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 Works categories are kept separate from self-named categories in order to keep the integrity of the "works"-based category tree. I also don't think Casey Affleck and Jennifer Garner should be in the target category as they are not defined by Ben Affleck. SFB18:26, 27 October 2014 (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: These categories are mostly empty and are not actual genres but rather films that happen to star teens. American teen sports and superhero films actually have severy pages in them, but there parent cats are empty so I proposed merging them with the parents. JDDJS (talk) 21:17, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge of contents. These seem like very narrow classifications, particularly teen film+country+sub-genre. I'm less convinced of deletion of the teen+sub-genre categories, as these could probably be more populated. Still, this isn't an overly burdened structure (with ~150 in American teen films). SFB18:31, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete suffer from the normal problems of single editors making subjective determinations of what categories films belong in - whether it be subject or target audience. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:57, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessarily. Categorization can and should be supported by reliable sources (i.e., secondary sources identifying a film as belonging to a particular genre). The problem, of course, is that this is not done nearly enough in practice. -- Black Falcon(talk)23:35, 22 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
If these genres are real and definable, please explain the difference between the difference between a teen mystery film and a regular mystery film other than the fact they happen to star teens. And even if you could explain that, you did not address the fact that all of these categories are almost empty. We don't have categories for every possible combination of genres there is because there would simply be too many. For example Category:Western superhero films would be a perfect category for all of the Lone Ranger films. However, since it won't apply to that many other films, it does not exist. JDDJS (talk) 03:32, 25 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
There is no difference between teen fiction and regular fiction other than the fact the former stars teens, and is intended primarily for a teen audience, but that does not change the fact that teen fiction is a "real and definable" genre of fiction. The emptiness of the categories could be rectified rather easily in most cases, and is challenging deletion rationale to evaluate in the context of a group nomination such as this one. Some of the American teen ... films categories might be unneeded, but that notion is countered by the fact that some subcategories of Category:American teen films are well-populated—in particular, those pertaining to teen comedy, teen drama, teen horror, and teen romance films. -- Black Falcon(talk)18:54, 27 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't nominate the well populated categories. I nominated the mostly empty categories. If they can be populated more, than please do so. However, currently there is no evidence supporting that these categories can be expanded. JDDJS (talk) 17:18, 29 November 2014 (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.
Upmerge per nom. The parent category is not a diffused category so it seems a bit redundant to have the article in Upcoming films, Indian films and Upcoming Indian films. Betty Logan (talk) 04:14, 27 October 2014 (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.
Speedy delete if Michael Ford is not notable enough to have his own article, he is clearly not notable enough to have his own category. JDDJS (talk) 23:36, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was actually preparing to speedy the album's article as an A9, but it turns out to have been a collaborative album with another musician who does have an article — so it doesn't qualify under that criterion. That said, it still appears to be AFDable as an album that doesn't actually make any substantive or sourced claim of notability beyond happening to have a notable musician's name on its cover (which is not something that gets an album a free WP:NMUSIC pass if it isn't adequately sourced as a standalone topic.) But even if it is kept, the fact that Ford doesn't have an article means he doesn't need (or qualify for) an albums category alongside the one for the other musician he collaborated with. No prejudice against recreation if circumstances change — but right now it's just not necessary or useful. Bearcat (talk) 21:22, 7 November 2014 (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.
Merge; in most cases, we don't need multiple categories for the same artist. Just use the WP article name for the artist, and put category redirects on all the alternate names. Good Ol’factory(talk)02:59, 5 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Good Olfactory. We don't need multiple categories for a single artist who records under different pseudonyms (see also Category:Will Oldham albums for a similar example). If The Flashbulb were a band that he was in, while all of his solo albums were released under his own name, then separate categories would be warranted — but if both names really just denote him as a solo artist, then we don't need separate categories and they should be merged to whichever name his head article is actually located at. Bearcat (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2014 (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.
The result of the discussion was:upmerge to all parents, since the articles are woefully undercategorized (in two cases, the main article is a member of its eponymous category only). -- Black Falcon(talk)00:07, 23 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These three categories were formerly populated with stand-alone articles for each annual edition of the particular kickoff game, all of which have now been deleted at AfD. These categories should be upmerged and their content articles treated in the same manner as "Eddie Robinson Classic," "Kickoff Classic" and "Pigskin Classic." Dirtlawyer1 (talk) 15:58, 26 October 2014 (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: A "concepts and terminology" category appears to be a miscellaneous category (see WP:OC#MISC). This is the only "concepts and terminology" category in en wp. DexDor (talk) 11:19, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. 1 First of all, the nominator is wrong because Category:Concepts by field and Category:Terminology most definitely exist and no one suggests those should be deleted, ever! 2 The nominator's twisted argument is a distortion of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (or its converse "doesn't exist") that is not a valid reason to delete a useful category that has existed since 2008[1], and 3 note that WP:NOTPAPER. 4 This is a valid sub-category of its broad parent Category:Talmud, that contains other sub-categories such as Category:Talmud places; Category:Talmud people; Category:Talmudic mythology. 5 The Talmud is a vast unique work."The whole Talmud consists of 63 tractates, and in standard print is over 6,200 pages long. It is written in Tannaitic Hebrew and Aramaic" -- all very complex and WP has not even begun to scratch the surface of dealing with this vast compendium of information. 6 The well-known JastrowTalmudic Dictionary (1926) alone is over 1,700 pages long. 7 If anything, more, not less WP categories should and would be required to categorize all the Talmud's contents in an encyclopedia such as WP. Bottom line, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Thanks, IZAK (talk) 23:42, 26 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This category does what it says, which is to organize various concepts and terminology used in interpreting the Talmud. The nomination is predicated on ignorance of the subject matter and there seems to have been no effort to understand the subject other than to look for some other category with the string of words "concepts and terminology" structure. As User:IZAK clearly points out, similar categories exist throughout Wikipedia, such as Category:Legal terms, which exists within the parent Category:Law. "Talmud concepts and terminology" is not the same thing as "Talmud", just as "Legal terms" and "Law" are not one and the same. Alansohn (talk) 01:29, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Of course, the cat contents should be limited to concepts and terminology that are from the Talmud, not categorizing the because that word is somewhere to be found in the Talmud. As far as I see, the category is being used properly. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:16, 27 October 2014 (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.
Comment: I would not strongly object to this, but let me explain why I created that and numerous other single-entry subcategories within Category: Tribute albums. The Tribute album category was populated with many entries, some of which were easy to eyeball and identify with the artist or band to whom the tribute was being made, but many of which were not immediately clear. The Shelby Lynne album currently in the category in question, Just a Little Lovin', is an example of this. If users were not familiar with that song, they would not be able to at a glance tell who the artist was whose work was being covered. It seemed much more browsable and user-friendly to minimize the number of album articles directly in the category for Tribute albums, and categorize them by the artist or band (or other uniting theme, such as Category:Tribute albums to music-related organizations). This allowed them to be identifiable at a glance as to who the artist was that was the subject of the tribute, and it allowed alphabetical organization by the covered artist (in this case, under "S" for "Springfield".) Now, I understand that there are also concerns about over-categorizing, and I want to be respectful of that. Additionally, this is one of those jobs that I started a while ago, and meant to come back to sooner, but got sidetracked and so put off on to the back burner. However, I still think that the general approach has merit. If the consensus on the Dusty category is to keep it, then I would return to the Tribute album category and continue work on creating subcats for artists being tributed on the individual articles remaining in that category. Please let me know if I can expand on any of these comments. KConWiki (talk) 03:42, 27 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I don't know if there are additional relevant articles, but I do want to encourage my fellow Wikipedians to ask themselves if in this specific situation (that is, tribute albums) it is of greater service to WP users to use subcategories even when there is only one article. It is my belief that it is. KConWiki (talk) 00:31, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – we categorise by defining attributes, and 'Dusty Springfield tribute album' is a defining attribute of a Dusty Springfield tribute album. And KConWiki makes a convincing case too, from a different angle. Oculi (talk) 01:22, 28 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. There is no reason to separate solo albums from all other albums. This is not a standard way to categorize albums. No other musician has a separate solo albums category. Tassedethe (talk) 00:06, 26 October 2014 (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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 November 22. -- Black Falcon (talk) 23:39, 22 November 2014 (UTC)