Category:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent
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.
That's why I support selective merge: If RS state that person claims such and such ancestry, that should be mentioned in the article without putting them in a category. Only if RS state that person is of such and such ancestry do they go in relevant category. Claiming or believing a certain ancestry is not a defining characteristic of a person. Fiamh(
talk,
contribs)22:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The link you have in there, Fiamh, is to a totally unrelated discussion, not to
the previous, recent CFD. As I state below, it was not "a local decision." And the "selective merge" already happened when we did cleanup on all the affected bios. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼00:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose - This was already recently dealt with and resolved, here at CFD -
Permalink to Close - not at the wikiproject, after a very long discussion that lasted from the spring through the summer. We have now spent months sorting hundreds of BLPs and other Bios into the appropriate categories, to align with the consensus. Changing this now would be highly disruptive. There is no reason to go through this again. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼00:08, 30 October 2019 (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:Polara 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.
Nominator's rationale: Due to ambiguity issues in the past (whether to disambiguate category names or not), it has become standard procedure to name music artist's albums and songs categories after the article title of the person or group. If the article name is disambiguated, so are these categories. The rename was opposed at speedy. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:07, 29 October 2019 (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:Judaism and atheism
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.
By this logic, the inclusion should be the other way around: the relationship between religious Judaism and atheism is a subset of the relationship between ethnoreligious Judaism and atheism. Problem then: the first category would be empty.
Place Clichy (
talk)
22:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
As nominator, I would be fine with a delete outcome. The fact that the category is now empty, or could not in fact have any other content than what is already in
Category:Jewish atheism, is however not accidental. While this latter category is a child of
Category:Secular Jewish culture, the hypothetical intersection of non-secular religious Judaism and atheism is by definition empty.
Place Clichy (
talk)
15:41, 4 November 2019 (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:Speculative fiction websites & portals
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.
Keep. This is an important category, combining all the subcategories and articles devoted to sites and portals about all the subgenres of speculative fiction and there are much more than three. Many sites and portals are not dedicated to a separate subgenre of speculative fiction, but to the whole variety as a whole, therefore this category is very important..--
Yasnodark (
talk)
14:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
In addition, this category is not about sites dedicated not only to literature, but also to speculative fiction cinema, television, games, comics, painting, etc.--
Yasnodark (
talk)
14:10, 30 October 2019 (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:Interdisciplinary websites
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:Follow for Now 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.
Keep. Although not all of the possible artist-albums categories have actually been created yet,
Category:Albums by artist is a scheme that is meant, at least in principle, to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all — note, for example, that it is called "albums by artist", and not "albums by artists who have released at least X number of albums". So even a one-article category is allowed to exist in that tree, under SMALLCAT's "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" provision. That said, the band's article is completely unreferenced, and even the album's article is 50 per cent blogsourced, so I'm not fully convinced that either of them are actually notable at all — but if you want to challenge them (which I admit I don't feel strongly enough about to take on myself), the appropriate process would be to list them for AFD deletion first and then list this category for speedy deletion as an empty category if and when the articles have been deleted. But as long as the album does have an article, this category is automatically allowed to exist regardless of whether any other albums existed or not.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Today I spent some time improving the articles for the band and their one album (both are notable but obscure and nobody did any significant work on either article since around 2007). In the process I came across this category and proposed the deletion, but perhaps misread
WP:SMALLCAT. No matter; consider the nomination withdrawn if the category's existence is within policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete How can this category possibly be useful to readers? If anything, it actively misleads them. If I see
Category:Follow for Now albums on
Follow for Now (album), I'm going to infer that I can click it and navigate to other albums by the group. I understand the reasoning about the "unless" clause, but this isn't just a category that will "never have more than a few members" - it will literally only ever contain one.
Colin M (
talk)
20:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't matter if it can ever contain more than one article or not. While it's true, as I already noted, that not all of the possible categories actually exist yet, in principle
Category:Albums by artist has to be able to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all — which means that every album that has a Wikipedia article at all must unconditionally be allowed to have an "Artist albums" category as soon as somebody deigns to create one. The number of albums the band did or didn't release is irrelevant: every album must always be allowed to connect with the "Albums by artist" tree regardless of whether the artist in question recorded fifty albums or just one, and no album can ever be forcibly exiled from it.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Because a person who's navigating downward from the head
Category:Albums by artist should rightly be able to find every single album that has a Wikipedia article at all in that tree. That's how it helps readers: by not imposing arbitrary exclusion rules whereby that person won't find all of the relevant content for some secret reason that's not communicated by the category tree. People do not only navigate categories upward from articles, you know: they also navigate categories downward from parent categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
But this still seems to be an argument along the lines of "in principle it ought to be possible to do X", rather than addressing a realistic scenario. Who is this user, why are they navigating downward through
Category:Albums by artist, and how will they be inconvenienced, misled, or otherwise harmed if
Category:Follow for Now albums isn't there? Surely they're not browsing every single subcategory, since there are 23,000 of them, right? So are they specifically seeking out Follow for Now albums? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just type "Follow for Now" into the search bar? (As opposed to navigating to
Category:Albums by artist, clicking "F" in the table of contents, scanning the first 200, seeing that "Follow for Now" isn't there, clicking "next page", clicking "next page", and eventually locating
Category:Follow for Now albums?)
Colin M (
talk)
18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Whether you agree with the established consensus or not, it's ultra vires the scope of this discussion to overturn it. As Marcocapelle noted, you would have to raise a wider policy discussion about the overall concept that we should entirely rethink the tree's policy of all-inclusiveness, so that everybody with an interest in that discussion has proper notification and a proper opportunity to participate — you cannot break established consensus on this matter just by arguing that one category should be excluded from it. Either every single subcategory of
Category:Albums by artist that has less than five albums to file in it gets mass-nominated in one giant batch so we can consider the relevant issues across the board, or this one does not get treated any differently than the others.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat: not trying to say you're wrong, but on what basis do you believe this consensus exists? Like, is there a guideline about this somewhere, or was there an RfC? Or has this scheme been consistently endorsed in past CFD discussions? (I don't have much experience at CFD, so please forgive my ignorance.) I see that there is a sentence at the top of
Category:Albums by artist that supports your interpretation, and it does say something that it's been there for >10 years, but category pages don't tend to have many watchers or be highly trafficked, so I'm not convinced that that fact alone represents more than very local consensus.
Colin M (
talk)
18:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Deletion discussions, such as AFD for articles or CFD for categories, are exactly where consensus gets hashed out. It certainly makes it easier if consensus gets documented in a policy statement or essay, because then we can just point to that document and drop the mic, but there's no rule that if a consensus hasn't been formally documented that way yet then it somehow fails to exist in the first place — if you can point to a consistently established principle in past deletion discussions on comparable topics, that is still evidence of consensus. And, as it happens, CFD has never deleted an "artist albums" category that actually had any albums filed in it at all, except in two specific circumstances: either (a) the band and/or the albums were found to be fundamentally non-notable, so that the category was emptied by that finding and now had zero articles left in it, or (b) the category consisted entirely of redirects to the band's discography, with no actual standalone articles in it at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, this is a nomination about a single category, however it does not make sense to treat this category any different than comparable categories that have not been nominated.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Another comment - I am the nominator but don't really mind how this turns out. But per the above discussion, perhaps the description at
WP:SMALLCAT should be expanded to include this specific business about the need for interconnected "albums by artist" categories even if they are indeed "small". Also, the above vote by Marcocapelle is an
other stuff exists argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions, unless the SMALLCAT rule can explain that this type of category gets special treatment. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)14:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
There is a long standing consensus that we allow one-article categories here. While consensus may change, it should change about the general principle, not about a single category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The consensus is there in full view at
WP:SMALLCAT, which explicitly includes the phrase "such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist". It does not require a great leap to apply this to albums.
Oculi (
talk)
12:44, 31 October 2019 (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:Irish-related place names in England
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. I'll list this on the manual page if someone wants to create a verifiable list.
MER-C13:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Seems like the argument is not that this category fails to capture a cogent, interesting property, but rather that, in practice, it's been applied to articles inappropriately, in contradiction of
WP:CATVER. Given that, I think a better approach could be to remove the cat from every article (after confirming that each instance fails
WP:CATVER). Two possible subsequent outcomes: 1) editors watching some of those pages incorporate better sourced material on the etymologies of some of these place names, and re-add the category 2) The category remains empty, and can be deleted for that reason (even speedily, under
WP:C1).
Colin M (
talk)
21:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, being named after Irish people is a trivial characteristic of place names. Side comment, -related in the category name is utterly vague.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete -- Place-name studies are a well developed field in England. This is not wholly trivial in the way that such a category in US probably would be, but (having checked Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-names), most of these are genuine, but they are rather disparate and the origin of the name rarely appears in the article on the place, so that this looks like (but is not)
WP:OR. The Irish connection is in fact somewhat diverse: an Irish missionary at Malmesbury; personal names that may be of Irish origin in Cumbria (but might they actually be from the Welsh dialect once spoken there); Ireby is village of the Irish, but probably refers to Vikings displaced from Ireland, rather than ethnic Irish. The piece of research incorporated in this category appears genuine, but the job would be done rather better by a list article, where the Irish connection could be explained: I had to look at a book to verify that this was not a load of trash. It may be useful to add that such names are very rare in England; many place-names contain an element that is usually explained as a personal name, but usually someone not otherwise known to history.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 4 November 2019 (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: Textbook
WP:OCEGRS. An editor felt the need to create this category and place it on
Category:LGBT Jews, probably because the latter was already a child of
Category:LGBT people by religion, and Jewish categories are often categorized both as a religion and an ethnicity. However there's a big difference here: the intersection of LGBT and religion is a notable topic in its own right, because nearly all religions take public positions on LGBT topics, but the intersection with ethnicity is not.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. We've routinely deleted "LGBT people of X ethnicity" categories whenever they've been tried in the past, so
Category:LGBT Jews is literally the only thing left that could ever be filed here at all — but what's significant and category-worthy about the intersection of LGBTness with Judaism is the religious aspects of Judaism, not the ethnicity aspects.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:32, 29 October 2019 (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:Indian comedy science fiction films
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. The parent category was renamed by CFD a few days ago, and these probably should have been bundled into that discussion from the start so that they were all considered together. However, please note that the other categories mentioned in the nomination statement also need to be tagged as part of this discussion — I'll look after that now, but for future reference all the categories in a batch nomination need to be tagged with the CFR template.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:59, 29 October 2019 (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:American people who self-identify as being of Native American descent
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.
That's why I support selective merge: If RS state that person claims such and such ancestry, that should be mentioned in the article without putting them in a category. Only if RS state that person is of such and such ancestry do they go in relevant category. Claiming or believing a certain ancestry is not a defining characteristic of a person. Fiamh(
talk,
contribs)22:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The link you have in there, Fiamh, is to a totally unrelated discussion, not to
the previous, recent CFD. As I state below, it was not "a local decision." And the "selective merge" already happened when we did cleanup on all the affected bios. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼00:18, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Strong Oppose - This was already recently dealt with and resolved, here at CFD -
Permalink to Close - not at the wikiproject, after a very long discussion that lasted from the spring through the summer. We have now spent months sorting hundreds of BLPs and other Bios into the appropriate categories, to align with the consensus. Changing this now would be highly disruptive. There is no reason to go through this again. -
CorbieVreccan☊☼00:08, 30 October 2019 (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:Polara 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.
Nominator's rationale: Due to ambiguity issues in the past (whether to disambiguate category names or not), it has become standard procedure to name music artist's albums and songs categories after the article title of the person or group. If the article name is disambiguated, so are these categories. The rename was opposed at speedy. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me20:07, 29 October 2019 (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:Judaism and atheism
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.
By this logic, the inclusion should be the other way around: the relationship between religious Judaism and atheism is a subset of the relationship between ethnoreligious Judaism and atheism. Problem then: the first category would be empty.
Place Clichy (
talk)
22:42, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
As nominator, I would be fine with a delete outcome. The fact that the category is now empty, or could not in fact have any other content than what is already in
Category:Jewish atheism, is however not accidental. While this latter category is a child of
Category:Secular Jewish culture, the hypothetical intersection of non-secular religious Judaism and atheism is by definition empty.
Place Clichy (
talk)
15:41, 4 November 2019 (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:Speculative fiction websites & portals
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.
Keep. This is an important category, combining all the subcategories and articles devoted to sites and portals about all the subgenres of speculative fiction and there are much more than three. Many sites and portals are not dedicated to a separate subgenre of speculative fiction, but to the whole variety as a whole, therefore this category is very important..--
Yasnodark (
talk)
14:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
In addition, this category is not about sites dedicated not only to literature, but also to speculative fiction cinema, television, games, comics, painting, etc.--
Yasnodark (
talk)
14:10, 30 October 2019 (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:Interdisciplinary websites
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:Follow for Now 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.
Keep. Although not all of the possible artist-albums categories have actually been created yet,
Category:Albums by artist is a scheme that is meant, at least in principle, to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all — note, for example, that it is called "albums by artist", and not "albums by artists who have released at least X number of albums". So even a one-article category is allowed to exist in that tree, under SMALLCAT's "unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" provision. That said, the band's article is completely unreferenced, and even the album's article is 50 per cent blogsourced, so I'm not fully convinced that either of them are actually notable at all — but if you want to challenge them (which I admit I don't feel strongly enough about to take on myself), the appropriate process would be to list them for AFD deletion first and then list this category for speedy deletion as an empty category if and when the articles have been deleted. But as long as the album does have an article, this category is automatically allowed to exist regardless of whether any other albums existed or not.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Comment - Today I spent some time improving the articles for the band and their one album (both are notable but obscure and nobody did any significant work on either article since around 2007). In the process I came across this category and proposed the deletion, but perhaps misread
WP:SMALLCAT. No matter; consider the nomination withdrawn if the category's existence is within policy. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)15:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete How can this category possibly be useful to readers? If anything, it actively misleads them. If I see
Category:Follow for Now albums on
Follow for Now (album), I'm going to infer that I can click it and navigate to other albums by the group. I understand the reasoning about the "unless" clause, but this isn't just a category that will "never have more than a few members" - it will literally only ever contain one.
Colin M (
talk)
20:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Doesn't matter if it can ever contain more than one article or not. While it's true, as I already noted, that not all of the possible categories actually exist yet, in principle
Category:Albums by artist has to be able to contain every album that has a Wikipedia article at all — which means that every album that has a Wikipedia article at all must unconditionally be allowed to have an "Artist albums" category as soon as somebody deigns to create one. The number of albums the band did or didn't release is irrelevant: every album must always be allowed to connect with the "Albums by artist" tree regardless of whether the artist in question recorded fifty albums or just one, and no album can ever be forcibly exiled from it.
Bearcat (
talk)
13:28, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Because a person who's navigating downward from the head
Category:Albums by artist should rightly be able to find every single album that has a Wikipedia article at all in that tree. That's how it helps readers: by not imposing arbitrary exclusion rules whereby that person won't find all of the relevant content for some secret reason that's not communicated by the category tree. People do not only navigate categories upward from articles, you know: they also navigate categories downward from parent categories.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
But this still seems to be an argument along the lines of "in principle it ought to be possible to do X", rather than addressing a realistic scenario. Who is this user, why are they navigating downward through
Category:Albums by artist, and how will they be inconvenienced, misled, or otherwise harmed if
Category:Follow for Now albums isn't there? Surely they're not browsing every single subcategory, since there are 23,000 of them, right? So are they specifically seeking out Follow for Now albums? Wouldn't it be a lot easier to just type "Follow for Now" into the search bar? (As opposed to navigating to
Category:Albums by artist, clicking "F" in the table of contents, scanning the first 200, seeing that "Follow for Now" isn't there, clicking "next page", clicking "next page", and eventually locating
Category:Follow for Now albums?)
Colin M (
talk)
18:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Whether you agree with the established consensus or not, it's ultra vires the scope of this discussion to overturn it. As Marcocapelle noted, you would have to raise a wider policy discussion about the overall concept that we should entirely rethink the tree's policy of all-inclusiveness, so that everybody with an interest in that discussion has proper notification and a proper opportunity to participate — you cannot break established consensus on this matter just by arguing that one category should be excluded from it. Either every single subcategory of
Category:Albums by artist that has less than five albums to file in it gets mass-nominated in one giant batch so we can consider the relevant issues across the board, or this one does not get treated any differently than the others.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
@
Bearcat: not trying to say you're wrong, but on what basis do you believe this consensus exists? Like, is there a guideline about this somewhere, or was there an RfC? Or has this scheme been consistently endorsed in past CFD discussions? (I don't have much experience at CFD, so please forgive my ignorance.) I see that there is a sentence at the top of
Category:Albums by artist that supports your interpretation, and it does say something that it's been there for >10 years, but category pages don't tend to have many watchers or be highly trafficked, so I'm not convinced that that fact alone represents more than very local consensus.
Colin M (
talk)
18:18, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Deletion discussions, such as AFD for articles or CFD for categories, are exactly where consensus gets hashed out. It certainly makes it easier if consensus gets documented in a policy statement or essay, because then we can just point to that document and drop the mic, but there's no rule that if a consensus hasn't been formally documented that way yet then it somehow fails to exist in the first place — if you can point to a consistently established principle in past deletion discussions on comparable topics, that is still evidence of consensus. And, as it happens, CFD has never deleted an "artist albums" category that actually had any albums filed in it at all, except in two specific circumstances: either (a) the band and/or the albums were found to be fundamentally non-notable, so that the category was emptied by that finding and now had zero articles left in it, or (b) the category consisted entirely of redirects to the band's discography, with no actual standalone articles in it at all.
Bearcat (
talk)
18:28, 1 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Procedural oppose, this is a nomination about a single category, however it does not make sense to treat this category any different than comparable categories that have not been nominated.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
05:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Another comment - I am the nominator but don't really mind how this turns out. But per the above discussion, perhaps the description at
WP:SMALLCAT should be expanded to include this specific business about the need for interconnected "albums by artist" categories even if they are indeed "small". Also, the above vote by Marcocapelle is an
other stuff exists argument that should be avoided in deletion discussions, unless the SMALLCAT rule can explain that this type of category gets special treatment. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (
Talk|
Contribs)14:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
There is a long standing consensus that we allow one-article categories here. While consensus may change, it should change about the general principle, not about a single category.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
19:43, 30 October 2019 (UTC)reply
The consensus is there in full view at
WP:SMALLCAT, which explicitly includes the phrase "such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist". It does not require a great leap to apply this to albums.
Oculi (
talk)
12:44, 31 October 2019 (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:Irish-related place names in England
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. I'll list this on the manual page if someone wants to create a verifiable list.
MER-C13:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)reply
Seems like the argument is not that this category fails to capture a cogent, interesting property, but rather that, in practice, it's been applied to articles inappropriately, in contradiction of
WP:CATVER. Given that, I think a better approach could be to remove the cat from every article (after confirming that each instance fails
WP:CATVER). Two possible subsequent outcomes: 1) editors watching some of those pages incorporate better sourced material on the etymologies of some of these place names, and re-add the category 2) The category remains empty, and can be deleted for that reason (even speedily, under
WP:C1).
Colin M (
talk)
21:05, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Support, being named after Irish people is a trivial characteristic of place names. Side comment, -related in the category name is utterly vague.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Listify then delete -- Place-name studies are a well developed field in England. This is not wholly trivial in the way that such a category in US probably would be, but (having checked Cambridge Dictionary of English Place-names), most of these are genuine, but they are rather disparate and the origin of the name rarely appears in the article on the place, so that this looks like (but is not)
WP:OR. The Irish connection is in fact somewhat diverse: an Irish missionary at Malmesbury; personal names that may be of Irish origin in Cumbria (but might they actually be from the Welsh dialect once spoken there); Ireby is village of the Irish, but probably refers to Vikings displaced from Ireland, rather than ethnic Irish. The piece of research incorporated in this category appears genuine, but the job would be done rather better by a list article, where the Irish connection could be explained: I had to look at a book to verify that this was not a load of trash. It may be useful to add that such names are very rare in England; many place-names contain an element that is usually explained as a personal name, but usually someone not otherwise known to history.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
16:15, 4 November 2019 (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: Textbook
WP:OCEGRS. An editor felt the need to create this category and place it on
Category:LGBT Jews, probably because the latter was already a child of
Category:LGBT people by religion, and Jewish categories are often categorized both as a religion and an ethnicity. However there's a big difference here: the intersection of LGBT and religion is a notable topic in its own right, because nearly all religions take public positions on LGBT topics, but the intersection with ethnicity is not.
Place Clichy (
talk)
11:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)reply
Delete. We've routinely deleted "LGBT people of X ethnicity" categories whenever they've been tried in the past, so
Category:LGBT Jews is literally the only thing left that could ever be filed here at all — but what's significant and category-worthy about the intersection of LGBTness with Judaism is the religious aspects of Judaism, not the ethnicity aspects.
Bearcat (
talk)
14:32, 29 October 2019 (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:Indian comedy science fiction films
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. The parent category was renamed by CFD a few days ago, and these probably should have been bundled into that discussion from the start so that they were all considered together. However, please note that the other categories mentioned in the nomination statement also need to be tagged as part of this discussion — I'll look after that now, but for future reference all the categories in a batch nomination need to be tagged with the CFR template.
Bearcat (
talk)
12:59, 29 October 2019 (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.