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 (non-admin closure). Marcocapelle (talk) 04:21, 20 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose renaming Category:Indian politicians disqualified to Category:Indian politicians disqualified from office

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify meaning of category Tim! (talk) 17:40, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Just change it. First Light (talk) 14:59, 15 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Good call. bd2412 T 02:47, 19 July 2017 (UTC)
• Support Common-sense rename that makes the category clearer. AusLondonder (talk) 19:47, 19 July 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: keep for now, so rename to Category:Performers of Christian music in Arabic for clarity. Fairuz discography mentions only two albums of hymns, so this genre may not be defining for her, and Abeer Nehme may sing religious music mainly in Syriac rather than Arabic (I can't tell from the videos linked below). However, it does seem to be more important for the other current members of the category, Majida El Roumi (3 religious albums) and Pascale Sakr (her website highlighted religious music). Still, that is very few valid member pages so, if it doesn't get populated within a reasonable time, it may be nominated again for deletion. – Fayenatic London 08:16, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Arabic-language Christian music singers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: As a Christian, It does not need this category and it is totally inappropriate. All singers in this category like: Fairuz, Abeer Nehme, Majida El Roumi and Pascale Sakr are not included under this definition "singers who sing and release Christian music and Hymns in the arabic language. Moreover, there are categories such as Singers who perform in Classical Arabic (−) Arabic-language singers. So do not need to get into religion because we're talking about singers singing different kinds of music. Sarah Canbel (talk) 15:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep -- I think Sarah is confused about what this category actually refers to. Or in what context it applies to. I think her main concern is "its not pc" as opposed to the accuracy of the list.

It's not the religion of the actual singers the title category refers to, its kind of music they have (I can provide sources) have sung in the Arabic (and other) languages. Which are Hymms, Christian music etc All the singers listed are on the recordas as having participated in recording such tracks or performed live at live venues, religious themed music. Hence why they were refer to as "christian music" singers which is it's own genre. Why is it inappropriate? Christian music IS a genre as is,Buddhist music , Islamic music and Jewish music. I did suggest when creating the page, if anyone could come up with a better title, they are more than welcome to list suggestions in the talk page. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 17:22, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some examples into the type of music this category refers to

--Justforthefun17 (talk) 17:26, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Potential delete Category:Performers of Christian music isn't divided up by language. Why have a category just for the ones who perform in Arabic? However, if others think that we should subdivide all of them by language (guess what...English will have a huge proportion of them), that's perfectly fine with me; we already have a Category:Singers by language tree, and as long as someone belongs in the performers of Christian music category, it's not at all a problem to determine where they'd go by language. But if we do that, I'd prefer some sort of rename to comply more with the parent, i.e. something like "Performers of Christian music in Arabic". Nyttend (talk) 21:24, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see what wrong with dividing it by language. Especially, for non-English performers outside of the west. I agree I think (and did suspect) a retitle would be a better alternative than the current one. --Justforthefun17 (talk) 01:50, 13 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Upmerge to parent categories per WP:SMALLCAT and WP:NARROWCAT. Marcocapelle (talk) 04:23, 14 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep (and populate) -- We have Category:Performers of Christian music by nationality, some of which is probably language related, e.g. Norwegian. Arabic is a language spoken in many countries of the Near and Middle East, so that this would fit (though awkwardly) into that. Category:Performers of Christian music has a lot of sub-cats, so that merging these people there would not be appropriate. Except perhaps among Sufis, music is not part of Islamic worship, so that the lack of an Islamic category is unsurprising. In contrast, music is at the heart of most Christian worship. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:04, 16 July 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: speedy delete under WP:CSD#G7. ℯxplicit 04:34, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Nichols Bridgeway (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: This category has just one article, which could easily be upmerged. --Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure why or when I created it. Have no memory, nor any idea what I was thinking. Delete it. SecretName101 (talk) 04:28, 12 July 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. Timrollpickering 12:00, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Japanese media about little sisters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Category with a subject of lack of notability in Wikipedia. It separates anime and manga with a stock character that isn't talked about in anime/manga-related articles like Glossary of anime and manga, Moe (slang), Category:Moe or Category:Female stock characters in anime and manga. As well as it looks unnecessary to make separate categories just for one stock character like "Japanese media about tsundere". 177.42.98.224 (talk) 00:53, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete At least tsundere characters has an article behind it. This categorization should wait until the sister genre is developed in an article or section thereof. Otherwise it's like categorizing by shows with student council presidents or by hair colors. WP:TRIVIALCAT AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:57, 22 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - It would be interesting to look and see if the imouto genre has taken off yet though - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:27, 24 July 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. Timrollpickering 12:01, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:Eroge translated into English (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Various video games without releases in English-speaking countries have fan translations on the Internet. Making a category just for the "Eroge" genre is unnecessary in my point of view. 177.42.98.224 (talk) 00:39, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as micro cross-categorization. Specific video game genre with a specific alteration for a specific language. If we were to have a proper full category tree, it would be huge for every language and genre. It's also of very little use beyond some very specific search queries. There are reliable sources about English translations for games, but nothing specific to eroge. —  HELLKNOWZ  ▎TALK 08:41, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I just listed this discussion over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Deletion sorting/Anime and manga, someone may want to relist this so it gets further input. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subcategorizing eroge by translation type isn't helpful. Fan translations wouldn't have any notability. There isn't even a Category: Video games translated into English. Also what would you call the family-friendly adaptations as typically released in anime? If those versions (video game or anime) get an English adaptation, are they still technically eroge? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:10, 21 July 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: keep this time, despite many precedents. I have now added links to the songs and albums categories into the navigation template Template:The Chain Gang of 1974, so the only additional navigation still provided by the category is to the album covers category. – Fayenatic London 10:25, 11 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Propose deleting Category:The Chain Gang of 1974 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  

Nominator's rationale: Per WP:OCEPON and numerous precedent at CfD, an unnecessary eponymous category as all pertinent articles populated into "works" subcategories, which also already interconnect to one other. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:11, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I'm not sure why WP:OCEPON should apply to artists' discographies. I feel like people expect some kind of order and organisation when it comes to sorting articles about discographies. Just because there isn't many releases in an artists' discography that have articles on Wikipedia like, say, Coldplay or U2, doesn't mean that that's a rationale to have no category organisation for their discography on Wikipedia, I'd think. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · ) 23:21, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Because the discography is already organized just as simply in the albums and songs categories without the need of the parent. An eponymous category is only necessary when there is a breadth of articles over a range of topics for which navigation in such a parent category would be beneficial. As is, that can be done just as easily through the main article and the song/album categories. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 23:28, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Well, in that case I'd suggest not going anywhere near Wikimedia Commons if you don't want to give yourself a heart attack. Haha. I have no other input other than 1) we were talking about categories independent of any mainspace organisation and 2) if that's how categories are treated on Wikipedia, then I suppose that's one more thing not to like about the English Wikipedia. – PhilipTerryGraham (talk · contribs · ) 23:52, 22 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – agree with PhilipTerryGraham. There has never been any clear consensus about eponymous band categories with 2 subcats and this in fact has 3. In my opinion the most elegant way to connect a songs and an albums category by an artist is by the natural route, an eponymous category, rather than by the artificial 'seealso' route. Oculi (talk) 08:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is numerous precedent when there are only songs and albums subcategories that the eponymous category not needed. A 3rd subcategory of album covers (or any category of non-articles such as image or audio files) is not useful for navigation of the topic. By your reasoning, every single music artist with at least articles on 1 song and 1 album should also have an eponymous category. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:33, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is equally numerous precedent for such being kept. I don't myself see any great problem as no category clutter arises. The problem IMO is when articles vaguely related to The Chain Gang of 1974 are collected in the top eponymous category and this has not happened. I don't see why you consider images related to The Chain Gang of 1974 as not being useful for navigation. Oculi (talk) 21:08, 12 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • The precedent to keep eponymous categories for musical groups is when there have been at least 3 subcategories of article content (eg. albums, songs, members) and/or a handful of other related articles because it can start become convoluted. For the musician/group itself, I think the most elegant and simple way to connect their songs and albums is through their article (or discography page). Because of this, eponymous categories with songs & albums subcategories and maybe a discography page have been deleted time and time again in CfD because navigation is not an improvement over the eponymous main article. For quick reference, one has the albums and songs categories, which allow for topic organization and are easy to navigate to and from. If eponymous categories are to be encouraged for every music artist, it's going to create excessive subdivisions of Category:Wikipedia categories names after musicians and Category:Wikipedia categories names after musical groups that will need to follow that of artist categorization (eg. Wikipedia categories named after American contemporary R&B musicians or Category:Wikipedia categories named after Australian punk rock groups). --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 00:34, 14 July 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.