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.--Aervanath (talk) 23:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia already acknowledges with categories marches and symphonies without mislabeling them "songs". That some things may currently be miscategorized is not a valid argument to miscategorize more things. If a specific or accurate category doesn't exist, that just means no one has bothered to create it yet, not that it shouldn't exist. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I do see Infrogmation's point though. I felt uneasy about the naming of Category:Songs with music written by Thelonious Monk a few weeks ago - though didn't comment as some of Monk's pieces have subsequently had lyrics added ("Round Midnight" for one), but many are not really songs, albeit sometimes Contrafacts built on songs, as with Charlie Parker compositions. As articles come to be created on more early jazz compositions by King Oliver, Jelly Roll Morton etc, the categorisation of popular music compositions as "songs" is going to feel more strained. AllyD (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Of course you felt uneasy about making an absurd miscategorization. So don't miscategorize things then. Why should you? If a proper category doesn't exist, create it. I note Category:Jazz compositions already exists, with subcategories already existing for those by Duke Ellington and a few others. The works of Monk, the ODJB, etc no doubt belong there, and only the few if any which are songs belong in any song category.-- Infrogmation (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If any of these songs are originals, then they need a songs category. It's possible that someday we'll call these compositions or something else, but for now they're songs, and they need an ODJB category like all other such works by artist.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The ODJB produced zero original songs. Their song recording was a cover of W.C. Handy's St. Louis Blues. -- Infrogmation (talk) 22:51, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how Palesteena isn't an original song by them. Even if you deleted the other two from the category, that song would still need this category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 06:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepCategory:Instrumentals defines itself as including "Articles and lists about songs without lyrics", and Instrumental makes no distinction to differentiate an instrumental from a song. In looking at the Category:Instrumentals, a substantial number use the word "song" as a disambiguator, with a very small number using "instrumental". Just in the letter "s", are articles for A Saucerful of Secrets (song), Sentimental (Kenny G song), Serrana (song), Signs of Life (Pink Floyd song) and Silhouette (song), and these articles do include categories for songs by year and by artist. There does seem to be some confusion as to the status of instrumentals as songs, but this seems to lean far more strongly to instrumentals being a subset of songs. As there are only a bit more than 200 instrumentals listed and a few orders of magnitude more songs, it would appear that there is no reason not to include instrumentals in this or other songs by artist categories. Furthermore, there probably needs to be a review of articles in Category:Instrumentals with an effort to add categories for sons by artist, by year and other appropriate song categories. Alansohn (talk) 04:08, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "songs" seems to be sufficiently descriptive. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:55, 15 June 2009 (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:Rename. I started the WP:DERM taskforce, and have been working to categorize dermatology articles in an organized fashion. The proposed categorization scheme is specifically at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Medicine/Dermatology_task_force/Categorization, which was developed from discussions at the main wikipedia medicine page (see that link for more details). As per that scheme, the term "skin" should probably be renamed to "cutaneous" as the scope of these categories are not strictly limited to conditions that affect the skin, but also the mucous membranes (i.e. inside the mouth, lining of the eyes, nose, etc.). There also seems to be a strong consensus in favor of using the term "cutaneous" in this context. For a listing of conditions being considered part of these categories, see the list of skin-related conditions. With that being said, if this rename is enacted, I will (1) add additional information to the category introductions discussing the category title in language directed towards the general reader, and (2) create redirects from the existing category names. ---kilbad (talk) 17:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename per nom, of all categories listed to their suggested new names, which will replace the term 'skin' with 'cutaneous'. ----Rcej (talk) 00:52, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong support per nom, renaming the cats in a more appropriate fashion will greatly improve the accuracy of the cats and further help in improving the quality of these articles as a whole (more organized cats makes things easier for everyone!) Calaka (talk) 08:28, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - as per nom. Bojilov (talk) 13:54, 6 June 2009 (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.
Agree the previous editor pointed out that according to WP:MOSTM we should use standard English text formatting and capitalization rules even if the trademark owner considers nonstandard formatting "official", which is our case. Debresser (talk) 22:56, 7 June 2009 (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.--Aervanath (talk) 23:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: For consistency with Category:Free software by programming language. The category originally had this name but it was moved; reasons for that move can be found at User_talk:Gwern#Category:Free_Haskell_software but that's personal preferences really ("I don't like it"). The length of a category name does not matter nor does the guessability of it. At least consistent naming of categories is more guessable ;-) Simeon (talk) 16:40, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Snarky Comment Someone actually uses Haskell for something useful? Hobit (talk) 02:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with rename. Have no opinion about "written" or "programmed". As to the comment by the previous users: are hobits usefull for anything but breakfast? Smaug (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Smaug for the win! Hobit (talk) 22:18, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support change. I would agree that "written" is slightly better than "programmed." Do others really have the energy to change all the other categories for such a slight improvement? I wouldn't bother. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:45, 15 June 2009 (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.--Aervanath (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These new category names more accurately reflect the nature of the categories, and also avoid using the demonyms for the countries. The proposed naming style mirrors the style in use for other multi-navy ship classes, like Category:Type 22 frigates
Support Rename to better describe contents of category and to match a standard productively used in other similar categories. Alansohn (talk) 15:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to a more accurate description. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:50, 15 June 2009 (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.--Aervanath (talk) 23:54, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepFast Folk was a unique combination magazine and record label that helped launch the careers of multiple artists in the 1980s and 90s in a genre that was largely defined by the efforts of the artists who participated in the cooperative. This is not simply a place where articles about artists appeared, or a venue in which artists performed. The fact that these artists were recorded on what amounts to the Fast Folk label played a strong defining role in the development and public recognition of artists such as Shawn Colvin and Suzanne Vega in a genre that would hardly have existed otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 13:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments by myself and others in the first debate. I think a clear case has been made that this is not "artists by venue", but closer to artists by genre/scene or at the very least, by label. I'm not currently very active on Wikipedia. I missed the second debate and nearly missed this one as well. Thanks to Hiding and Ten Pound Hammer for trying to contact me and to Chubbles for giving this thing another chance in review. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:38, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree with the original nom that noted the triviality of the category. Attempts to assert greater notability are to my mind unconvincing. Eusebeus (talk) 18:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my comments at the last CFD and DRV. I fail to see how this is a defining criterion for any of the musicians involved, no matter what Alansohn says. It still looks like performer by performance to me. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 19:20, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Too broad a set; from the Fast Folk article: 'Over 600 writers and 2000 songs were documented.' The musicians that did not become famous will never have an article, and the ones that did are not defined by being a member of the set. This information would be better dealt with as a list, I think. Flowerparty☀ 22:34, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Please also read the original debate and references there. Some of the more famous artist (e.g. John Gorka, Suzanne Vega) still make note of this step in their career within their personal bios. The New York Times has thrown around phrases like "Fast Folk alumni." There is no consensus to delete Category:Artists by record label and these artist have this and much more in common--they identified themselves as "a community of songwriters." I think number of artists makes a category more practical. -MrFizyx (talk) 23:00, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The previous discussion doesn't make a case for having a category instead of a list. Flowerparty☀ 23:21, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
True, but if one were to concede on the "defining characteristic" issue, I think one would be hard pressed to show that notability exists for a list, but not a category. When populated there were 60-70 artists included. This is a manageable subset including many notable members of the larger group. Your assertion is almost like claiming we should not have a Category:Bridges in Maryland, because some lesser bridges will always be left out and some potentially notable ones might not yet have articles (OK, I'm exaggerating a bit). -MrFizyx (talk) 14:43, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Legitimate category documenting association with a significant musical scene/subculture. Chubbles (talk) 00:33, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The year-old CfD discussion convinced me this is defining enough to be a category. Hobit (talk) 02:49, 6 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I had not myself heard of Fast Folk but the article provides plenty of evidence that this was not merely 'a performance' or 'a venue'. And the previous cfd is convincing. Occuli (talk) 01:08, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per convincing attempts to assert sufficient notability for our purposes. Sincerely, --A NobodyMy talk 17:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion rationale is a very poor fit at best. Arguments in favor of keeping category are well-reasoned, specific, and convincing. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz (talk) 20:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I'm not convinced that this is truly defining for everyone in the category. I think that Alansohn makes the best case for keeping by stating 'The fact that these artists were recorded on what amounts to the Fast Folk label played a strong defining role in the development and public recognition of artists'. This is clearly true for some. I guess my position would change to at least a Weak keep if we were to consider the category as one for artists that were part of a significant experiment in distributing recordings by new artists. Category notability is not a case for keeping since notability is for articles. I guess my problem with this discussion is that since it came back from deletion review, many of the replies have not really worked on making a case for keeping the category in this discussion by discussing the merits of the category. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep -- but only for those musicians that have clear citations showing that they are notable because they appeared in Fast Folk Magazine. No reference, no category. And having a well-maintained list should be a requirement for the existence of this category, so that the references can be gathered in one place for checking. While notability isn't about categories (it's about subjects of articles), we shouldn't categorize every musician by every venue they ever played, or by media -- those are not features that "defined" (had a significant impact on) the musician. Let's not move toward Category:Musicians distributed on compact disc. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:53, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not clear what you're proposing. The only claim being made is that these people released songs via Fast Folk. This is easily verifiable as the recordings are now all made available onlne via Smithsonian Folkways and these recordings have been cataloged many places. I don't see how this is uniquely different from other categories in Category:Artists by record label. Asking editors to show cause and effect regarding notability seems a bit much to ask and may not be possible within the NPOV. In any case, I think this is an editorial issue that can be settled elsewhere. -MrFizyx (talk) 14:36, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If it's not possible to determine the significance of the relationship between the artist and the magazine, via reliable third party sources, then the entire category is not permitted under NPOV. I'd thought the relationship was more clear and well defined, rather than happenstance. LISTIFY per Flowerparty. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 12:44, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no violation of NPOV. These artists all made contributions and thereby participated in this community. This is the verifiable fact. Lyle Lovett recorded and released one of his most popular songs here before having his own albums. It is cited in some biographies of his early career. Did it make him famous? Who knows. He also won a major songwriting competition at the Kerrville Folk Festival and had a song recorded by Nanci Griffith before having his own albums. He was a major talent and was going to become famous anyway. Expecting editors to show cause and effect or establish some arbitrary measure of "significance" is foolish and violates NPOV. Sticking to the basic facts, however, does not make this participation "happenstance." Verifiable facts must be the basis for anything on Wikipedia not someone's opinion of what makes a person famous. I have no objection to the creation of a list of the 600+ artists involved with the project, but lack the time or energy to do it. A list and category could compliment each other well. Suggesting that a list would be useful is not an argument for deletion of a category. -MrFizyx (talk) 15:10, 16 June 2009 (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: Small category, falls into WP:OVERCAT. — Σxplicit 00:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:Hip hop singers which is not subcatted by nationality (and the single article is already in suitable nationality categories). Occuli (talk) 07:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Occuli is right, as usual. Debresser (talk) 18:18, 6 June 2009 (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.
