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 title is tautologous - all coins are numismatic - and a duplication of
Category:Coins of RussiaStAnselm (
talk) 23:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge back to patent
Category:Coins of Russia. Some of the coins appear to be ones that have not circulated in the normal way, for example high-denomination gold coins, which presumable serve a similar function to
Kruger rands, but not all are commemorative (for which there is already a subcategory, though as "lists of").
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:40, 15 July 2015 (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:Winters
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. The whole super-
category:Winter is rather small, and this category IMO is good to hold both particular winters and smaller winter weather events. -M.Altenmann
>t 18:06, 11 July 2015 (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 from Long Beach Township, New Jersey
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. All communities of under 10,000 people with just 1, 2, or 3 entries.
...William 15:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose The parent of these categories,
Category:People from Burlington County, New Jersey and
Category:People from Ocean County, New Jersey, are being
fully diffused and further review of the parents, of other articles that link to these places and of articles that link to unincorporated communities within these places, keep on turning up additional entries to be added to these categories. The categories also allow more effective navigation through the corresponding categories created for other places.
Alansohn (
talk) 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Long time consensus is that small one county communities with 4 or less entries is insufficient for the community to have a people from category. At least one of the categories above has exactly one entry.
...William 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support generally -- I would prefer a minimum for a community to have its own category that that are about a dozen potential members. The rest should be left in the parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, there is no need for full diffusion of the county parents, in previous discussions there was consensus about similar mergers.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support The spirit of
WP:OCMISC really applies here: "It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into its subcategories." Just because some towns in Ocean County are viable sub-categories, doesn't mean there still can't be loose articles at the county level for really small towns.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:46, 22 July 2015 (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:Events at the Southeast Asian Games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete as empty. This is without prejudice to re-creation.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There is a reason why
Category:Sports at the Summer Olympics and
Category:Events at the Summer Olympics exists too. An "event" is a subcategory of a "sport" (example, there are 32 Olympic events in the sport called swimming). Sure, the categories look underpopulated right now, but they will grow with time as data gets added progressively.--
Huaiwei (
talk) 08:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Huaiwei: Articles on events are not in the category – the overall sport articles are. It is the sport-specific categories that contain the events held within a sport. Usage of the term "event" is also confusing in that is could signify other parts of a games, such as opening ceremony or things like
2012 Olympic hunger summit which is what the structure stemming from
Category:Events relates to.
SFB 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Notification posted in WikiProject Sports.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:30, 8 August 2015 (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:2011 Southeast Asian Games events
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.
Oppose. As above. These categories are correctly named.--
Huaiwei (
talk) 08:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Notification posted in WikiProject Sports.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:30, 8 August 2015 (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:Protestant religious leaders by denomination
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:nomination withdrawn.
MER-C 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)reply
On the other hand it is used as an alternative term for clergy in a child category of
Category:Christian clergy (which is the nominated category).
This proposal aims at poviding less ambiguity in this matter. In addition, since not all Protestant denominations are used to the term "clergy", the suggestion is to use the term "ministers and clergy" in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Inclined to oppose; see
Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories for the wider proposal which led to the current names. At the end of that page is a difference of view about categorising clergy who are not leaders, specifically, whether it is defining for them to be so categorised; this probably needs airing as an RFC. –
FayenaticLondon 13:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- It is true that most of the subcats are for clergy, ministers, or pastors, but not all are necessarily ordained. For example, the Quakers have no ordanced ministry.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:30, 15 July 2015 (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:Ordained Christian women
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.
Which might have been due to the fact it was a small part of a too complex bigger nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:35, 19 July 2015 (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:Analysis of Hindu nationalism
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 to a more usual format.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I am the creator of this category. I intend it to include pages that deal with analysis of Hindu nationalism (not necessarily scholars). In fact,
Hitler's Priestess, currently in the category, is a book. So the proposed move is inappropriate. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Not really.
Category:Hindu nationalism includes aspects internal to the Hindu nationalist movements, not external commentaries on it. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 10:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
If the book is about Hindu nationalism, there is nothing that would prevent it from being in that category. By the way, it is not really clear from the article what the book is about, you need to guess quite a bit based on the list of chapters. It would be great if you could expand the article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, this book was just an example. In principle, articles on other books, some of which are much more major, would also go here. From my point of view, it is the analysis of Hindu nationalism that is of interest to the general readership, not necessarily the scholars. The scholars' pages are included only because they often contain details of the works. So I don't really see much point in the renaming that you have proposed. -
Kautilya3 (
talk) 11:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Analysis of Hindu nationalism is not a defining characteristic of the writers about Hindu nationalism in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)reply
REname -- I am not sure that all the people categorised are "scholars" (which suggests academics). How about Analysts or Commentators. The one article on a book can be moved elsewhere, as suggested.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
It's a good idea to slightly broaden the scope of the category in comparison to the nomination. A broader category name that is also in line with existing WP conventions is
Category:Writers about Hindu nationalism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (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:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling 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:delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Rationale is incorrect; categories can't be "converted" to list articles.
List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling albums is several years old, so it is unlikely separate articles existed for every album. The nom also emptied the cat before nomination, but it seems like there may have only been the one entry anyhow, so SMALLCAT would apply. There are multiple albums, but as soundtracks, none of them are generally individually notable.
MSJapan (
talk) 23:57, 11 July 2015 (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:Simon & Garfunkel members
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are two articles in this category, and I really do not see a use since they both link to each other's article on their pages, so this is a bit unnecessary when it comes down to keeping it.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 04:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I do not usually comment on musical matters, but for many musical groups we seem to get multiple categories, one for members, another for albums, another for songs. With fiction, my vote the rule "one franchise, one category", so that books, films, TV series, writers, characters (though the articles are typically merged into a single article and the category deletd) and all else appear in one category. Would it not be appropriate to apply this to musical groups? We resist eponymous categories, as they unnecessarily parent the multiple categoies about the group. My suggestion, is that instead we should allow the eponymous category and prohibit the multiple subcategories. The main article will be on the group, and most of the rest will be linked from that, so that there is an alternative navigation route.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 09:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep' - It may seem kind of silly on its own, but it's part of an established scheme that would be incomplete without it.
Abeg92contribs 15:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - In this case, adherence to a scheme should not take precedence over common sense. This is textbook SMALLCAT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There were only ever two members of the duo (by definition). They're both mentioned in the group article, and there's a well-built navbox for S&G as well. The album cat exists because they had 10 albums, which is a reasonable size. They have many well-known songs that we know the background of, so a songs cat is reasonable. However, the members cat will never grow, and given all the other navigation material, this is unnecessary.
MSJapan (
talk) 23:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The category is part of
Category:Musicians by band, and the fact that the band is named after these two musicians doesn't change the fact that it is a band and has members.
Delete; unnecessary for navigation.
Category:Musicians by band is not a "comprehensive" scheme that's meant to be inclusive of categories for every band that ever had members; there are actually more bands on Wikipedia whose members don't all have separate standalone biographies than there are ones who are.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The two articles can adequately (and are at present) be linked from the lead article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - SMALLCAT that won't grow
Pnorman (
talk) 21:40, 16 July 2015 (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: The title is tautologous - all coins are numismatic - and a duplication of
Category:Coins of RussiaStAnselm (
talk) 23:20, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Merge back to patent
Category:Coins of Russia. Some of the coins appear to be ones that have not circulated in the normal way, for example high-denomination gold coins, which presumable serve a similar function to
Kruger rands, but not all are commemorative (for which there is already a subcategory, though as "lists of").
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:40, 15 July 2015 (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:Winters
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. The whole super-
category:Winter is rather small, and this category IMO is good to hold both particular winters and smaller winter weather events. -M.Altenmann
>t 18:06, 11 July 2015 (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 from Long Beach Township, New Jersey
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: Per
WP:SMALLCAT. All communities of under 10,000 people with just 1, 2, or 3 entries.
...William 15:26, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose The parent of these categories,
Category:People from Burlington County, New Jersey and
Category:People from Ocean County, New Jersey, are being
fully diffused and further review of the parents, of other articles that link to these places and of articles that link to unincorporated communities within these places, keep on turning up additional entries to be added to these categories. The categories also allow more effective navigation through the corresponding categories created for other places.
Alansohn (
talk) 20:16, 14 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment Long time consensus is that small one county communities with 4 or less entries is insufficient for the community to have a people from category. At least one of the categories above has exactly one entry.
...William 13:41, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support generally -- I would prefer a minimum for a community to have its own category that that are about a dozen potential members. The rest should be left in the parent.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:34, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support, there is no need for full diffusion of the county parents, in previous discussions there was consensus about similar mergers.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:47, 19 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Support The spirit of
WP:OCMISC really applies here: "It is not necessary to completely empty every parent category into its subcategories." Just because some towns in Ocean County are viable sub-categories, doesn't mean there still can't be loose articles at the county level for really small towns.
RevelationDirect (
talk) 02:46, 22 July 2015 (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:Events at the Southeast Asian Games
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete as empty. This is without prejudice to re-creation.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:37, 28 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose. There is a reason why
Category:Sports at the Summer Olympics and
Category:Events at the Summer Olympics exists too. An "event" is a subcategory of a "sport" (example, there are 32 Olympic events in the sport called swimming). Sure, the categories look underpopulated right now, but they will grow with time as data gets added progressively.--
Huaiwei (
talk) 08:06, 2 August 2015 (UTC)reply
@
Huaiwei: Articles on events are not in the category – the overall sport articles are. It is the sport-specific categories that contain the events held within a sport. Usage of the term "event" is also confusing in that is could signify other parts of a games, such as opening ceremony or things like
2012 Olympic hunger summit which is what the structure stemming from
Category:Events relates to.
SFB 19:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Notification posted in WikiProject Sports.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:30, 8 August 2015 (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:2011 Southeast Asian Games events
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.
Oppose. As above. These categories are correctly named.--
Huaiwei (
talk) 08:08, 2 August 2015 (UTC)reply
Notification posted in WikiProject Sports.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 08:30, 8 August 2015 (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:Protestant religious leaders by denomination
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:nomination withdrawn.
MER-C 12:13, 20 July 2015 (UTC)reply
On the other hand it is used as an alternative term for clergy in a child category of
Category:Christian clergy (which is the nominated category).
This proposal aims at poviding less ambiguity in this matter. In addition, since not all Protestant denominations are used to the term "clergy", the suggestion is to use the term "ministers and clergy" in this case.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:55, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Inclined to oppose; see
Category talk:Religious leaders#Clergy categories for the wider proposal which led to the current names. At the end of that page is a difference of view about categorising clergy who are not leaders, specifically, whether it is defining for them to be so categorised; this probably needs airing as an RFC. –
FayenaticLondon 13:28, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose -- It is true that most of the subcats are for clergy, ministers, or pastors, but not all are necessarily ordained. For example, the Quakers have no ordanced ministry.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:30, 15 July 2015 (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:Ordained Christian women
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.
Which might have been due to the fact it was a small part of a too complex bigger nomination.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:35, 19 July 2015 (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:Analysis of Hindu nationalism
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 to a more usual format.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 07:42, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Oppose - I am the creator of this category. I intend it to include pages that deal with analysis of Hindu nationalism (not necessarily scholars). In fact,
Hitler's Priestess, currently in the category, is a book. So the proposed move is inappropriate. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 08:19, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Not really.
Category:Hindu nationalism includes aspects internal to the Hindu nationalist movements, not external commentaries on it. --
Kautilya3 (
talk) 10:43, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
If the book is about Hindu nationalism, there is nothing that would prevent it from being in that category. By the way, it is not really clear from the article what the book is about, you need to guess quite a bit based on the list of chapters. It would be great if you could expand the article.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:59, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Well, this book was just an example. In principle, articles on other books, some of which are much more major, would also go here. From my point of view, it is the analysis of Hindu nationalism that is of interest to the general readership, not necessarily the scholars. The scholars' pages are included only because they often contain details of the works. So I don't really see much point in the renaming that you have proposed. -
Kautilya3 (
talk) 11:03, 12 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Analysis of Hindu nationalism is not a defining characteristic of the writers about Hindu nationalism in this category.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 21:04, 23 July 2015 (UTC)reply
REname -- I am not sure that all the people categorised are "scholars" (which suggests academics). How about Analysts or Commentators. The one article on a book can be moved elsewhere, as suggested.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 16:25, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
It's a good idea to slightly broaden the scope of the category in comparison to the nomination. A broader category name that is also in line with existing WP conventions is
Category:Writers about Hindu nationalism.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 16:56, 15 July 2015 (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:Total Nonstop Action Wrestling 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:delete.
Marcocapelle (
talk) 10:39, 19 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - Rationale is incorrect; categories can't be "converted" to list articles.
List of Total Nonstop Action Wrestling albums is several years old, so it is unlikely separate articles existed for every album. The nom also emptied the cat before nomination, but it seems like there may have only been the one entry anyhow, so SMALLCAT would apply. There are multiple albums, but as soundtracks, none of them are generally individually notable.
MSJapan (
talk) 23:57, 11 July 2015 (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:Simon & Garfunkel members
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's
talk page or in a
deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: There are two articles in this category, and I really do not see a use since they both link to each other's article on their pages, so this is a bit unnecessary when it comes down to keeping it.
Kevin Rutherford (
talk) 04:52, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Comment -- I do not usually comment on musical matters, but for many musical groups we seem to get multiple categories, one for members, another for albums, another for songs. With fiction, my vote the rule "one franchise, one category", so that books, films, TV series, writers, characters (though the articles are typically merged into a single article and the category deletd) and all else appear in one category. Would it not be appropriate to apply this to musical groups? We resist eponymous categories, as they unnecessarily parent the multiple categoies about the group. My suggestion, is that instead we should allow the eponymous category and prohibit the multiple subcategories. The main article will be on the group, and most of the rest will be linked from that, so that there is an alternative navigation route.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 09:48, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep' - It may seem kind of silly on its own, but it's part of an established scheme that would be incomplete without it.
Abeg92contribs 15:32, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - In this case, adherence to a scheme should not take precedence over common sense. This is textbook SMALLCAT and OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There were only ever two members of the duo (by definition). They're both mentioned in the group article, and there's a well-built navbox for S&G as well. The album cat exists because they had 10 albums, which is a reasonable size. They have many well-known songs that we know the background of, so a songs cat is reasonable. However, the members cat will never grow, and given all the other navigation material, this is unnecessary.
MSJapan (
talk) 23:51, 11 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Keep. The category is part of
Category:Musicians by band, and the fact that the band is named after these two musicians doesn't change the fact that it is a band and has members.
Delete; unnecessary for navigation.
Category:Musicians by band is not a "comprehensive" scheme that's meant to be inclusive of categories for every band that ever had members; there are actually more bands on Wikipedia whose members don't all have separate standalone biographies than there are ones who are.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:32, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete The two articles can adequately (and are at present) be linked from the lead article.
John Pack Lambert (
talk) 06:07, 15 July 2015 (UTC)reply
Delete - SMALLCAT that won't grow
Pnorman (
talk) 21:40, 16 July 2015 (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.