January 24
Category:Animals and humans
- 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: Egrem (reverse merge). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Animals and humans to Category:Anthrozoology
- Nominator's rationale: I can't see any distinction between them. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep From reading the
Anthrozoology article and it's links, anthrozoology seems to be a particular theoretical perspective/research agenda. I'd never heard of it before, but I am pretty familiar with
ethnozoology. Anthrozoology seems to focus more on domesticated animals (especially pets) and western culture. Ethnozoology focuses more on wild animals and non-western cultures; ethnozoological studies I'm familiar with looked at how birds are classified in a particular culture or identified archeological remains of wild animals hunted for food. Neither ethnozoology nor anthrozoology are appropriate as catch all terms for the relationship between humans and animals. The Anthrozoology category is pretty messy though and has stuff that would be better suited to the Animals and humans category.
Plantdrew (
talk) 22:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Should we write a category description to prevent misuse? Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 19:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Reverse merge, too little of the content of the target category seems to fit Anthrozoology. If kept, purge heavily. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Reverse merge per the suggestion of Marcocapelle. The Category:Animals and humans has a much wider scope. Dimadick ( talk) 18:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Animals by classification
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Animals by classification to Category:Animal taxonomy
- Propose merging Category:Invertebrates by classification to Category:Animal taxonomy
- Nominator's rationale: Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 21:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC). Added Category:Invertebrates by classification rather than proposing a rename because it doesn't fit into the taxonomy used for categorization. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just delete the 2 daughter categories are already in granddaughter categories of the target anyway, and we don't need to have them (also) a level up which merger would do. E.g., invertebrates by classification should be under invertebrates which is under animal taxonomy, not having the two as sisters both under animal taxonomy. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Caftaric has emptied the categories and added {{ category redirect}} templates. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Eastern Orthodox education
- 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, only contains one child category and no articles. There is no need to upmerge because the content is already somewhere else in the Eastern Orthodox tree (namely in Category:Eastern Orthodox organizations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support but without prejudice as to its later creation should volumes increase. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Category:Christian education contains a series of other categories of the form "FooDEnomination education". This seems to be a good idea, worth expanding and developing. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ BrownHairedGirl: The larger amount of these are subcategories with educational organizations. It may make more sense to have one overall topic Category:Christian education while the set Category:Christian educational organizations is being diffused by denomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: I don't think it helps navigation to prune a part of the tree like that. If this deletion proceeds, then a reader looking at
Category:Christian education will see that we have subcats for some denominations but not others, and could reasonably conclude that we don't have any content for the other denominations. That doesn't help.
Plus, if an editor does create an article which would fit directly into Category:Eastern Orthodox education, then then they may now how to create it, but they are much less likely to know that there are categories further down tree which should be parented in the newly-created category. It doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to create that sort of maintenance headache. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: I don't think it helps navigation to prune a part of the tree like that. If this deletion proceeds, then a reader looking at
Category:Christian education will see that we have subcats for some denominations but not others, and could reasonably conclude that we don't have any content for the other denominations. That doesn't help.
- 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:16th century in the Polish–Lithuanian union
- 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: no consensus. It sounds as if the sub-categories should be nominated for renaming to Poland. I looked for the former member of Category:1565 establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian union and found that Marcocapelle had already moved that one to 1560s in Poland. [1] Only two member pages remain ( Cisna and Radomyśl nad Sanem), with a superstructure of about 8 categories. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not a state, but a concept. Content should be categorized into "in Poland" and "in Lithuania". Zoupan 13:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Supportprovided that child categories are going to be included in the nomination. The content of the category covers the period before the establishment of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alternative vote, see below. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment if split as suggested by nom, would we be using the contemporary borders or those at the time of the event (sometime in the 16th century for these articles)? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Split - Poland and Lithuania underwent a union of the crowns. The flaw in this category is that Poland-Lithuania did not exist before 1569. Answer -- We should be using the boundaries of the time, as to whether a place (when founded for establishment categories) was in Poland or in Lithuania. The location and extent of Poland has varied at differnet periods: categories should reflect the political geography of that time. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment, no need to split, all four articles were Polish at the time (currently either in Poland or in Ukraine). So it should be merged to Category:16th century in Poland. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Canadian pop-folk singers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to
Category:Canadian folk singers. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian pop-folk singers to Category:Canadian folk-pop singers
- Nominator's rationale: Our article about pop-folk identifies it as a specifically Balkan and Eastern European type of music not interchangeable with Western "folk-pop" — but the articles filed here so far are Rose Cousins, Joni Mitchell and Janet Panic, meaning that the intended scope here is quite obviously the latter genre rather than the former. Yes, I can quite easily populate it over WP:SMALLCAT if it's renamed — Jenn Grant Tanya Davis Amelia Curran Tony Dekker yadda yadda — so let's not get sidetracked with "delete because SMALLCAT" arguments. Bearcat ( talk) 03:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why folk-pop and not folk-rock, and why hyphenate when the parent article is at folk rock? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Perfectly happy with this proposal. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – there is no Category:Folk-pop singers or Category:Folk-pop or Category:Folk pop singers or Category:Folk pop or Folk-pop (dab page) or Folk pop (redirect). There is Category:Canadian folk rock musicians. Oculi ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Folk rock being a thing which the people categorized here aren't.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Canadian folk musicians then. Oculi ( talk) 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Folk rock being a thing which the people categorized here aren't.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly a misnomer.
Suggest merge contents into Category:Canadian folk rock musicians anddelete the category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that folk rock and folk pop are two very different things; while I'll grant that Joni Mitchell could be considered to be both, Rose Cousins most certainly can't be considered rock in any way, but is classified as folk pop. Folk-pop is a real recognized genre of music, distinct from both Balkan pop-folk and Byrdsian folk-rock, despite our failure to have an article about it yet — it's people like Kate and Anna McGarrigle, Patty Griffin, Jenn Grant, Oh Pep!, the less rock-oriented parts of the Fleetwood Mac catalogue, and on and so forth. The other problem, further, being that if this is simply deleted, all that's going to happen is that the same people who thought "pop-folk" was the same thing as "folk-pop" are just going to readd Rose Cousins and Joni Mitchell and Janet Panic (and Jenn Grant and Amelia Curran) back to the original Category:Pop-folk singers again — because folk-pop is a real thing, and our lack of covering it properly is the reason why the error happened in the first place. Bearcat ( talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Bearcat, I have the impression that you know what you are talking about, but note that it is a niche topic and I, for example, am unfamiliar with everything you are saying, though I do understand that pop≠rock. Why pop-folk ≠ folk-pop, I don't get.
Is this a need for Wikipedia:Category intersection, involving Category:Folk music Category:Popular music, or is folk-pop not approximated by the interection of folk and pop?
I would be very very happy to support your proposal if you wrote a stub at Folk pop (the current redirect is improper as the term is not mentioned at the target), linked it from Folk rock, and added it to Category:Folk music genres. Note that I belong to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites and wish that someone else would sort out the hyphenation. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC) - Merge to Category:Canadian folk singers. If some editors would then still wrongly add these singers also to Category:Pop-folk singers (while I'm not sure they would) then this should simply be reverted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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:The Flowers of Hell
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band without the volume of spinoff content needed to support one. The only article filed here is the eponym itself, with the category contents otherwise limited to the album cover images -- but that's not an appropriate use for a category of this type, as the album covers aren't supposed to be filed in articlespace categories. No prejudice against the creation of a new Category:The Flowers of Hell albums category for the albums' articles, but even that wouldn't be enough by itself to justify an eponymous category for the band above it. These are only created when there's a lot of spinoff content to categorize (e.g. Category:The Beatles, where there are dozens of supplementary articles about tribute albums and books and television documentaries and concert tours and Brian Epsteins and Yoko Onos and George Martins and other assorted things that need Beatle-related categorization outside of the standard schemes) — they are not created when all there is to file in them is the band's eponym and an albums category. Bearcat ( talk) 02:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – per exemplary rationale. I have created an albums category, but as the nom says there seems no scope for other subcats (songs, members, tours etc). Oculi ( talk) 11:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, numerous precedent, and WP:OCEPON. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Quebec film directors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Quebec film directors to Category:Film directors from Quebec
- Nominator's rationale: As with Category:American film directors by state, when we're subcategorizing a national film directors category by state or province the naming convention should be "Film directors from Province" rather than "Province film directors" -- the latter word order is more appropriately reserved for by-country categories. By the same token, the equivalent categories for other occupations are at, frex, Category:Musicians from Quebec and Category:Writers from Quebec, rather than "Quebec musicians" or "Quebec writers". Bearcat ( talk) 01:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename. Not following a naming convention is almost never a good thing (I see no reason to exempt this one from the convention), and anyway "Quebec" is a noun, not an adjective as is necessary in this setting. You'd need to have this at Category:Québécois film directors if you wanted to ignore the convention, and even that would risk getting biographies of non-Québécois people who have directed films set in the province. Nyttend ( talk) 01:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom; unambiguous title clarifies what is or should be therein. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per name to make it clear that Quebec is simply a country subdivision, not a separate state. Dimadick ( talk) 18:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Jews in heavy metal
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. There was some support for deletion, but no justification was offered for singling out this one subcategory of Category:Jewish musicians by genre. If editors want to pursue that idea, feel free to open a group nomination of Category:Jewish musicians by genre and its sub-categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Jews in heavy metal to Category:Jewish heavy metal musicians
- Nominator's rationale: This category accidentally got moved to the proposed title earlier today, and then it was put back at the mover's request. However, I think we would have been better off had the mover not requested un-moving — both for religions and for ethnicities, categories typically are of the form "[demonym adjective form] [nouns]". I don't remember ever encountering "[demonym noun form] in [field]" before. Note that there's also a Category:Jews in punk rock, but I didn't nominate it because I don't know what you call people in punk rock: "punk rock musicians" maybe, but I wanted to stay with this one because it already had a good possible title. If you can suggest a better name, please nominate it. Nyttend ( talk) 00:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete do we really need to divvy up heavy metal musicians by religion or ethnicity? Is there some notable affinity between these two disparate categories to be lumped together here. Is there an article Jews in heavy metal or such? If not, probably violates WP:OCEGRS. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've always found OCEGRS to be a confusing, and often found it to be an inconsistent, set of rules, so I've stayed out of that kind of thing, and I'd like it to be clear that I have no opinion on keep/delete. If your position is rejected, the category should be renamed, but I won't oppose your suggestion or argue if it succeeds. Nyttend ( talk) 03:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename I primarily agree with Carlossuarez46. Inclusion or non-inclusion in this category could easily be controversial. I also don't really see the significance of the intersection between the two. If it does remain, I think Nyttend's proposal is better than the current name. Sperril ( talk) 06:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral. I requested the revert of my own move because I thought I had made an error, never thought that incidentally it was an appropriate moving. I don't comment on the opportunity (or lack of) of categorizing a musician by religion/culture. If that is done, though, at least the category name should be consistent with the scheme. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename – agree with above that it contravenes WP:OCEGRS. (There is Category:Punk rock musicians.) Oculi ( talk) 11:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose delete (procedural). For deletion we should discuss the entire tree of Category:Jewish musicians by genre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to match parent category Category:Jewish musicians by genre. Dimadick ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.
January 24
Category:Animals and humans
- 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: Egrem (reverse merge). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:49, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Animals and humans to Category:Anthrozoology
- Nominator's rationale: I can't see any distinction between them. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 23:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep From reading the
Anthrozoology article and it's links, anthrozoology seems to be a particular theoretical perspective/research agenda. I'd never heard of it before, but I am pretty familiar with
ethnozoology. Anthrozoology seems to focus more on domesticated animals (especially pets) and western culture. Ethnozoology focuses more on wild animals and non-western cultures; ethnozoological studies I'm familiar with looked at how birds are classified in a particular culture or identified archeological remains of wild animals hunted for food. Neither ethnozoology nor anthrozoology are appropriate as catch all terms for the relationship between humans and animals. The Anthrozoology category is pretty messy though and has stuff that would be better suited to the Animals and humans category.
Plantdrew (
talk) 22:30, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Should we write a category description to prevent misuse? Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 19:08, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Reverse merge, too little of the content of the target category seems to fit Anthrozoology. If kept, purge heavily. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- Reverse merge per the suggestion of Marcocapelle. The Category:Animals and humans has a much wider scope. Dimadick ( talk) 18:14, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Animals by classification
- 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 (
non-admin closure).
Marcocapelle (
talk) 12:27, 5 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose merging Category:Animals by classification to Category:Animal taxonomy
- Propose merging Category:Invertebrates by classification to Category:Animal taxonomy
- Nominator's rationale: Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 21:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC). Added Category:Invertebrates by classification rather than proposing a rename because it doesn't fit into the taxonomy used for categorization. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- Just delete the 2 daughter categories are already in granddaughter categories of the target anyway, and we don't need to have them (also) a level up which merger would do. E.g., invertebrates by classification should be under invertebrates which is under animal taxonomy, not having the two as sisters both under animal taxonomy. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 23:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment: Caftaric has emptied the categories and added {{ category redirect}} templates. Lophotrochozoa ( talk) 19:59, 26 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Eastern Orthodox education
- 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: no consensus. – Fayenatic L ondon 21:50, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: delete, only contains one child category and no articles. There is no need to upmerge because the content is already somewhere else in the Eastern Orthodox tree (namely in Category:Eastern Orthodox organizations. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:47, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Support but without prejudice as to its later creation should volumes increase. Laurel Lodged ( talk) 13:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Keep. Category:Christian education contains a series of other categories of the form "FooDEnomination education". This seems to be a good idea, worth expanding and developing. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:57, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- @ BrownHairedGirl: The larger amount of these are subcategories with educational organizations. It may make more sense to have one overall topic Category:Christian education while the set Category:Christian educational organizations is being diffused by denomination. Marcocapelle ( talk) 14:37, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: I don't think it helps navigation to prune a part of the tree like that. If this deletion proceeds, then a reader looking at
Category:Christian education will see that we have subcats for some denominations but not others, and could reasonably conclude that we don't have any content for the other denominations. That doesn't help.
Plus, if an editor does create an article which would fit directly into Category:Eastern Orthodox education, then then they may now how to create it, but they are much less likely to know that there are categories further down tree which should be parented in the newly-created category. It doesn't seem to me to be a good idea to create that sort of maintenance headache. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:22, 25 February 2017 (UTC)
- @
Marcocapelle: I don't think it helps navigation to prune a part of the tree like that. If this deletion proceeds, then a reader looking at
Category:Christian education will see that we have subcats for some denominations but not others, and could reasonably conclude that we don't have any content for the other denominations. That doesn't help.
- 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:16th century in the Polish–Lithuanian union
- 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: no consensus. It sounds as if the sub-categories should be nominated for renaming to Poland. I looked for the former member of Category:1565 establishments in the Polish–Lithuanian union and found that Marcocapelle had already moved that one to 1560s in Poland. [1] Only two member pages remain ( Cisna and Radomyśl nad Sanem), with a superstructure of about 8 categories. – Fayenatic L ondon 22:10, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Not a state, but a concept. Content should be categorized into "in Poland" and "in Lithuania". Zoupan 13:46, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Supportprovided that child categories are going to be included in the nomination. The content of the category covers the period before the establishment of the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth in 1569. Marcocapelle ( talk) 19:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Alternative vote, see below. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:44, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- Comment if split as suggested by nom, would we be using the contemporary borders or those at the time of the event (sometime in the 16th century for these articles)? Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:40, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Split - Poland and Lithuania underwent a union of the crowns. The flaw in this category is that Poland-Lithuania did not exist before 1569. Answer -- We should be using the boundaries of the time, as to whether a place (when founded for establishment categories) was in Poland or in Lithuania. The location and extent of Poland has varied at differnet periods: categories should reflect the political geography of that time. Peterkingiron ( talk) 17:08, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
- Comment, no need to split, all four articles were Polish at the time (currently either in Poland or in Ukraine). So it should be merged to Category:16th century in Poland. Marcocapelle ( talk) 22:41, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Canadian pop-folk singers
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: merge to
Category:Canadian folk singers. –
Fayenatic
L
ondon 22:19, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Canadian pop-folk singers to Category:Canadian folk-pop singers
- Nominator's rationale: Our article about pop-folk identifies it as a specifically Balkan and Eastern European type of music not interchangeable with Western "folk-pop" — but the articles filed here so far are Rose Cousins, Joni Mitchell and Janet Panic, meaning that the intended scope here is quite obviously the latter genre rather than the former. Yes, I can quite easily populate it over WP:SMALLCAT if it's renamed — Jenn Grant Tanya Davis Amelia Curran Tony Dekker yadda yadda — so let's not get sidetracked with "delete because SMALLCAT" arguments. Bearcat ( talk) 03:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Why folk-pop and not folk-rock, and why hyphenate when the parent article is at folk rock? -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Perfectly happy with this proposal. Rathfelder ( talk) 08:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose – there is no Category:Folk-pop singers or Category:Folk-pop or Category:Folk pop singers or Category:Folk pop or Folk-pop (dab page) or Folk pop (redirect). There is Category:Canadian folk rock musicians. Oculi ( talk) 16:18, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Folk rock being a thing which the people categorized here aren't.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Category:Canadian folk musicians then. Oculi ( talk) 01:19, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Folk rock being a thing which the people categorized here aren't.
Bearcat (
talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
- Certainly a misnomer.
Suggest merge contents into Category:Canadian folk rock musicians anddelete the category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:54, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- The problem is that folk rock and folk pop are two very different things; while I'll grant that Joni Mitchell could be considered to be both, Rose Cousins most certainly can't be considered rock in any way, but is classified as folk pop. Folk-pop is a real recognized genre of music, distinct from both Balkan pop-folk and Byrdsian folk-rock, despite our failure to have an article about it yet — it's people like Kate and Anna McGarrigle, Patty Griffin, Jenn Grant, Oh Pep!, the less rock-oriented parts of the Fleetwood Mac catalogue, and on and so forth. The other problem, further, being that if this is simply deleted, all that's going to happen is that the same people who thought "pop-folk" was the same thing as "folk-pop" are just going to readd Rose Cousins and Joni Mitchell and Janet Panic (and Jenn Grant and Amelia Curran) back to the original Category:Pop-folk singers again — because folk-pop is a real thing, and our lack of covering it properly is the reason why the error happened in the first place. Bearcat ( talk) 00:17, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
-
User:Bearcat, I have the impression that you know what you are talking about, but note that it is a niche topic and I, for example, am unfamiliar with everything you are saying, though I do understand that pop≠rock. Why pop-folk ≠ folk-pop, I don't get.
Is this a need for Wikipedia:Category intersection, involving Category:Folk music Category:Popular music, or is folk-pop not approximated by the interection of folk and pop?
I would be very very happy to support your proposal if you wrote a stub at Folk pop (the current redirect is improper as the term is not mentioned at the target), linked it from Folk rock, and added it to Category:Folk music genres. Note that I belong to Category:Wikipedian Hyphen Luddites and wish that someone else would sort out the hyphenation. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 00:48, 25 January 2017 (UTC) - Merge to Category:Canadian folk singers. If some editors would then still wrongly add these singers also to Category:Pop-folk singers (while I'm not sure they would) then this should simply be reverted. Marcocapelle ( talk) 20:51, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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:The Flowers of Hell
- 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 ( non-admin closure). Marcocapelle ( talk) 05:54, 1 February 2017 (UTC)
- Nominator's rationale: Eponymous category for a band without the volume of spinoff content needed to support one. The only article filed here is the eponym itself, with the category contents otherwise limited to the album cover images -- but that's not an appropriate use for a category of this type, as the album covers aren't supposed to be filed in articlespace categories. No prejudice against the creation of a new Category:The Flowers of Hell albums category for the albums' articles, but even that wouldn't be enough by itself to justify an eponymous category for the band above it. These are only created when there's a lot of spinoff content to categorize (e.g. Category:The Beatles, where there are dozens of supplementary articles about tribute albums and books and television documentaries and concert tours and Brian Epsteins and Yoko Onos and George Martins and other assorted things that need Beatle-related categorization outside of the standard schemes) — they are not created when all there is to file in them is the band's eponym and an albums category. Bearcat ( talk) 02:24, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete – per exemplary rationale. I have created an albums category, but as the nom says there seems no scope for other subcats (songs, members, tours etc). Oculi ( talk) 11:26, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete per nom, numerous precedent, and WP:OCEPON. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars Talk to me 21:48, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Quebec film directors
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename per nom. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:58, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Quebec film directors to Category:Film directors from Quebec
- Nominator's rationale: As with Category:American film directors by state, when we're subcategorizing a national film directors category by state or province the naming convention should be "Film directors from Province" rather than "Province film directors" -- the latter word order is more appropriately reserved for by-country categories. By the same token, the equivalent categories for other occupations are at, frex, Category:Musicians from Quebec and Category:Writers from Quebec, rather than "Quebec musicians" or "Quebec writers". Bearcat ( talk) 01:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename. Not following a naming convention is almost never a good thing (I see no reason to exempt this one from the convention), and anyway "Quebec" is a noun, not an adjective as is necessary in this setting. You'd need to have this at Category:Québécois film directors if you wanted to ignore the convention, and even that would risk getting biographies of non-Québécois people who have directed films set in the province. Nyttend ( talk) 01:23, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom; unambiguous title clarifies what is or should be therein. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 19:37, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per name to make it clear that Quebec is simply a country subdivision, not a separate state. Dimadick ( talk) 18:16, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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:Jews in heavy metal
- The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
- The result of the discussion was: Rename per nominator. There was some support for deletion, but no justification was offered for singling out this one subcategory of Category:Jewish musicians by genre. If editors want to pursue that idea, feel free to open a group nomination of Category:Jewish musicians by genre and its sub-categories. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 05:06, 11 February 2017 (UTC)
- Propose renaming Category:Jews in heavy metal to Category:Jewish heavy metal musicians
- Nominator's rationale: This category accidentally got moved to the proposed title earlier today, and then it was put back at the mover's request. However, I think we would have been better off had the mover not requested un-moving — both for religions and for ethnicities, categories typically are of the form "[demonym adjective form] [nouns]". I don't remember ever encountering "[demonym noun form] in [field]" before. Note that there's also a Category:Jews in punk rock, but I didn't nominate it because I don't know what you call people in punk rock: "punk rock musicians" maybe, but I wanted to stay with this one because it already had a good possible title. If you can suggest a better name, please nominate it. Nyttend ( talk) 00:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete do we really need to divvy up heavy metal musicians by religion or ethnicity? Is there some notable affinity between these two disparate categories to be lumped together here. Is there an article Jews in heavy metal or such? If not, probably violates WP:OCEGRS. Carlossuarez46 ( talk) 02:11, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- I've always found OCEGRS to be a confusing, and often found it to be an inconsistent, set of rules, so I've stayed out of that kind of thing, and I'd like it to be clear that I have no opinion on keep/delete. If your position is rejected, the category should be renamed, but I won't oppose your suggestion or argue if it succeeds. Nyttend ( talk) 03:25, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename I primarily agree with Carlossuarez46. Inclusion or non-inclusion in this category could easily be controversial. I also don't really see the significance of the intersection between the two. If it does remain, I think Nyttend's proposal is better than the current name. Sperril ( talk) 06:50, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Neutral. I requested the revert of my own move because I thought I had made an error, never thought that incidentally it was an appropriate moving. I don't comment on the opportunity (or lack of) of categorizing a musician by religion/culture. If that is done, though, at least the category name should be consistent with the scheme. -- SERGIO aka the Black Cat 11:17, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Delete or Rename – agree with above that it contravenes WP:OCEGRS. (There is Category:Punk rock musicians.) Oculi ( talk) 11:35, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
- Oppose delete (procedural). For deletion we should discuss the entire tree of Category:Jewish musicians by genre. Marcocapelle ( talk) 10:30, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to match parent category Category:Jewish musicians by genre. Dimadick ( talk) 18:18, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
- 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.