< June 8	June 10 >

June 9

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Billboard Rhythmic Airplay number-one singles

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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:44, 20 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:Billboard Rhythmic Airplay number-one singles (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. I nominated this once before a few years ago (see Cfd/Log/2010 Nov 23), and I still fail to see how a song reaching number one on such a narrow and specialized chart is defining to such songs. No one is ever going to refer to Love the Way You Lie as that "rhythmic number-one smash hit". A case where lists such as List of Billboard Rhythmic number-one songs of the 1990s would seem to suffice. Not every chart in Billboard needs a corresponding "number ones" category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:37, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Note: I don't think the lists need any upmerging. DexDor^(talk) 06:17, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- We cannot allow categories for every hit parade; possibly listify. This is essentially an WP:OC#AWARD. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:38, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. Since there is already other so-called "narrow and specialized" charts with categories (like Pop Songs) I fail to see how this one got singled out.67.53.57.210 (talk) J.Myers 01:04, 21 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Rhythmic chart category should feature the songs that reached number one, plus I don't see anything narrow about this chart. Leave it as it is. JeffCater1 (talk)

Struck out !votes by sockpuppets of Robert Moore. DexDor^(talk) 05:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Robert Moore (talk) 00:00 23 June 2015 (UTC)
- Keep !votes above fail to explain how the category is a defining quality of the songs within it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 03:05, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - Its obvious that we could say the same thing about the other categories, since you want to single out this one. If that's the case, how about deleting the other Billboard categories, which I'm proposing to do, since we don't need a category for songs that reach number one on a airplay-only chart, leaving the major charts if that's what you're suggesting. There's always Wikia for creating specialty pages like these. JeffCater1 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:33, 23 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - You could say the same thing about the categories, but this is the one up for discussion, and I see no valid arguments to keep it. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 08:36, 24 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      - Personally, your valid arguments for deleting it aren't holding water, since you are just basing it on your own opinion. I see nothing wrong with the category whatsoever. This seem to fall under WP:CHART, and since Billboard does have a archive for the Rhythmic chart that list the songs that reached number one dating back to 1992, this should be kept because this category does have songs that did not reach number-one on Billboard's major charts. JeffCater1 (talk) 06:45, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        Not my opinion but based on WP:CATDEF. No one will ever refer to any of these songs, neither commonly nor consistently, as the "number-one hit on rhythmic radio stations". --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 22:34, 2 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: I've opened up a case of possible sock puppetry involving the three editors !voting KEEP above due to similar editing patterns. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Robert Moore. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 20:28, 13 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - I left you a note on your talk page that I take responsibility for the sock puppet incident. I have no problem with you deleting it since this category as it has become redundant and I don't need to following this chart since it only concentrate on radio airplay as you put it.Robert Moore (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment discussion evolves around WP:OSE. Marcocapelle (talk) 21:24, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I noticed that the person who wanted this deleted does not have a profile even after I left a note on his page. In fact, he had it deleted numerous times.Robert Moore (talk) 04:54, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
  - The nominator does not have a user page - so what? DexDor^(talk) 05:07, 14 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    - It is obviously clear I'm not that popular on Wikipedia and I have a user page - so what! Robert Moore (talk) 20:01, 15 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I noticed that Billboard has renamed the chart Rhythmic Songs and dropped the word Airplay, so I'm looking at changing the category. I already e-mailed Gary Trust about this discussionRobert Moore (talk) 18:27, 15 July 2015 (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:South Korean musical group stubs

The result of the discussion was: delete. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:46, 26 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deleting Category:South Korean musical group stubs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Previously cleared as a take-away from this discussion, (although, the articles could be restored, depending on the results of the new discussion). Only 21 articles tagged to ((SouthKorea-band-stub)) made this a considerably undersized stub category. That's why this had been previously proposed for deletion. Dawynn (talk) 22:11, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as empty. Alternatively convert it to a category redirect targetted at ((SouthKorea-band-stub)), which is the current stub type to be added. I suspect the survival of this to be an error in closing the previous discussion. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:1843 in the United Provinces of Central America

The result of the discussion was: merge to Costa Rica categories. User:Johnpacklambert already moved the member page, out of process, on 9 July. [1] However, as he created the nominated categories, no WP:TROUTing is needed. – Fayenatic London 19:45, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:1843 in the United Provinces of Central America to Category:1843 in the Federal Republic of Central America
Propose renaming Category:1843 establishments in the United Provinces of Central America to Category:1843 establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America

Nominator's rationale: The name United Provinces of Central America was only for a single year in contrast to Federal Republic of Central America. While limited, there is some usage at Category:Federal Republic of Central America for these two articles. There's also Category:Establishments in the Federal Republic of Central America by year for the establishment. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:05, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

There's only one article in here, namely University of Costa Rica. According to the Costa Rica article, this country gained independence in 1838 so it seems reasonable to merge all to Category:19th-century establishments in Costa Rica. Marcocapelle (talk) 19:06, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename the 1843 establishments category to Category:1843 establishments in Costa Rica. I created this category due to being mislead by the info box on Costa Rica's history. I do have to say reading the History of Costa Rica article, it seems very weak and in need of expansion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:44, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I would have argued merge to equivalent categories for Federal Republic of Central America. This polity only existed for 15 years, 1823 to 1838, though not formally dissolved until 1841. The appropriate course is to manually amend the article categories to the appropriate successor state, in this case Costa Rica, which had in any event existed as a province since at least 1821. However, I doubt that we are ever going to populate annual categories singificantly. I would thereforee suggest the targets should be Category:1840s in Costa Rica and Category:1840s establishments in Costa Rica. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:56, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support alternative per Peterkingiron. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:50, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The proposal to merge this to a non-year category ignores the fact that Category:1843 establishments is large enough to justify subdivisions, and that there is no particular reason to not include Costa Rica as one of the represented countries.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:25, 29 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Establishments in the French Empire by year

The result of the discussion was: merge/rename as nominated. – Fayenatic London 19:32, 1 September 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Establishments in the French Empire by year to Category:Establishments in the French colonial empire by year
Propose renaming Category:1757 establishments in the French Empire‎ to Category:1757 establishments in the French colonial empire
Propose renaming Category:1807 establishments in the French Empire‎ to Category:1807 establishments in the French colonial empire
Propose renaming Category:1874 establishments in the French Empire‎ to Category:1874 establishments in the French colonial empire

Nominator's rationale: French Empire could refer to First French Empire or Second French Empire but the main article is French colonial empire for which the categories are similarly named. Ricky81682 (talk) 07:42, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

This is a difficult one, it seems as if the second article doesn't belong here at all (was just war occupation, not colonialism) and the first and third article hardly have anything in common with each other. Maybe just merge to Category:1750s establishments in France and Category:1874 establishments in France? Marcocapelle (talk) 19:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ionian Academy you mean. That's an establishment that's part of French departments of Greece from the French First Republic which doesn't have a category but seems to be a part of the structure under Category:Events of the French Revolution by year. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:56, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Support Initial rename proposal. The alternate proposal does not work. For multiple reasons, including that it ignores that the categorization of articles on things by establishments year+country is very much behind where it could be. I also oppose the general splitting of hair involved in it. Calling the French presence in the Ionian Islands "War occupation and not Colonialism" is a bit much considering that they were made into integral parts of France and under French control for over a decade. The line between "war occupation" and "Colonislism" and "temporary placement of troops to back up the current government" is impossible to draw. We need to jetison 20th-century narrow understandings of colonislism that were written in ways to ignore the colonial occupations of Tibet, East Turkistan and Kazakstan among other areas and stop trying to draw minor lines. This could actually serve as a useful way to group lots of other articles in other years. Rename as proposed by Ricky81682.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:48, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Put in other words I oppose the attempt to make a qualitative difference between territories occupied by France fully under its control but not given part in the Republic in Europe and such territories outside Europe.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The inclusion of Algeria in the category in the late-19th and over half the 20th-century is slightly controversial because for much of that time Algeria was departments of France. However the vast majority of the population was not allowed the vote until the very end of French rule, so it was for all intents and purposes not an integral part of France.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

@Johnpacklambert: That's under Category:Establishments in the French Union by year and Category:Establishments in the French Community by year. There's currently a discussion at Talk:French_colonial_empire#RfC:_When_did_the_French_colonial_empire_end.3F about how to take care of it. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 21:29, 10 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom and JPL. Pichpich (talk) 22:20, 15 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]
In principle, rename to Category:Establishments in French colonies by year and Category:1757 establishments in French colonies, etc. This removes the difficulty that France chanaged between being a kingdom, empire and republic. However the 1807 cateogry is now empty. The 1757 category contains an Illinois town, but what was establsihed in 1757 was a predecessor of Fort Massac. The third one is an order of chivilry established by a local ruler of what was presumably a French protectorate (a variety of colony). However, I am far from convinced of the merits of the whole tree. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 20 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

If renamed, prefer Peterkingiron's alternative over original proposal. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:54, 22 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]