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. – FayenaticLondon 22:27, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Even though the current title is consistent with other categories that are suffixed with "Queens, New York," it is also a redundant disambiguator. Queens is not named Queens, New York, so neither should these categories. I am only requesting renaming for these four categories for now, but others will be requested for renaming in the future if these are successful. Epic Genius (talk) 14:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Mixed - Technically, you are right about these specific categories, but there's still the issue of the disambiguation with other Queens besides the easternmost borough of New York City. ---------User:DanTD (talk) 16:52, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Don't worry, DanTD. if disambiguation is needed, I will not nominate these. Epic Genius (talk) 21:10, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Isn't this issue essentially the same as the "Georgia" issue most recently discussed here?—a disambiguator may not be needed in every case of a subcategory, but we keep them regardless to match the ultimate parent category, which in this case is Category:Queens, New York. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:42, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I understand how those parent categories could lead you to suggest a change to the first parts of the names, but I don't understand how those parents suggest that only "Queens" should be used in the category names. I understand your earlier argument that the "disambiguator" of ", New York" is unnecessary in the context of these categories, but not how these parent categories lead to that same conclusion that the disambiguator should be removed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Ok—yeah, I see what you are saying now. Thanks. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:15, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – the relevant parent category is Category:Queens, New York and it is customary for all its subcats to use the same convention (indeed a 'speedy' criterion). (Cf the recent Georgia cfd discussion of 7 Sept 2015, and many earlier cfd discussions about names of band categories such as Category:Cream (band) songs.) Oculi (talk) 08:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Article Usually I favor blindly following the main article, Queens. In this case, I think that article is pretty egregiously named and we should hold off on matching the categories before trying to rename the article. (If that RM fails, then speedy this whole tree per WP:C2D.) Trying to correct a poorly named article in the category space, as was done at Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_April_4#Queens, is not sustainable. RevelationDirect (talk) 11:28, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the same discussion but I disagree with leaving the ambiguous article behind. RevelationDirect (talk) 20:53, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with moving an article like Queens is that the discussion takes place on the talkpage of the article (eg here) and thus has a local bias. I agree entirely that Queens is not globally famous as a part of NY (unlike Manhattan and Brooklyn) and that the article should be moved. In the meantime the best we can do is to keep sensible names for the category and its subtree. Oculi (talk) 11:14, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The precedent on this is Birmingham, whose categories have to be at "Birmingham, West Midlands" to exclude those on Birmingham, AL. I appreciate that a queen is unlikely to contain a railway station, but there is a lot to be said for consistency. If we do not, we will find Category:Queens collecting articles on the NY Borough. Queens ought to be an article on female monarchs or a dab-page for them and the NY Borough. If anything is wrong, it is that the article should be moved back. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:46, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to match the parent category. kennethaw88 • talk 03:41, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep disambiguation of Queens is needed, and this was the chosen method.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:36, 16 October 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:The Score
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.
A band does not automatically get an eponymous category just because it exists; such things are created only when they're navigationally useful because the band has generated a significant degree of spinoff content not easily categorizable within the standard "band albums"/"band songs" scheme. But for a new band who just released their debut EP not even a month ago, that volume's just not there yet (and might never be). Delete per nom. Bearcat (talk) 17:48, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this is not a category for The Score so is being used improperly -- 70.51.44.60 (talk) 04:09, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This band is too new to be the primary topic and there is very little material connected to it. Dimadick (talk) 18:44, 9 October 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:BILAL YOUNAS JUTT
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. The category was empty and the text contained someone's Windows software username and password key, so I thought it was probably best to delete speedily rather than wait. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:37, 9 October 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:Jamie Lawson 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.
While it's true that not all of the relevant categories actually exist, Category:Songs by artist is a tree that's deliberately meant to be inclusive of all songs — it is not limited to artists who have released any specific minimum number of songs, but rather even a one-song category is allowed to exist within that particular tree. So this isn't a SMALLCAT violation, as it falls under the "large overall accepted subcategorization scheme" exemption. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. WP:SMALLCAT is irrelevant for this category tree. Dimadick (talk) 18:46, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Oculi (talk) 02:31, 11 October 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:Jamie Lawson 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 to delete, though the guidelines suggest that if one article exists, it may be kept. Per usual naming practices I'm going to rename the category to Category:Jamie Lawson (musician) albums so that it matches Jamie Lawson (musician). If the article about the only album is deleted in the AFD, users may nominate the then-empty category for speedy deletion.Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:58, 17 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
While it's true that not all of the relevant categories actually exist, Category:Albums by artist is a tree that's deliberately meant to be inclusive of all albums — it is not limited to artists who have released any specific minimum number of albums, but rather even a one-album category is allowed to exist within that particular tree. So this isn't a SMALLCAT violation, as it falls under the "large overall accepted subcategorization scheme" exemption. Keep. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat. Oculi (talk) 02:31, 11 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is trying to create circular notability. Author created album article for album in cat, then created the cat. No other releases appear to really meet the notability guidelines for standalone articles per WP:NALBUMS, and the album that is in the cat isn't even out yet! MSJapan (talk) 21:49, 12 October 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:Jamie Lawson
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.
Delete per nom and WP:OC#EPONYMOUS. All musicians do not automatically get an eponymous category just because they exist; they get one only if and when there's a sizable volume of spinoff content beyond just BLP + albums category + songs category. Bearcat (talk) 17:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bearcat. Oculi (talk) 02:32, 11 October 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:Television stations in Federal District
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: Most Mexican state-level categories use the phrasing "___ in Mexico City" as Mexico City and the DF are the same thing, and even the DF government officially refers to itself as Ciudad de México. These categories have been emptied and are now redundant to Category:Television stations in Mexico City. Raymie (t • c) 06:28, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion not necessary on a situation like this. Both categories have been speedy redirected. Bearcat (talk) 18:02, 8 October 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:Frankish noble families
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:reverse merge. – FayenaticLondon 22:35, 16 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: merge per WP:OVERLAPCAT, all these families are noble families. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:56, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Noble" has a wide tree structure. If anything, Frankish families should be down-merged to Frankish noble families. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:43, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm neutral on whether to up- or downmerge. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:03, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: for preference downmerge. Non-noble (or royal) families are unlikely to be notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:48, 10 October 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:Iranian martyrs
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.
Delete or at least purge (and then delete if empty). I looked at a sample of articles in this category and found articles about people who died in an aircrash, who were assassinated and (mostly) who died in battle. None of them appear to be "somebody who suffers persecution and/or death for advocating ... a belief or cause ... (unless that is interpreted much more broadly than my understanding of the word "martyr"). Note: We already have Category:Iranian military personnel killed in action. Note: I generally think we categorize too much on how people died (it's WP:DNWAUC). Other martyrs categories may need similar treatment. DexDor(talk) 05:58, 8 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
The justification seems irrelevant to the topic. Some of these people were killed by terrorists, but none of them was labeled a terrorist,
Comment I typically like death-related categories, I like to populate them, and search them to find articles to read. This "martyr" category raises a few red flags about subjectivity however.
Ahmad Keshvari was a military pilot killed in action during the Iran–Iraq War. He seems to be considered a hero in Iran, but a martyr?
Mostafa Ahmadi-Roshan was an assassination victim whose death is blamed on both Israel and the United States, which both deny any involvement. According to the article, the man was fanatically anti-Israeli: "Mostafa's ultimate goal was the annihilation of Israel".
Ali Eghbali Dogahe was a prisoner of war who died in Iraqi captivity during the Iran–Iraq War. The circumstances of his death are unknown, his body was only recovered two decades following his death.
Mohammad Hossein Fahmideh was a teenager, member of the paramilitary volunteer militia Basij. He was killed in a suicide attack against an Iraqi tank during the Iran–Iraq War.
Javad Fakoori was a defense minister of Iran who died in an aviation accident.
Yousef Kolahdouz was a military officer killed in an aviation accident.
Asadollah Lajevardi was a former prison warden assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a terrorist organization. They were trying to avenge the mass executions of prisoners supposedly ordered by Lajevardi.
Mohammad Mofatteh was a philosopher and university professor who was assassinated by unknown parties.
Hassan Tehrani Moghaddam was a missile designer killed in an arsenal explosion. Iranian authorities have declared his death accidental, Western sources and media suspect Israeli sabotage instead.
Darioush Rezaeinejad was a military scientist assassinated by unknown parties. The Iranians blamed the United States and Israel, the Americans denied any involvement.
Mansour Sattari was a head of the Iranian air force who was killed in an aviation accident.
Ali Sayad Shirazi was a general assassinated by the People's Mujahedin of Iran, a terrorist organization. They were trying to avenge their defeat in battle against Shirazi's troops.
Majid Shahriari was an assassination victim who worked as a nuclear scientist. The Iranians blame the United States and Israel for the assassination.
Ali Tajalaei was a military officer likely killed in action during the Iran–Iraq War. This remains uncertain because his body was never recovered.
Mohsen Vezvaei was a military officer killed in action during the Iran–Iraq War. He was most famous in the United States as the translator and public face of the students involved in the Iran hostage crisis.
So the category includes military personnel killed in action, assassination victims, terrorist victims, and accident victims. The only reason they are considered martyrs ("Shahid") is because Iran since 1979 has a habit of calling any conflict it is involved in a jihad. Which frankly, I have trouble seeing as NPOV. Dimadick (talk) 20:27, 9 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Martyrdom in Islam is rather different from that in other religions, in that those who die in the course of jihad are considered as martyrs. I suspect that Iraq (the other protagonist and Sunni-controlled states would not regard these people as martyrs, so that the category depends on the POV of the Iranian government. Such identification is a valid basis for a category but it should be something like Category:Martyrs proclaimed by the Republic of Iran. This wpould need a headnote explaining it and as being limited to post-1979 deaths. However, there is another class if Iranian martyrs - Christians pastors murdered by the Iranian state (or its organs), because they preached salvation through Christ. They are also "Iranian martyrs". Peterkingiron (talk) 18:00, 10 October 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Peterkingiron's rename above. Notable subject and category. Thanks. Ism schism (talk) 13:03, 14 October 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.
