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 the category as duplication. There is no current list of J-Rock groups so I will move the category page to List of Japanese rock music groups as nominated. I am not sure why the old List of Japanese rock bands was merged to List of musical artists from Japan so I will update that old redirect to point to the recreated list; it has incoming links, so at least the recreated page won't be an orphan. – FayenaticLondon 00:37, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Either way, if there is a Category:Japanese rock music groups then the category both in category form and article form is completely superfluous and shouldn't have an article dedicated to it if a category already exists, in which case deleting the category would be the best option.
@DrStrauss: As you start saying "keep or", while your further comment seems to indicate that you would favor deletion as the only option, what would be the rationale to keep? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:12, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcocapelle: I mean the article should be deleted and it the collection should just be a mere category. Thanks. DrStrausstalk 19:54, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, this is not really my specialism but by just checking a sample of articles it seems that this is not a defining characteristic and, as nom stated, most articles are already somewhere in the tree of Category:Japanese rock music groups. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:24, 25 February 2017 (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 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.
Oppose, while Khmer nationalism is a notable topic within Cambodian nationalism, it's not the same. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:02, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but we don't have an article for "Cambodian nationalism" and we do for "Khmer nationalism". Charles Essie (talk) 22:12, 26 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
This is true, so what do you recommend? Charles Essie (talk) 22:03, 3 February 2017 (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:Attacks on civilians attributed to the Eelam People's Democratic Party[edit]
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.
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:Same title. The difference between the titles is irrelevant from the software's prospective; the displayed title was caused by a faulty {{DISPLAYTITLE}} on the page. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 14:19, 31 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Clearly an honest mistake. Charles Essie (talk) 17:33, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any difference between the two titles? I honestly do not see it. Dimadick (talk) 17:52, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Do you see the space between "Catrgory:" and "Fan"? Charles Essie (talk) 18:01, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Per WP:C2B, enforcing established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices. We don't put a space after the colon. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:52, 22 January 2017 (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 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 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:no consensus. – FayenaticLondon 17:43, 11 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all – per previous cfds, such as this one. Category names must be unambiguous. Oculi (talk) 21:16, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
What other "troubles" could any of these possibly refer to? Charles Essie (talk) 21:42, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
See the previous cfds, all of which are nearly unanimous. Oculi (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: many people do not know what are the The Troubles, so more clarification is good. IQ125 (talk) 13:07, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all: longstanding names, clarity for readers is good. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 14:01, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename: Unless they need to be diambig'd, we get rid of the clarification - as clearly is the case here.—Brigade Piron (talk) 17:45, 21 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename All Per WP:C2D. The CFD discussions should not override decisions made by subject matter experts at the article level and having mismatched names between main articles and categories hinders navigation. Names are either ambiguous for both the article and the category or they are ambiguous for neither. (I also suspect that this practice of mismatched names allows ambiguous article names to persist, like Birmingham and The Troubles, because it shifts valid concerns from the article talk page over here to CFD.) RevelationDirect (talk) 11:00, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Editors seem to appeal to policy without reading it. WP:C2D: "This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is unambiguous". The name is ambiguous per The Troubles (disambiguation). In particular events in Ireland in the 1920s were also known as "The Troubles". Oculi (talk) 15:24, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I should have said per the spirit of WP:C2D since that was written for speedy nominations. You make a compelling argument for renaming the article. RevelationDirect (talk) 03:18, 23 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all "Trouble" is too common a word to be appropriate without disambiguation. Furthermore, before the 1970s, "The Troubles" meant the conflicts after WWI, leading up to the creation of the Irish Free State. Sometimes categories need a dab, even when articles do not have one. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:54, 22 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all, to avoid ambiguity and consequent miscategorisations, per previous discussions. I share Oculi's regret that some editors cite WP:C2D without appearing to have read it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 01:13, 24 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per WP:C2D. Since Troubles in the category name is capitalized, editors are very unlikely to confuse this with any kind of troubles. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:53, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good point, I'm going to change the proposed names accordingly. Charles Essie (talk) 22:31, 3 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
When writing my earlier comment I had T in Troubles in mind, not T in The, but in fact capitalization of both is an improvement indeed. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:27, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is time for you to give up on a lost cause and do something else at Wikipedia and stop pinging me! IQ125 (talk) 16:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Alright! Alright! I'll never ping you again. Charles Essie (talk) 00:50, 26 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
I still say that this needs a disambiguator. Until the 1970s, "The Troubles" was a euphemism for the events leading up to the creation of the Irish Free State. Even that acquired a different disambiguator, I suspect we would still risk the categories picking up irrelevant articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 13:24, 7 March 2017 (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:delete because the scope of the category is unclear (is it about denominations, or rites, or theology?) and without limiting inclusion criteria the category may grow to a near-copy of the whole Category:Christianity tree (which would be useless of course). (Background: Chalcedonian Christianity may be regarded as synonymous of 'mainstream Christianity', covering Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy and Protestantism.) Marcocapelle (talk) 15:36, 20 January 2017 (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:Delete. VegaDark (talk) 03:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: First, this is no scheme for Category:Horror film actors, nor should there be. Should actors be categorized by the genre of films they appear in? Doris Day in Category:American romantic-comedy film actors, for example. And just think of the overcategorization this could lead to. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 08:34, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Subcatting actors by genre of film that they might happen to appear in is not a helpful point of categorization. Very few actors appear only in horror films to the exclusion of any other genre — even Vincent Price did comedies and conventional realist dramas too — so this would simply lead to extreme category bloat. Bearcat (talk) 17:17, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most actors with lengthy careers have notable appearances in multiple genres. Should we add them to "Horror", "Drama", "Comedy", "Fantasy", etc specific categories because of it? I seriously doubt it. Dimadick (talk) 18:00, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Full disclosure, I was the creator of this category and in retrospect agree with most the points made here. Neptune's Trident (talk) 18:27, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete presumably a horror film actor can do other genres, too. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:07, 24 January 2017 (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: Frogs don't recognize national borders, so we don't need by-country categories for them. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:43, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Brazil is a big place. We might have a category for its rain forests, though these extent into Peru and other countries. Haiti is an island, so that its fauna cannot escape. The question would be whether it differs much from the rest of the West Indies: I suspect it does not. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:03, 22 January 2017 (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: Unnecessary category, if we continue to create categories for programming like this, it is a case of WP:OVERCAT. —IB[ Poke ] 03:30, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – featuring a Synclavier is not a defining characteristic of a song. Oculi (talk) 11:03, 20 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Instrumentation is not a defining characteristic of a song, although it may be of a recording. --Richhoncho (talk) 10:36, 21 January 2017 (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.
