly does not "specify" that categories and lists "should co-exist". It states: "The grouping of articles by one method neither requires nor forbids the use of the other methods for the same informational grouping." The line you quoted obviously does not mean that categories with associated lists cannot be brought up for discussion. CLN obviously does not "specifically reject" arguing against a category by claiming that a list would work better because CLN explicitly includes reasons why one navigational tool works better than another under different circumstances. Perhaps if you spent less time mischaracterizing CLN, making the same tired bad-faith accusations of disruption, arbitrariness and "you don't like it" against fellow editors, making demonstrably false claims like the ones above and acting like you're some kind of Wiki-savior barring the door from the barbarian hordes bent on its destruction whenever anyone disagrees with you, we'd all have more free time to build the encyclopedia.
Otto4711 (
talk)
21:31, 29 July 2009 (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:Barack Obama presidential controversies
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:Merge. Duplicate categories. Only one of the two needs to exist. The proposed target is the older of the two, but I have no preference on which is kept.
Good Ol’factory(talk)23:36, 22 July 2009 (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.
Remixes
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:Delete - there is no theoretical limit to the number of people who can remix a particular song. The typical CD single includes several mixes by several different producers. Categorizing songs by people who choose to remix it strikes me as overcategorization.
Otto4711 (
talk)
22:34, 22 July 2009 (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 associated with Bedford College
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.
American river shipwrecks
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: New names reflect the full name of each river and are less likely to be confused with potential state-only shipwreck categories. Also, the "of the" styling matches styling of many other shipwrecks categories and avoids the implication that the wrecks remain in place. (A wreck that occurred in one of the rivers but was salvaged is no longer "in the river", for example.) Both Mississippi categories, however, should be merged regardless of the final name decided, because both cover the same topic. —
Bellhalla (
talk)
20:44, 22 July 2009 (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:XxxHolic characters
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:VJs
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:Taxes
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 per nom. While there were points made about keeping this as is, the significant amount of overlap and the lack of parent categories that were appropriate for the content really support the merge as nominated. If anyone really thinks that we need to leave a redirect, drop a note on my talk page after the bots move the articles and I'll create it.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:00, 29 July 2009 (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:Jamba!
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:Delete - discussed once previously under the name
Category:Jamster ringtones, ended up
renamed to the current name. Two years later I don't think a single article has been added to the category, not even
Jamba! as a lead article. It's a
small category with little or no growth potential. A template for the character
Crazy Frog links all of this material and a link to Jamba! can certainly be added to that template.
Otto4711 (
talk)
06:36, 22 July 2009 (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:Joke characters
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:Delete - we deleted a category for fictional characters used for comic relief some time ago but I can't recall its exact name to find the old CFD. The reasons for deleting that apply to this similar category, specifically that fictional characters can serve a wide variety of roles within a given fictional narrative. Deadly serious characters sometimes crack the best jokes or are the butt of humor and one-note comedy characters are used to advance the dramatic narrative. Fictional characters frequently evolve over their history, starting out as "jokes" and later becoming integral to the dramatic story.
Otto4711 (
talk)
05:07, 22 July 2009 (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.
Video albums
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 per nom. Very interesting discussion. The nomination points out that there was no standard for these categories. The one proposed did receive support and while there were some questions, nothing that I read was really an objection. So there was consensus for a rename. Having said that, there may well be a need for additional cleanup. If said cleanup affects some of these newly renamed categories, this decision should not be viewed as an impediment to renominating small subsets of these categories for rename as part of a larger consensus scheme.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - I closed a single nomination for the Ricky Martin video category to join it here. My concern with "video albums" is that I'm uncertain that a concert video constitutes a "video album". We have no
video album article and
Album doesn't talk about the concept. "videos and DVDs" matches the category
Category:Music videos and DVDs in which at least some of these are currently parented. I'm not going to weep bitter tears if his ends up at "video albums" though.
Otto4711 (
talk)
04:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support all - 'video album' seems a reasonable shorthand for the material collected here (something with images in some format that would be called an album if recorded on an audio CD). This is assuming that all the listed ones are albums as opposed to 'video songs', which might be the best corresponding name for individual pieces such as Thriller: cf
Category:Albums which disregards the medium (cylinder, 78, 45, cassette, 8-track, CD, ...) and
Category:Songs. (There is however an interesting article
Music video which relates to individual songs, and supports
Category:Music videos.)
Occuli (
talk)
08:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
At 14 minutes in length, I'd argue that
Thriller (music video) could make the leap to a video album category. I can think of no other articles that are solely about an individual hit song's video, though I haven't done much of a search.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
14:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
After a 10-minute search I too have not found any other articles solely about a video for a particular song, but there are plenty of substantial subsections (eg in
Scream/Childhood) about videos which were notable for one reason or another (expensive, banned, controversial etc).
Occuli (
talk)
15:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
If such an article is in an "(artist) songs" category, then I don't think it needs an "(artist) videos" category. Seems redundant to me.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
16:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Well, just putting
Scream/Childhood in the songs category is not entirely satisfactory as it is not one song (but 2) and ignores the fact that 2 music videos are comprehensively covered in the article. Putting
Scream/Childhood in a 'music video' category is not satisfactory either as it is not a music video. The neatest solution is to create and categorise some redirects, one per song, one per music video; see
WP:Categorizing redirects, subtopic categorization. I might do this. (I don't think a song should be put in a music video category unless the song article contains at least a stub, a sentence or 2, about the video.)
Occuli (
talk)
16:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I suggest holding off on creating redirects for the videos section pending a discussion on the category talk page.
Category:Music videos is currently swamped with song articles, causing the handful of legitimate articles to be lost in the morass. Starting in on redirects is just exchanging one problem for another.
Otto4711 (
talk)
22:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Except redirects are italicised in categories, and would be something like 'Scream (music video)'. However my appetite for creating redirects which might be promptly deleted or recategorised is limited, and I shall take this sage advice.
Occuli (
talk)
11:35, 24 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Ok. The term "video albums" doesn't make sense to me, but I'm tired at the moment. Take
Category:Yanni videos, these are actually live concert films? I'm sure there are more that are concert videos. So where does something like this fit in?
♫ Cricket02 (
talk)
23:33, 22 July 2009 (UTC)reply
In my rationale above, I say that concert videos are video albums, in the same way that the audio recordings of the same concerts are called live albums. So concert videos would go in the video albums categories.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
04:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Would "Video releases" be a better term ? It would cover video compilations, concert videos and Michael Jackson's Thriller video.
Cjc13 (
talk)
10:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I like that term. Because what if all live concert videos weren't made into albums. And another example is that this one,
Yanni One on One, is a video release, but neither a live concert nor album, more of a documentary, but a release nonetheless.
♫ Cricket02 (
talk)
13:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
I considered that possibility, but it seemed to me that "video releases" covers individual song videos, which this nomination is trying to prevent.--
Mike Selinker (
talk)
19:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)reply
How does one tell whether a 'live concert video' is or is not an album? The Yanni template lists the concert videos under 'live albums' which I would accept without a second thought (until now).
Occuli (
talk)
11:42, 24 July 2009 (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:Video covers
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 to
Category:Images of video covers. Consensus was to rename. The target was open to discussion. Since the result is a rename, nothing is really lost by selecting among the options. This decision does not prevent someone from renominating if they feel that the chosen target is unacceptable.
Vegaswikian (
talk)
23:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)reply
Support – there is also
Category:Album covers which could perhaps be considered at the same time. It would seem reasonable to include the word 'images' in any category comprising only images, regardless of ambiguity. Eg there is
Category:Book covers which is less ambiguous but would still benefit from 'images'.
Occuli (
talk)
09:16, 22 July 2009 (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:Glossary of German terms
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:Merge. No way a category can be named "glossary". The inthention of the creator was to distinguish German
loanwords from German words used in English texts, but still "alien" to English language. - Altenmann
>t00:11, 22 July 2009 (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.