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:upmerge. Kbdank71 13:50, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Upmerge as an uneeded category and per the result of this discussion. When the only page in the category is the main article, it is not needed. If by some chance new articles surface, it can always be recreated. Tavix | Talk 22:32, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Deletion and upmerge of contents per nomination. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 04:02, 11 May 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:speedy keep per WP:SNOW.--Aervanath (talk) 15:27, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: A category which contains one entry, and which will never contain more than that, because Sea Hags is the only album the band ever released and will ever release. - theFace 20:00, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Wikipedia:ALBUMS#Categories - "Previous discussions have formed the consensus that a category for an artist's albums should be created even if they have only released one album (irrespective of whether they are likely to release more in the future)." Lugnuts (talk) 20:18, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. I do a lot of this categorisation; I really wouldn't bother if they weren't within policy. J Milburn (talk) 21:17, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep to allow albums to be organized across artists and allow for future expansion. Alansohn (talk) 23:57, 3 May 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:delete. Kbdank71 13:52, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In addition to the rename-request I made below, I nominate this sub-category for deletion. It is meant for "adapted" songs, but about 90% of all songs Lead Belly recorded were not written by him, and can thus be seen as adaptations. This would mean that it would contain almost all folk songs by Lead Belly, if not all of them. Furthermore, it is sometimes dificult to determine when a song exactly is a folk song, and it may also be difficult to confirm whether a song is written by Lead Belly or an adaptation by Lead Belly. In any case, this cat currently holds only one article, so deleting it wouldn't be a disaster. Cheers, theFace 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the strong overlap with the existing parent means that this category is not now (and unlikely to be in the future) an effective aid to navigation. Alansohn (talk) 12:16, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every song recorded is an "adaption" in some respects. There's enough badly named cats in music without starting any new ones! --Richhoncho (talk) 12:33, 4 May 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 both. Kbdank71 13:54, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: See this discussion, which took place almost three years ago, and in which it was determinded that we should call him Lead Belly. This has been the article's name ever since. Cheers, theFace 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Oops! I created Songs written by Leadbelly and have nominated for renaming (Not sure how to add here!). --Richhoncho (talk) 12:39, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Richhoncho. I support the renaming and the preservation of that sub-category. As I stated in the "Folk songs adapted by Leadbelly" entry above, Lead Belly did wrote some songs himself. Because most of his songs are covers, a category listing those will almost completely overlap Category:Lead Belly songs, so that would be useless. However, a category listing all of his originals might be interesting. - theFace 13:54, 9 May 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:delete. Kbdank71 13:56, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category name is not in English and is therefore unhelpful in navigating the English language Wikipedia. Beeblebrox (talk) 19:29, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If the this was renamed to English, would it be a proper category? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. There are quite a few non-English category names, eg Category:Voivodeships of Poland. However I cannot find any other mention of zalchenkov; and to judge from Arsenalna (Kiev Metro) it might well be something to do with being at least 100 metres below the surface, which is an arbitrary inclusion. Occuli (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think what it means is train stations that are more than 100 meters underground, but as you say, even if we figure it out it still seems a rather arbitrary category. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:23, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - even if I knew what this meant, the fact that it only has two members suggests there's not much need for it at this time. Robofish (talk) 06:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete my Russian isn't good enough to know what a zalchenkov is, but it's Russian equivalent category's parent category is "Metro Stations by type" roughly translated, so it probably has something to do with a measurement of a metro station (depth seems likely) in any event, delete as arbitrary inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:47, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am Russian, but I don't know the word "zalchenkov" :) But equivalent category in ru-wiki is "Metro stations more than 100 meters underground", yes. Infovarius (talk) 09:12, 5 May 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. Every other categories considering Americans' ethnicity or race are simply spelled like "Greek-Americans", "Italian-Americans"... And "Americans of Polish descent" also have subcategories like "Polish-American Jews". Johannamo (talk) 20:55, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename [to Category:Polish Americans] per clear concensus on retaining the separate naming convention for American ethnic categories. This one is an abberration that got renamed from it's original name in a very anomalous CFD. (I would have sworn the mistake had already been rectified.) Cgingold (talk) 21:48, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Anomalous: "deviating from the normal; aberrant or abnormal". The outcome of that CFD was indeed anomalous. As I've already explained, when the US categories came up for renaming, it was resoundingly rejected -- so this category is an aberration. I don't know how much more clearly I can say it. Cgingold (talk) 09:17, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question: What is the rationale for the American ones being different? Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:27, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Very simple: these are the standard terms that have long been used in the United States, which is not necessarily the case elsewhere. Cgingold (talk) 02:54, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think we changed quite a few without any apparent inquiries into what was the local usage. My understanding was that they were being standardized regardless of local usage, and that this was being done mainly because the Fooian-Gooian format is inherently confusing. Why is it less confusing here for someone unfamiliar with the local custom? Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:18, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You're quite right that there were very few if any apparent inquiries into local usage. You may recall that I insisted at one point that the large batches that were being nominated for renaming be grouped in a coherent way, precisely so such issues could be raised. I suspect the reason for the paucity of such discussions was very simply the absence of editors from most non-English-speaking parts of the world. When the US categories finally came up, a solid phalanx of (presumably US) editors (including myself) opposed renaming for the reason I've explained. I'm sure you're already aware that these are indeed the standard terms here in the US, and there's no confusion about what they mean -- in contrast to what is the case for most other countries, where the ordering of the two terms is not standardized, leading to ambiguity & confusion. Let's not forget that the vast majority of countries do not, in fact, use American English terminology when referring to the ethnic or national origin of their citizens. So standardizing was probably helpful in those cases, but isn't needed for the United States. Cgingold (talk) 07:27, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One last thing: the use of thess terms is so standard in the US that there's a commonly used expression, "hyphenated Americans", which even has it's very own Wiki article. And that reminds me -- as the article points out, when used as a noun, the currently accepted practice is to drop the hyphen from the term (unlike when they're used as adjectives). So this category should actually be renamed to Category:Polish Americans. Cgingold (talk) 07:30, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While the hyphenated versus unhyphenated forms are not inherently confusing to the highly educated, many editors have never-the-less been confused! Cgingold is correct that the proper form would be hyphenated as an adjective ("Polish-Americans") before another noun ("Actors"), and not hyphenated as an adjective ("Polish") followed by a noun ("Americans"). But we cannot use that form for many of the existing categories (such as, "Puerto Rican", "Dominican Republic", "Saint Vincent and the Grenadines"). Therefore, the Wikipedia-wide consensus has been to change to a new form: "... people of ... descent". --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And as I pointed out, the US categories were exempted from that concensus. Cgingold (talk) 09:19, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Polish Americans (unhyphenated) per Cgingold. I don't especially like the inconsistency with other ethnicity/nationality categories, but in this case I think there's a good reason for it and this is one of the times that the American categories being different somewhat makes sense. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:48, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match its sibling categories and American practice. Hmains (talk) 02:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:American people of Polish descent (although possibly delete, as it seems to have very few notably Polish people). While there is historical practice to use a hyphenated name, 5 years of CfD arguments about the names of all these Category:People by ethnic or national origin has made it apparent that the form is interfering with the function. Earlier in the history of Wikipedia, we spent over 6 months hammering out a clear policy for Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Heritage. It was ignored by random editors that don't bother to follow policy. Over 2 more years at CfD, this compromise form was adopted after much discussion. Enough "American exceptionalism"! --William Allen Simpson (talk) 02:57, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oh please. Exceptions are made whenever editors feel they are warranted -- and not just for US categories. Cgingold (talk) 09:22, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That way lies chaos and edit gang wars. We have policy and guidelines to establish consistency and comity. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:54, 7 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I know I'll get in trouble for saying this, but lately I think there's been more of a desire expressed at CfD for "Australian exceptionalism" than the American type. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:51, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously, W.A. Simpson doesn't know that it's very poor form to make ridiculous assumptions about what other editors know or don't know. Cgingold (talk) 04:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you, Cgingold, for what may be construed as an apology for egregiously conflating "exception" with "exceptionalism" — although it takes a very strange form of self-deprecation, presumably intended to be humorous. Please strive for clarity. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed Compromise -- rather than debating these case by case, and Cydebot surreptitiously making changes without a CfD (as it did for Jewish-Americans→Jewish Americans), could we develop a comprehensive American guideline?
Any single word national ethnicity adjectives must have hyphen, even though the parent category and main article have no hyphen: Category:Polish-American musicians.
Will folks enforce these in the future without exception? Otherwise, the bickering will continue. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:15, 7 May 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. Kbdank71 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Again, not all awards in this category are for "Best Director." Proposed name is modeled along Easchiff's straightforward Category:Film editing awards and respects WP:NCCAT guidelines on non-capitalization of regular nouns. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:22, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to more accurately reflect content of category. Alansohn (talk) 23:59, 3 May 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:delete. Kbdank71 13:46, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. After thinking it through, I think this category should be deleted. A lot of technology-related things have experienced, and will continue to experience, revival. What's in the status of "obsolete" is always changing, I mean, the status of certain products. It's just like putting a category of "Obsolete video game systems" into the NES article. Who knows? Maybe, in a future decade, the NES hardware and software forms may be revived! Marcus2 (talk) 13:35, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If we ever see punch cards replacing bluerays in an average Joe and Jane's home use, then just change the cat. "Revival" or survival within a small niche (like what happened to old stock vacuum tubes) does not change the fact that technology is obsolete from the viewpoint of mass market and big money. Goodyear blimps still fly, but the technology was reduced to a tiny niche in mid-1930s. They don't compete with widebodies and they won't. Now, play that 8-track again :). NVO (talk) 18:40, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Upmerge. Obsolete is so wrong. Floppy disk drives are obsolete? Maybe not in heavy use, but they are in use. I'd consider a rename, but not sure what it would be. Likewise, I sure that all of the gammers using HD DVDs would be surprised to learn that they are obsolete. Clearly obsolete here is totally POV and ambiguous, that's why a rename could be an option. BTW, my zip drive still works well. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:56, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify the justifications can also be placed in the list. 76.66.202.139 (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too unclear about when exactly a given format has become 'obsolete'. There's no clear dividing line between 'obsolete' on the one hand and 'still in use' on the other. Upmerge the contents to Category:Computer storage media. Robofish (talk) 06:28, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete obsolete is in the eye of the beholder - one of my neighbors' dads still has his Apple II and uses it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 04:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. "Obsolete" seems to subjective. We all know that 8-tracks are obsolete; my 6-gig hard drive is also obsolete, but hard drives themselves are not. —Goodtimber (walk/talk) 04:08, 11 May 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. Kbdank71 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. To standard WP:MILHIST naming convention, which does not imply that the units were named 'X (or Y) Soviet Regiment. Buckshot06(prof) 13:20, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match sibling categories in its parent Hmains (talk) 02:31, 5 May 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:delete. Kbdank71 13:43, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Wheel Gymnastics category contains one article Wheel Gymnastics can't see it being required. Holkingers (talk) 10:51, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no need for this category. Robofish (talk) 06:26, 4 May 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:delete If anyone wants to create a list, either in the family guy article or on its own, let me know and I'll get you the articles. Kbdank71 13:41, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Being parodied in an episode of a television programme is not a defining characteristic of the song being parodied. We generally don't categorize songs by their status of being "covered" or parodied by others. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:53, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and as a close equivalent of "performer by performance" categorization, which is generally avoided. Cgingold (talk) 11:30, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, can this be verified? Tavix | Talk 22:33, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I know it has become "uncool" around here to use the term "cruft" but in the spirit of WP:DUCK I shall use it nonetheless. This is fancruft, on top of the excellent points made by the nominator. Beeblebrox (talk) 23:26, 3 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The argument that these songs are "covers" is not actually accurate. These songs are parodies, not covers, per say. Because "Family Guy" has become a major fixture of popular entertainment, what it subsequently chooses to parody also becomes culturally significant and should therefore be a category on Wikipedia. The same should be the case for other popular shows that parody songs like "The Simpsons". Howard352 (talk) 09:09, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Where did anyone say that these are covers? and why does the distinction make a difference? I mentioned that we don't categorize covers or parodies. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:29, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You may want to read your own nomination, which states that "We generally don't categorize songs by their status of being 'covered' or parodied by others." Alansohn (talk) 21:50, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've misread the statement, which is quite irrelevant to my question. My question was where did anyone say that these songs are covers. The sentence you quote is a general statement that we don't categorize songs by their status of being "covers" or "parodies" (note: I said "or" not "and", suggesting that they are different things). It is clear from the name of the category that these are songs that were "parodied", and not "covered". I've never said that these are covers, nor has anyone else. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To begin with, it seems to me that anybody who really cares about this would be far more likely to look for a list of such parodies in the main article for Family Guy. I really don't see a good rationale for a category, since -- believe it or not -- most of the world could care less whether a given song has been parodied on Family Guy. Beyond that is the issue I pointed out in my initial comment: if we have a category for Family Guy parodies, then by the same logic there should be categories for every other program that features song parodies. I'm sure many songs have been the subject of multiple parodies, so they would end up cluttered with multiple categories, all pertaining to what is, after all, a pretty trivial characteristic. Cgingold (talk) 11:00, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete. Definitely no need for a category, since the category would imply that having been parodied on FG is part of the song's notability. I could see a list in the FG category though. MatthewVanitas (talk) 07:08, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Clear delete, but listify if there are any more to be added. A list could add info on the parody version. - Fayenatic(talk) 20:57, 5 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - songs are not defined by having been parodied on a cartoon show. Don't care whether it's listed and it shouldn't be a pre-requisite to deletion. Otto4711 (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no objection to an after the fact list being included in the Family Guy article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:32, 10 May 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:merge. Kbdank71 13:39, 11 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Oddly enough, neither of these categories existed until 2 days ago. And what's really curious is that they were both created at the same time by the same editor. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}}Cgingold (talk) 11:24, 3 May 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.
Category:Wikipedia articles incorporating text from the United States Library of Congress Country Studies[edit]
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 (C1) . Magioladitis (talk) 09:17, 3 May 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.
