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. — ξxplicit 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Performer by performance. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 22:47, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like a pretty straightforward case of overcategorizing by performance venue. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:15, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- A typical performance by performer category, which we always delete. I do not know the show, but have my doubts whether it is worth listifying. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:02, 22 February 2010 (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:rename. — ξxplicit 02:43, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Aalborg has no City districts (They have no administrative power!), but more like some neighbourhoods. --Patchfinder (talk) 16:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Seems reasonable and there is no opposition. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2010 (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: No actual articles, just a redirect. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there is Agenda Suicide + a few others; but the redirect in this case is not useful and should be ditched (as there is nothing much about the song in the band article). Occuli (talk) 10:41, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as aid to navigation for this defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 23:13, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There should rarely be a "songs" category because very few songs have their own article. A List of XXX songs can contain redlinks (and such a list likely already exists in the band's article), whereas a category can only contain a song that has been found notable. The category misleads by suggesting very few songs exist. Sussexonian (talk) 10:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:35, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - as there is a song, Agenda Suicide, with an article this should be closed as 'speedy keep' (Category:Songs by artist: " Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded"). This is the established standard for 'Albums by XXX', 'Novels by XXX' etc (part of an established scheme). Occuli (talk) 10:58, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Part of an established category tree; it's acceptable for categories to contain only redirects. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:42, 18 February 2010 (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:Rename all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 10:14, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:07, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; it is common to drop initial articles in a proper name when used in adjectival form. No one says "What's your favorite The Beatles album?" or "Gandalf is a major The Lord of the Rings character"; TheOhio State University and TheJohns Hopkins University are abbreviated OSU and JHU not TOSU and TJHU; per WP:AT we have Philippines not The Philippines and Sudan not The Sudan.- choster (talk) 21:38, 19 February 2010 (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: Trivial intersection. All Chile-related articles with talk pages would go here, but why bother? Cat is manually populated, created in '07, and unchanged ever since. Ruodyssey (talk) 07:44, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. I shall inform WikiProject Chile, but suggest that they agree to removal of this category, for which there is no reason. BTW, this category is added automatically by Template:WPChile. The way to remove it is to add a parameter |COMMENTS_CAT=none. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, because the nomination completely misunderstands the purpose and usage of the category. This is a maintenance category applied to talk pages by a WikiProject as part of its maintenance, and not part of the mainspace categories. The nominator is completely wrong that "all Chile-related articles with talk pages would go here", because as with 365 similarly-named WikiProject categories, it exists to identify those articles where a comment has been added in relation to the WikiProject assessment. This is a valuable and unobtrusive way of identifying articles whose assessment has raised issues; it is not a category of "articles with a comment on their talk pages". --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:46, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Even if the nominator would have misunderstood the purpose of this category, which I doubt, I didn't, and I also see no reason to have categories for those articles which belong to projects and have talk pages as opposed to those who don't have talk pages. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The name is determined by the template, and all templates related to WikiProjects that allow for similar categories have the same structure, without "WikiProject". I think we should have neither of them and none of them. Debresser (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2010 (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: Only one entry. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:38, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As part of the wider category by country/nationality. If kept, re-cat this so it's in the European tree, rather than the all-encompasing director one. Lugnuts (talk) 09:00, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of a category tree. Debresser (talk) 12:39, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate and defining category within its parent and as an aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 18:47, 19 February 2010 (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: Only two entries, not likely to be many more. Can be upmerged into its two parents. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:11, 18 February 2010 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I don't think this category is really necessary. The article links to songs that use auto-tune, when it has been used for a long time and it's a trend at the moment. The category might be focusing more on the songs that excessively use auto-tune effect on songs (ex. almost all of T-Pain's songs should be here) but there are songs that minimally use auto-tune (ex. Kanye West mentions using auto-tune on "Jesus Walks", which is hardly noticeable). This category is just redundant to have and there is no specific purpose to do so. Might as well make a Category:Songs using vocoders. Esanchez(Talk 2 meorSign here) 05:31, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete trivial feature of category; even more trivial than songs that sample other songs, songs that rhyme "girl" with "world" (boy, would that be a huge category), songs that peaked at #2 on Billboard but #1 on Mediabase, songs on which Hargus "Pig" Robbins was the piano player, country music songs about dogs (which, despite the stereotypes, would have at the most three actual songs in it), et cetera. That, and Fast Ryde's "Top Down" got left out. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:45, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The use of an auto-tune is now no more notable than the use of compression or echo. It's just another studio effect. --Richhoncho (talk) 20:41, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not a significant characteristic, and an extremely common one too. Robofish (talk) 00:27, 20 February 2010 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:47, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure that this is a defining characteristic. Many shows are likely to enter syndication with their 100th episode, but some do beforehand and others never do. This is a trivial categorization. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:40, 18 February 2010 (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:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:43, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 12:37, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 15:08, 18 February 2010 (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.
All of the following are renames based on the name of the main article (Situation comedy, not sitcom)
Insome instances, I have omitted words like "television series situation comedy", so please read carefully, if you oppose those kinds of changes. Please forgive me if I have merged these requests in a confusing fashion. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:50, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If the consensus is to leave these named "X sticom" then I will nominate situation comedy to be renamed sitcom; there is no sense in the main article and main category having different names. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:31, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - the word television should not be removed as this widens the scope to include radio sitcoms. Tim! (talk) 17:23, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Mildly oppose. "Sitcom" has no alternate meanings, so making people type more characters doesn't seem worth it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:06, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I think the word sitcom is used widely, far more than situation comedy and is a valid category name. For me Sitcoms by country etc looks more correct than Situation comedies by country. In fact the name situation comedy is used so rarely that I had to double take just to realise what it meant. While often doing things formally is a good thing I think sitcom has wide enough use to justify keeping these categories. However, I 'd recommend moving Ivorian sitcoms to Ivorian televisions sitcoms just for consistency sake.‡ Himalayan ‡ΨMonastery 13:18, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The main article begins "A situation comedy, usually referred to as a sitcom..." and then seems to use sitcom throughout. It seems ripe for a rename. We don't like to anticipate these here, but in this case I agree with those above. Omitting "television" causes problems, & including it with the longer term gives some long names. Johnbod (talk) 15:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- Sitcom is a well known term. It might be appropriate to rename the ultimate parent to match the article, but the "child" categories can be left as they are. I assume that sitcom exists and redirects to situation comedy, but have not checked; if not the redirect needs to be created. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:06, 22 February 2010 (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:Rename all. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:17, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All of the following are navboxes that I propose renaming per their main category/article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:55, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In most cases, wrestling promotions go by their acronym so this isn't really a problem. I do not see the point is changing the names. This seems kind of trivial to me.--WillC 04:36, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support as ambiguous acronyms. 70.29.210.242 (talk) 08:29, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support the reasoning being we try to avoid acronyms in categories; especially ones that could mean something else. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:17, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nominator to expand obscure and ambiguous acronyms. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 03:55, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The only one that is obscure is TNA. There is no other use for "WWE" besides the entertainment company, same with WCW. So I Oppose. TJSpyke 23:28, 19 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. TJ Spyke is confusing ambiguity and obscurity. WWE may not be ambiguous, but it is obscure. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 16:05, 22 February 2010 (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:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 06:05, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the following two categories, I feel the existing names are ungrammatical. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:57, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support:--WillC 09:49, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support The proposal is, indeed, better grammar. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:15, 19 February 2010 (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.
Relistedattoday's CfD page. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:13, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
