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. The form "Noun cricketers" is only used for international teams or where there is difficulty with the adjective (e.g., Dominica). With the exception of the adjectival problems, WI cricketers are sorted by nationality using adjectivs (e.g., Jamaican cricketers, Montserratian cricketers). This should be likewise.
Grutness...wha? 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Duplicate category, name does not conform to convention. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
This qualifies for a Speedy Merge per nom.
Cgingold (
talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose There is a difference between the two categories: Barbadian cricketers are those from Barbados, Barbados cricketers are those who have represented the
Barbados national cricket team. One can play for the team without being from Barbados, and conversely one can be from Barbados and play
first-class cricket for another team and never represent the Barbados cricket team.
Nev1 (
talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Then why is there no such distinction for any other part of the West Indies? Jamaican cricketers are all in
Category:Jamaican cricketers, similarly Guyanese - there are no
Category:Jamaica cricketers or
Category:Guyana cricketers. I can understand there being no noun equivalents for Anguillan, St. Lucian, Grenadian, since they compete as part of combined "provincial" first class teams... but Barbados is distinctly the odd one out here.
Grutness...wha? 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that there is a better argument for creating categories to fill these gaps than there is for removing the distinction between these categories.
[[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
If so, it is also an argument for removing
Category:Barbados cricketers from
Category:Cricketers by nationality, since it is clearly not the purpose of the category (if it hadn't been in there, I probably wouldn't have proposed this for merging - its usage definitely needs clarifying).
Grutness...wha? 23:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per Nev1. Players for the Barbados cricket team do not necessarily need to be Bajan and vice versa. This is consistent with
Category:Victoria cricketers and
Category:Essex cricketers containing cricketers outside
Victoria (Australia) and
Essex respectively. This distinction is not just theoretical;
Frank Worrell, a Bajan, played much of his cricket for Jamaica. Note that
Category:Ireland cricketers and
Category:Irish cricketers are not the same thing, a similar principle applies here. If there is a problem with the Jamaican and Guyanese categories then that should be corrected; better to be accurate and possibly inconsistent rather than consistent but wrong. --
Mattinbgn\talk 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per Nev1 and Mattinbgn. Cricketers from Barbados and cricketers who play for Barbados are not the same thing. To be consistent I think that
Chris Gayle should start the category
Category:Jamaica cricketers (meaning "Jamaica national cricket team cricketers" and which shouldn't be a redirect), and not that this category should be removed. It is the same as
Category:English cricketers and
Category:England Test cricketers (except that some international teams haven't played Test/ODI/Twenty20I matches).—
MDCollins (
talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Nev1 and others. --
Orrelly Man (
talk) 19:53, 25 March 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:Watchmakers (Individuals)
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.
Support to better indicate purpose.
Alansohn (
talk) 21:13, 22 March 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:Son
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:Rename. If kept, should be named to match
Son Cubano for clarity purposes. No opinion on whether keeping a category for this style of music would be appropriate or not—I don't know enough about it to know if the category could be added to substantially or not.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Two points: 1. Not against renaming as such, but if done would much prefer the more open
Category:Son (music), and ditto for the equivalent content page (I'm going to propose a name change for the content page also). The son was indeed a Cuban invention, but is now a widespread form in the Caribbean and Americas, and so, like the
bolero, the
mambo, the
guaracha, and so on, should not be titled Cuban/cubano.
Comment. Sure, as long as the article name change were also proposed, I don't see a problem with this alternative.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support to match title of parent article. If a new parent is created, a new name can be considered.
Alansohn (
talk) 21:12, 22 March 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:British soap opera villains
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. —
TKD::{talk} 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think it's safe to say that there has been a long-standing consensus not to use the formulation of "villains" in category names: see
here. The problem is typically that the term is POV and subjective, especially in media where there is not always a clear-cut division of "heroes" and "villains". But even in media where the division often is fairly bright line, like comics, we still usually don't use the term for categories. For a very similar category that was deleted, see
Days of Our Lives villains.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I note that
Category:Soap opera villains was itself deleted 2 years ago. So unless there is something dramatically (or should I say, melodramatically) different about British soap operas -- perhaps all of the characters designated as "villains" are instantly identifiable as such because they all wear villainous eye-patches or carry villainous riding crops -- I don't see any reason to make an exception for this particular category.
Cgingold (
talk) 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per Cgingold. Plenty of soap characters are anti-heroes to some degree, but most are not one-dimensional villains. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom & Cgingold & precedent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, inherently difficult to define effectively. --
Rodhullandemu 17:11, 28 March 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:Trumpet repertoire
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 (empty at close).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete The nominated didn't subst here so I did that for me. My comments are is that it's an empty category that doesn't follow the naming pattern of the rest of categories for music pieces per instrument.
QTC 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: I substed a CFD. Does not follow naming pattern. Empty category as of March 22. — Andy W.(
talk/
contrb.) 15:27, 22 March 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:Georgian folk instruments
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 (merge to make sure nothing is lost). Would recommend a rename to fix the "Georgian musical instruments" category; precedent on "Georgian" isn't as clear as it is with "Georgia", and we could do well with a definitive answer.
Kbdank71 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete Every single article in this category also appears in
Category:Georgian musical instruments. Most of these "folk instruments" categories are completely redundant with "nationality" instrument categories, and offer no benefit while increasing category fragmentation.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge the other way, keeping all parents. Nom misses the point that his proposal would lose the instruments to the folk tree. If it is the case that all a nation's instruments can fairly be called "folk" then that should be the only category, but staying in the Instruments by nationality scheme.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say I'm "missing the point." The Folk tree is nearly worthless, as the Nationality tree is doing about the same thing but far better. There really hasn't been any problem with non-folk instruments being put into the Nationality tree, so again Folk Instruments and Instruments By Nationality are 95% parallel and just making things complicated. I voted before to just delete the entire Folk tree, but couldn't get a full consensus on it.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I think it is more the case that "Instruments By Nationality" is "nearly worthless" - the only country with a number of genuinely individual instuments only found in one country is the USA. For example the only "German" musical instument, apparently, is the
Bumbass, whose article begins:"The bumbass was a folk instrument used throughout Europe"! It would make more sense to do these by culture, or at least merge with the folk tree.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - whatever is done, these should be renamed to "Georgian (country)..." per long-standing precedent.
Grutness...wha? 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I can see that being advisable in circumstances where there could definitely be confusion, Cities and towns in Georgia or whatever, but given that US states don't generally have their own unique instruments I'd say it's redundant here. There are plenty of categories about Georgia (the country) that don't have "(country)" in them. Do we have some huge thread somewhere where folks came to a consensus to label "(country)" rather than just use "(US state)" and let the country be the default use of the term?
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, all instances of "Georgia" are slowly converting to either "...(U.S. state)" or "...(country)" for ease of disambiguity - even in cases where the need for disambiguation is a little less obvious - in this case, I'm sure fans of
R&B piano or
jangly guitar might argue that there are musical instruments and forms closely associated with that state...:)
Grutness...wha? 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That's true for all instances of "Georgia", but not for all instances of "Georgian". See
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Category:Georgian_people. The approach adopted here was to rephrase the name into "from Georgia (country)" rather than use "Georgian (country)". But as I predicted in the discussion, no effort has been made to change the other uses of "Georgian" throughout the category tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - presumably all Fooian intruments are Fooian folk instruments - otherwise piano and guitar and drum would probably be in 200+ categories; and someone should nominate to rename the
Category:Georgian musical instruments along the lines suggested by Grutness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Georgian musical instruments. It is not correct to say that all instruments are universal. There are significantly natioanl instruments: Scottish bagpipes; Russian baliliaka (probably misspelt); Australian digorido. It is of course true that the instruments used in the western orchestra are ubiquitous in the western world. For the particular merits of the present category, I am not really qualified to speak.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:19, 27 March 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:Folk percussion instruments
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 (empty at close).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary definition (as almost all percussion instruments can be considered "folk"), and current category has zero entries, but instead has a list of items. So irregularly formatted category with no entries and unclear criteria.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 03:25, 22 March 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:Roadology
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 "Roadology" appears to be a neologism, the articles should be recategorised in parent categories. —
Snigbrook 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I support keeping this category. Parent categories do not properly classify the included articles. Thanks!
FieldMarine (
talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, Johnbod makes some very cogent points, and the categories he mentions seem totally sufficient.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. A
search of Google Scholar reveals that it appears to be used within academia solely as part of the phrase "silk roadology", which I assume to mean study of the silk road. I have not so far found any scholarly use of the term outside of the
Silk Road usage, so as a standalone word "roadology" appears to be a neologism which doesn't deserve an article let alone a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete neologism.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:07, 25 March 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:Merge. The form "Noun cricketers" is only used for international teams or where there is difficulty with the adjective (e.g., Dominica). With the exception of the adjectival problems, WI cricketers are sorted by nationality using adjectivs (e.g., Jamaican cricketers, Montserratian cricketers). This should be likewise.
Grutness...wha? 21:17, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. Duplicate category, name does not conform to convention. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
This qualifies for a Speedy Merge per nom.
Cgingold (
talk) 21:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose There is a difference between the two categories: Barbadian cricketers are those from Barbados, Barbados cricketers are those who have represented the
Barbados national cricket team. One can play for the team without being from Barbados, and conversely one can be from Barbados and play
first-class cricket for another team and never represent the Barbados cricket team.
Nev1 (
talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment Then why is there no such distinction for any other part of the West Indies? Jamaican cricketers are all in
Category:Jamaican cricketers, similarly Guyanese - there are no
Category:Jamaica cricketers or
Category:Guyana cricketers. I can understand there being no noun equivalents for Anguillan, St. Lucian, Grenadian, since they compete as part of combined "provincial" first class teams... but Barbados is distinctly the odd one out here.
Grutness...wha? 22:29, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
It seems to me that there is a better argument for creating categories to fill these gaps than there is for removing the distinction between these categories.
[[Sam Korn]](smoddy) 12:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
If so, it is also an argument for removing
Category:Barbados cricketers from
Category:Cricketers by nationality, since it is clearly not the purpose of the category (if it hadn't been in there, I probably wouldn't have proposed this for merging - its usage definitely needs clarifying).
Grutness...wha? 23:26, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per Nev1. Players for the Barbados cricket team do not necessarily need to be Bajan and vice versa. This is consistent with
Category:Victoria cricketers and
Category:Essex cricketers containing cricketers outside
Victoria (Australia) and
Essex respectively. This distinction is not just theoretical;
Frank Worrell, a Bajan, played much of his cricket for Jamaica. Note that
Category:Ireland cricketers and
Category:Irish cricketers are not the same thing, a similar principle applies here. If there is a problem with the Jamaican and Guyanese categories then that should be corrected; better to be accurate and possibly inconsistent rather than consistent but wrong. --
Mattinbgn\talk 23:30, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose as per Nev1 and Mattinbgn. Cricketers from Barbados and cricketers who play for Barbados are not the same thing. To be consistent I think that
Chris Gayle should start the category
Category:Jamaica cricketers (meaning "Jamaica national cricket team cricketers" and which shouldn't be a redirect), and not that this category should be removed. It is the same as
Category:English cricketers and
Category:England Test cricketers (except that some international teams haven't played Test/ODI/Twenty20I matches).—
MDCollins (
talk) 23:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Oppose per Nev1 and others. --
Orrelly Man (
talk) 19:53, 25 March 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:Watchmakers (Individuals)
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.
Support to better indicate purpose.
Alansohn (
talk) 21:13, 22 March 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:Son
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:Rename. If kept, should be named to match
Son Cubano for clarity purposes. No opinion on whether keeping a category for this style of music would be appropriate or not—I don't know enough about it to know if the category could be added to substantially or not.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:45, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Two points: 1. Not against renaming as such, but if done would much prefer the more open
Category:Son (music), and ditto for the equivalent content page (I'm going to propose a name change for the content page also). The son was indeed a Cuban invention, but is now a widespread form in the Caribbean and Americas, and so, like the
bolero, the
mambo, the
guaracha, and so on, should not be titled Cuban/cubano.
Comment. Sure, as long as the article name change were also proposed, I don't see a problem with this alternative.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Support to match title of parent article. If a new parent is created, a new name can be considered.
Alansohn (
talk) 21:12, 22 March 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:British soap opera villains
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. —
TKD::{talk} 04:46, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete. I think it's safe to say that there has been a long-standing consensus not to use the formulation of "villains" in category names: see
here. The problem is typically that the term is POV and subjective, especially in media where there is not always a clear-cut division of "heroes" and "villains". But even in media where the division often is fairly bright line, like comics, we still usually don't use the term for categories. For a very similar category that was deleted, see
Days of Our Lives villains.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I note that
Category:Soap opera villains was itself deleted 2 years ago. So unless there is something dramatically (or should I say, melodramatically) different about British soap operas -- perhaps all of the characters designated as "villains" are instantly identifiable as such because they all wear villainous eye-patches or carry villainous riding crops -- I don't see any reason to make an exception for this particular category.
Cgingold (
talk) 20:44, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per Cgingold. Plenty of soap characters are anti-heroes to some degree, but most are not one-dimensional villains. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 21:33, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom & Cgingold & precedent.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:33, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom, inherently difficult to define effectively. --
Rodhullandemu 17:11, 28 March 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:Trumpet repertoire
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 (empty at close).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete The nominated didn't subst here so I did that for me. My comments are is that it's an empty category that doesn't follow the naming pattern of the rest of categories for music pieces per instrument.
QTC 04:09, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete: I substed a CFD. Does not follow naming pattern. Empty category as of March 22. — Andy W.(
talk/
contrb.) 15:27, 22 March 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:Georgian folk instruments
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 (merge to make sure nothing is lost). Would recommend a rename to fix the "Georgian musical instruments" category; precedent on "Georgian" isn't as clear as it is with "Georgia", and we could do well with a definitive answer.
Kbdank71 14:38, 30 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete Every single article in this category also appears in
Category:Georgian musical instruments. Most of these "folk instruments" categories are completely redundant with "nationality" instrument categories, and offer no benefit while increasing category fragmentation.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 03:38, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge the other way, keeping all parents. Nom misses the point that his proposal would lose the instruments to the folk tree. If it is the case that all a nation's instruments can fairly be called "folk" then that should be the only category, but staying in the Instruments by nationality scheme.
Johnbod (
talk) 18:25, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I wouldn't say I'm "missing the point." The Folk tree is nearly worthless, as the Nationality tree is doing about the same thing but far better. There really hasn't been any problem with non-folk instruments being put into the Nationality tree, so again Folk Instruments and Instruments By Nationality are 95% parallel and just making things complicated. I voted before to just delete the entire Folk tree, but couldn't get a full consensus on it.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 20:27, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I think it is more the case that "Instruments By Nationality" is "nearly worthless" - the only country with a number of genuinely individual instuments only found in one country is the USA. For example the only "German" musical instument, apparently, is the
Bumbass, whose article begins:"The bumbass was a folk instrument used throughout Europe"! It would make more sense to do these by culture, or at least merge with the folk tree.
Johnbod (
talk) 22:47, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment - whatever is done, these should be renamed to "Georgian (country)..." per long-standing precedent.
Grutness...wha? 22:31, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I can see that being advisable in circumstances where there could definitely be confusion, Cities and towns in Georgia or whatever, but given that US states don't generally have their own unique instruments I'd say it's redundant here. There are plenty of categories about Georgia (the country) that don't have "(country)" in them. Do we have some huge thread somewhere where folks came to a consensus to label "(country)" rather than just use "(US state)" and let the country be the default use of the term?
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 18:16, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Yes, all instances of "Georgia" are slowly converting to either "...(U.S. state)" or "...(country)" for ease of disambiguity - even in cases where the need for disambiguation is a little less obvious - in this case, I'm sure fans of
R&B piano or
jangly guitar might argue that there are musical instruments and forms closely associated with that state...:)
Grutness...wha? 23:37, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
That's true for all instances of "Georgia", but not for all instances of "Georgian". See
Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_March_10#Category:Georgian_people. The approach adopted here was to rephrase the name into "from Georgia (country)" rather than use "Georgian (country)". But as I predicted in the discussion, no effort has been made to change the other uses of "Georgian" throughout the category tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:08, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom - presumably all Fooian intruments are Fooian folk instruments - otherwise piano and guitar and drum would probably be in 200+ categories; and someone should nominate to rename the
Category:Georgian musical instruments along the lines suggested by Grutness.
Carlossuarez46 (
talk) 02:35, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Merge to
Category:Georgian musical instruments. It is not correct to say that all instruments are universal. There are significantly natioanl instruments: Scottish bagpipes; Russian baliliaka (probably misspelt); Australian digorido. It is of course true that the instruments used in the western orchestra are ubiquitous in the western world. For the particular merits of the present category, I am not really qualified to speak.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 10:19, 27 March 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:Folk percussion instruments
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 (empty at close).
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:03, 28 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary definition (as almost all percussion instruments can be considered "folk"), and current category has zero entries, but instead has a list of items. So irregularly formatted category with no entries and unclear criteria.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 03:25, 22 March 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:Roadology
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 "Roadology" appears to be a neologism, the articles should be recategorised in parent categories. —
Snigbrook 00:43, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
I support keeping this category. Parent categories do not properly classify the included articles. Thanks!
FieldMarine (
talk) 00:56, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete, Johnbod makes some very cogent points, and the categories he mentions seem totally sufficient.
MatthewVanitas (
talk) 21:42, 22 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete. A
search of Google Scholar reveals that it appears to be used within academia solely as part of the phrase "silk roadology", which I assume to mean study of the silk road. I have not so far found any scholarly use of the term outside of the
Silk Road usage, so as a standalone word "roadology" appears to be a neologism which doesn't deserve an article let alone a category. --
BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (
contribs) 00:54, 23 March 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete neologism.
Bearcat (
talk) 15:07, 25 March 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.