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: There has to be a better name than this. Category:Albums distributed digitally is somewhat better, but a bit cumbersome and it has the same ambiguity that the current name has—hundreds of thousands of albums have been released digitally/through the Internet. As the inclusion criteria listed in the category's introduction makes clear, this is intended only for albums that were primarily released via the Internet, but Category:Albums released primarily through the Internet is even more awkward. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Does this category even need to exist? This could be every album in a couple of years. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Right now it seems to be largely a parent category for albums available only over the Internet (which is, of course, different from albums distributed digitally, which every CD is an example of, being a digital, rather than analog, format). "Internet-only albums" might be a better title or maybe "Albums legally available only via download." More important than the title, though, is the fact that many of the individual entries should be in Category:Albums free for download by copyright owner, but are wrongly- or double-listed. For example, Machina is double-listed, while U2.COMmunication seems to be a physical CD with a bonus CD-ROM that is activated over the Internet, hardly what's meant by the category. Reorganization should be just as much a priority as renaming. If we get to a point where online distribution of notable albums without physical distribution is common, this can be recategorized according to time period. Calbaer (talk) 23:19, 18 May 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:Delete all and upmerge individual albums to itsAlbums by year subcategory. This is an unnecessary category intersection as it is highly appropriate to categorize albums simply by year (eg. Category:1965 albums) per WP:Albums#Categories. Soundtrack albums have their own scheme to categorize as film, video game or other soundtrack type. The category Category:2010 soundtracks was deleted under a previous CFD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This difference is many people don't consider albums and EPs the same thing, and there have been many discussions on here about that. Live albums, soundtrack albums, compilation albums are still albums and I believe the further breakdown of those is excessive as well. A discussion has recently started on this overall issue on the Wikiproject page for albums here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are so many types of albums, singles and EP records released every year, that using categories would make sense. J 1982 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 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:Merge. Technical nomination. Found with incorrect merge tag. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 11 May 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.
Category:2008 hurricanes in the United States[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:Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Somewhat redundant to Category:2008 Atlantic hurricane season, but also inconsistent; "xxxx hurricanes in y"-type categories do not have precedence, and only cover two years in the United States. Additionally, they are not populated correctly. –Juliancolton | Talk 20:43, 11 May 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This seems like an extremely vague category; it could apply to millions of people. It could possibly fall under some sort of gender-studies category and be merged, but it only contains one actual page--Filipino men is actually a subcategory leading only to Men in the Philippines. doorautomatica(talk) 19:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- If this survives it should be as a parent only category. Articles should be categorised by country, but I am not sure that we need a continental categories. The parents of "Filipiono men" include "Filipino people", whose parents include "Asian people". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 12 May 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.
Category:Electronic music compilation albums[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 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. — ξxplicit 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - yes, if anything it's the others that are oddly named. Eg Standards Live is not in the categories I would expect - it is a 'Standards Trio album'. There are a lot of these albums in all. I would have preferred several self-standing categories - we have Category:The Beatles albums and Category:John Lennon albums and do not attempt to make one a subcat of the other. Occuli (talk) 09:23, 11 May 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:keep. — ξxplicit 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Queens is the exception, not the rule. The main article is at Brooklyn, as it ought to be, considering the population of the New York borough exceeds the population of all other Brooklyns combined, and references to it in media and literature probably exceed references to other Brooklyns by orders of magnitude.- choster (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main article is Brooklyn. Lugnuts (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. jonkerz♠ 06:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; maintain match to article title. Unlike Queens, the New York City borough is primary usage for the name Brooklyn. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category pages do not follow WP:Common name nor necessary follow the naming corresponding article pages where disambiguation is necessary or beneficial Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 14 May 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:keep. — ξxplicit 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; maintain match to article title. Unlike Queens, the New York City borough is primary usage for the name Manhattan. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Who has heard of Manhattan, Kansas, except the locals? The better solution is to retain the present name, but ensure that there is a hatnote dealing with the dab issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In fairness, many Americans know Manhattan, KS as the home of Kansas State University. Like Chapel Hill, South Bend, Princeton, Boulder, and not a few other college towns, it does punch above its weight in name recognition.68.49.46.66 (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both Brooklyn and Manhattan. I have had the great pleasure of visiting the former Brooklyn, CA and the extant Manhattan, KS, which have lovely people, scenic beauty and other merits but they ain't neither of them the real East River thing. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category pages do not follow WP:Common name nor necessary follow the naming corresponding article pages where disambiguation is necessary or beneficial Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 14 May 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.
Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 27#Category:Internet albums. — ξxplicit 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)