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 category is a useful one, especially to categorize people who don't have a Category:Lesbian (their job) category that already exists - many such cats have recently been deleted because they represented a non-defining intersection. --KarlB (talk) 22:44, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep. Even if all articles about lesbians were placed in a subcategory, the category would be keepable as a container category to hold the lesbians by occupation categories. Generally, I don't think lesbians should be broken down by occupation. They should be in an LGBT category by occupation and in the general Category:Lesbians category. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this category is of such a nature that it should only have subcats, but we have decided that really everything should be categorized as LGBT. The current hybrid metho just leads to cat clutter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 19 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with caveat that only people whose reason for notability is being a lesbian - that is, activists, entertainers who openly discuss it, things like that. We should make sure not to throw in someone who "happens to be a lesbian", just as we don't do that for Christians. D O N D E groovilyTalk to me04:12, 20 May 2012 (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:Black Welsh sportspeople
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: Historically, 'triple intersection' categories like this one have usually been deleted. From WP:EGRS: 'Dedicated group-subject subcategories, such as Category:LGBT writers or Category:African American musicians, should be created only where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right.' I'm not convinced 'Black Welsh sportspeople' is a topic that has been the subject of such attention, though I'm open to being convinced otherwise. Robofish (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
It's actually more of an ethnicity, since "Black British" (and hence "Black Welsh") is a well-recognised ethnicity in the UK and is included in census forms, government statistics, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk)23:19, 20 May 2012 (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:Hertzsprung-Russell classifications
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Normally article matching would apply, but it would be bizarre to name the category Hertzsprung–Russell diagram, so propose simple switch to singular form as there is only one Hertzsprung–Russell classification, not several. Brandmeistertalk21:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose what do you mean there's only one? There's many, like asymptotic giant branch stars, or red clump stars, or main sequence stars. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the classifications are derived from the placement of stars on the H-R diagram, so the category is not about the diagram, but classifications derived from the diagram. As the diagram itself is not the classification, it is not singular. 70.24.251.208 (talk) 05:26, 18 May 2012 (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:B-side songs
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 songs are united by the fact that they were on the back sides of different singles. They have no real connection to each other, and it's hard to imagine the utility of trying to make such a connection.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 18:48, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
keep I think it's a useful collection to browse through. People actually make lists of B-sides that eventually became important (see [1]. --KarlB (talk) 19:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this would be much better as a list. The criteria merely state "Songs that are B-sides to singles", which must apply to thousands of notable songs. (It seems to me that this is tangential to the song, however well-known its B-side existence might be.) Oculi (talk) 20:32, 17 May 2012 (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:Jazzland Records albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:no consensus, which defaults to "keep". A bizarre nomination with a rationale which makes no sense to me, and an alternate proposal which is equally unclear. However, the nominator's alternate proposal involves no action at CfD and is supported by one other editor, so the clear outcome is to do nothing. However, since it's unclear exactly what was being rejected, I am labelling the close as "no consensus", to leave open the option of a further nomination if anyone wants to explain what this is all about. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:06, 24 May 2012 (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:Articles using divbox template
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: Temporary cleanup category. The template which added pages to this category has now been edited so that it does not display on articles, so there is no longer a need to track inappropriate transclusions. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:58, 17 May 2012 (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:Frenetic Records albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Media workers in the West Midlands (region)
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: Categorising media workers by sub-national region seems to me to be a recipe for category clutter, since many journalists and broadcasters move between regions in search of employment. AFAICS there are no other "media workers in Foo" categories (see this search), and there are no no other categories containing the phrase "media workers" (see this search). --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:43, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Delete in this case it is even worse than "sub-national" because technically the nation is the United Kingdom, England is the sub-nation, and so the West Midlands is in some ways a tertiary region.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 19 May 2012 (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:Showbiz TV shows
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:Media in East Midlands region, 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 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:Radio stations in the West Midlands
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:World Circuit albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Wu-Tang Clan affiliated 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: Wu-Tang have marketed themselves as a brand and have a near-infinite group of extended affiliates. Previous discussions about categorizing albums as side-projects of a main artist have resulted in deletion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯05:03, 17 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I know it's not a record label. I'm saying it's as defining as a record label and for similar reasons. There's definitely a Wu-Tang sound and a Wu-Tang approach to rap. Pichpich (talk) 13:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Like the nominator, it is my understanding that we have agreed several times by consensus not to categorize albums for being a side project or affiliated project of another musical group. I'm not familiar enough with rap or Wu-Tang to argue whether or not this is defining, but based solely on precedence, I would have thought this category should be deleted. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:10, 24 May 2012 (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:Think Fast! Records albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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:Galatians
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:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. There was a local consensus here to change the infobox so that it populates this category, but that solution may be best discussed at WikiProject Albums before action is taken. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 08:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: Although the infobox method it is the best is not widely known (a hidden category) or can it address all cases. More people are aware of the {{reqphoto}} template and often added it to the talk page of album articles. The imageneeded parameter in the talk page {{WikiProject Albums}} is also occasionally used. Category:Wikipedia requested photographs of albums also allows for additional requests for images on a page that has a cover image or to request album covers for non album articles. --Traveler100 (talk) 12:29, 17 May 2012 (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/2012 May 26. -- Black Falcon (talk) 20:15, 26 May 2012 (UTC)
Rich Farmbrough, 19:06, 17 May 2012 (UTC).
You must be logged in to post a comment.