Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 April 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< April 25 April 27 >

April 26[edit]

Category:Buildings and structures in Blackburn with Darwen (unitary authority)[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures in Blackburn with Darwen (unitary authority) to Category:Buildings and structures in Blackburn with Darwen
Nominator's rationale: The "unitary authority" part is unnecessary as "Blackburn with Darwen" is not ambiguous, and the type of authority isn't used in similar categories for other districts unless the article about the district has similar disambiguation. Peter E. James (talk) 20:50, 26 April 2011 (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.

19th-century architecture 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: Keep. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose deleting Category:19th-century architecture in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Propose deleting Category:1800s architecture in the United States to Category:1800s architecture
Propose deleting Category:1810s architecture in the United States to Category:1810s architecture
Propose renaming Category:1820s architecture in the United States to Category:1820s architecture
Propose deleting Category:1830s architecture in the United States to Category:1830s architecture
Propose deleting Category:1840s architecture in the United States to Category:1840s architecture
Propose deleting Category:1850s architecture in the United States to Category:1850s architecture
Propose deleting Category:1860s architecture in the United States to Category:1860s architecture
Propose deleting Category:1870s architecture in the United States to Category:1870s architecture
Propose renaming Category:1880s architecture in the United States to Category:1880s architecture
Propose renaming Category:1890s architecture in the United States to Category:1890s architecture
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Articles in this tree are generally included only because they were built in the specified year. We have tended to reject categorizing buildings by country by year of completion as over categorization with the most recent discussion here. I will add and tag the subcategories shortly. These will initially be listed for merging to a parent category. Once I can verify that an appropriate specific year or other category is present for all of the entries the action will be changed to delete. Also, the other two categories in this series will be nominated once I can cleanup this one. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:02, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator's assertion is baseless: s/he managed to have a few years' worth of "[year] architecture in the United States" deleted because s/he came in early in the process, before they could be populated completely. Of course it's going to seem like overcategorisation when you don't see the finished work. Virtually every year's category has hundreds of entries (a significant number of which are in the USA), and no better method of subdividing has been proposed. For this reason, the decade and century categories are useful. Nyttend (talk) 03:08, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the nominator emptied these categories without discussion, dropping these categories en masse with claims (example) that the new categories were more specific than the old, even though none of the new categories were subcategories of the old. Nyttend (talk) 03:13, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Well, a specific year is more specific then a decade. A church category is more specific then a simple architecture category. And all of the articles are still in the US tree from other categories. And the articles that are still in the category are there because they don't support moving to more specific categories. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:18, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see this as over-categorization if hundreds of buildings could fit that category. Marcus Qwertyus 04:31, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And exactly how many of those articles could simply be removed from these categories since the article does not assert why the building is architecturally significant? Most of these do not mention anything about architecture, they simply mention when they were built. That is a a civil engineering feat and the building and structures year categories does roll up into civil engineering. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Even boring buildings are architecture. Civil engineering is roads, bridges etc. Johnbod (talk) 22:50, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, they are architecture, but civil engineering is much more extensive then roads and bridges. Even our article acknowledges that civil engineering extends to 'individual homeowners'. The issue for most of these articles is, are they defining as architecture? I'll argue that most are not. These buildings may be historically significant but are not defined by their architecture. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:41, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is architecture by year by country a notable enough set of intersectiuons for a category? Are we ready for Category:1820s architecture in France, Category:1820s architecture in Germany, Category:1820s architecture in India, Category:1820s architecture in China, Category:1820s architecture in Spain, Category:1820s architecure in Mexico, Category:1820s architecture in Japan and so on? If yes, than keep these categories. However if no, than why is the US special?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that none of the categories I listed exist should cause us to ask why this one does exist. Why is architecture in the United States unique enough that it is justified as the only by country sub-category, and in fact the only geographical sub-category? Unless someone can explain this, I will support the deletion nominations.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:22, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Exactly. The existing structure supports a breakout by bridges, railway stations, churches and synagogues but not by other countries. So building type is apparently the preferred method of dividing large categories. Adding country to the mix just seems to complicate the structure without any significant gain. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:21, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep From a Euro-chauvinist point of view, the US has hundreds of articles on very boring buildings of minimal architectural interest (plus of course many that are of great interest) that would not be written about anywhere else, and these are best coralled together. Only a few of the potential contents are in these categories so far. If all the articles on eg 1870s buildings that we already have were categorized in this tree, we would be able to start several other national categories. Johnbod (talk) 22:47, 28 April 2011 (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.

Convicted politicians by nationality[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:57, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename for sake of consistency and to conform with the format of categories. Karppinen (talk) 18:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)}}[reply]

  • Support The renaming makes it more clear what the category is about. The current names are potentially ambiguous.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:30, 28 April 2011 (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:Craigslist murders[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:54, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Craigslist murders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is pretty much useless because two of three articles in category will possibly be merged to the third one, and "murders linked to Craigslist" are (fortunately) quite rare... Karppinen (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2011 (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:Scientology controversies[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:55, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Scientology controversies to Category:Scientology-related controversies
Nominator's rationale: Rename. There are other categories such as Buddhism-related controversies, Christianity-related controversies and Hinduism-related controversies. I propose a renaming to make this category match this pattern. Karppinen (talk) 17:56, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent and sister cats.--Lenticel (talk) 01:06, 27 April 2011 (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:9th Queen's Royal Lancers[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:59, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:9th Queen's Royal Lancers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete Unnecessary level of categorization. Not clear that this will ever contain anything other than the main article. Pichpich (talk) 17:37, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It contains a sub-category of 36 notable officers/award holders which should be preserved if this category is deleted. I have now referenced it through the main article leaving this category redundant. Ephebi (talk) 22:52, 29 April 2011 (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:Rail advocacy organizations based in New Jersey[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:03, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Rail advocacy organizations based in New Jersey to Category:Rail advocacy organizations in the United States
Nominator's rationale: Delete Over-specialized category that's unlikely to grow beyond the single current entry North Jersey Rail Commuter Association. (Especially given the relative success of that association). Actually, I think the parent category should also be deleted but I don't think I would get much support for that. Pichpich (talk) 17:14, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support upmerge. However unless there are more Rail advocacy organizations in the US with wikipedia articles or soon come to be, it is probably best to move this category to some larger and more generalized sub-cat of Organizations based in the United States.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are other organizations and I have created links to potential articles on them from articles in wikipedia that mention them. I am not sure if any of these groups fit the notability criteria. This is largely because I have not studied notability criteria for groups, so I defer to those who better understand the groups and notability rules to try and create such articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Certainly the National Association of Railroad Passengers (NARP) in the US and all its state chapters fit into this category. (NARP's Wikipedia article highlights "passenger rail advocacy" as its purpose/focus. It sounds like I wasn't the first one to think of this category.) Please note that there are also non-NARP affiliated organizations that do much of the same work but have yet to be written about on Wikipedia. North Jersey Rail Commuter Association is hardly unique in this regard. The reason why I created the category is that none of the existing categories really describes what a rail advocacy group does. The non-profit, non-partisan labels are too broad in my opinion. Perhaps over time we'll see more groups add their organizations to Wikipedia. Wally From Columbia (NJ) (talk) 17:57, 1 May 2011 (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:Video game journalists/reviewers[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Video game journalists/reviewers to Category:Video game critics
Nominator's rationale: Merge The first name indicates a slightly wider scope but the introductory sentence to the "critics" category explicitly widens it to journalists who cover the topic. I think it makes more sense to merge to the (original) critics category since the bulk of coverage of the VG industry is review-oriented. Pichpich (talk) 16:41, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, do it. I didn't know. Logan The Master (talk) 14:30, 4 May 2011 (UTC)Logan The Master[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:WikiProject on User Warnings/external[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging
Nominator's rationale: These categories are intended to separate "internal" and "external" pages used by WikiProject User warnings. However, the total effect of the categories is to separate just six pages from the twelve that are in the main category; merging everything into the main category will leave a category with still less than 20 pages (not enough to necessitate a split). In addition, separating internal and external pages can be accomplished using Special:PrefixIndex to identify subpages of the main project page. -- Black Falcon (talk) 16:15, 26 April 2011 (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:Rangoon University alumni[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:56, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rangoon University alumni to Category:University of Yangon alumni
Nominator's rationale: Rangoon University was renamed University of Yangon in 1989 when the Burmese military government reverted to more traditional spellings. This is a tricky issue, since the names often break along pro-democracy/pro-military fault lines. (See [1]) Generally the current consensus in academic work seems to be that Yangon is preferable to the colonial sounding "Rangoon," even if sources are still split on whether "Myanmar" or "Burma" is the preferred country name. In any case, though, since Wikipedia lists the university itself as University of Yangon and in the category Category:Universities and colleges in Yangon, I'd suggest that this category should match; I'd assume that in most other cases we recognize the legitimacy of a university's renaming. What do you think? -- Khazar (talk) 14:55, 26 April 2011 (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:Brazilian Catholics[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: Do not merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:04, 7 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Brazilian Catholics to Category:Brazilian Roman Catholics
Nominator's rationale: Has only three pages...is essentially redundant to Category:Brazilian Roman Catholics. Propose merge Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 08:46, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – has the nom looked at the 3 pages? These are very much not 'Roman'. Occuli (talk) 11:29, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Of the three pages, one of them is Roman Catholic, and the remaining two just aren't enough to justify having a category of their own Purplebackpack89≈≈≈≈ 15:10, 17 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support Merge (Delete?), likewise for all Fooian Catholics. Any who are not Roman Catholics (in the usual sense), classify them in subcategories of Category:Traditionalist Catholics or Category:Old Catholicism. Several subcategories of Category:Traditionalist Catholics by nationality have only one or two articles in them. Hugo999 (talk) 13:38, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
That wouldn't work for many of the FOOian categories, since there are also FOOian Eastern Catholics: see Category:Eastern Catholics by nationality. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:56, 23 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't merge. The "Catholics" tree is not redundant to the "Roman Catholics" tree, and in this case one subcategory plus 3 articles seems sufficient for a category for Catholics. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:03, 25 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • do not merge for the reasons above and this is part of a well-established category structure. Hmains (talk) 02:52, 27 April 2011 (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:EMBO members[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: Rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:01, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:EMBO members to Category:Members of the European Molecular Biology Organization
Nominator's rationale: Rename Acronym should be expanded. I suppose this is a speedy candidate but some might question the very relevance of the category. Pichpich (talk) 23:03, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. An important organization, but the acronynm is not well known. GcSwRhIc (talk) 23:30, 18 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • leave unchanged, the full acronym is a bit of a mouthful and the category page links to the relevant info. Also comes up in a logical place in google results google.com/search?q=EMBO+members Duncan.Hull (talk) 08:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • The acronym attracts 12 times as many ghits (at 3.2 million), but then the first page includes a Wookie bounty hunter. I have heard EMBO used as a word/name, and have never seen the expansion. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:33, 20 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dana boomer (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2011 (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:Places of interest in Kolkata[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: Merge. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Places of interest in Kolkata to Category:Visitor attractions in Kolkata
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge The new "places of interest" cat doesn't seem to have a different purpose. The "of interest" part makes it seem very subjective whereas the "visitor attraction" label is somewhat more objective and is the standard name in any case. Pichpich (talk) 12:45, 26 April 2011 (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 episodes directed by Michael Dorn[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. Timrollpickering (talk) 16:02, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Television episodes directed by Michael Dorn (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Per Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 March 19#Category:Television episodes by director - this category appears to have been missed by the user listing all these categories. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:01, 26 April 2011 (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:Music published by Northern Songs[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: No consensus to delete; clearest consensus to rename. Timrollpickering (talk) 13:11, 21 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Music published by Northern Songs to Category:Songs published by Northern Songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Delete. (see explantion below) I have nominatated this category for a change of name because all (nearly?) are songs, and music publishers copyright the lyrics as well. The present category title suggests that they only copyright the music. I am not convinced my suggested change is the best available. Although I have in the past considered creating similar categories I went off the idea for several reasons. These are :
  1. The articles, rarely, if ever contain a reference concerning who the publisher is
  2. Therefore I am not convinced that is is not a trivial intersection.
  3. The copyrights for many songs have been traded quite extensively and there have been many mergers and acquisitions in the music industry over the past 30 years.
  4. The Beatles folio I have is actually published by Wise Group, so the category title should perhaps be, "Songs held in copyright by Northern Songs" as most publish publisher sub-contract the actual printing of sheet music.

As I said, I am not convinced to any great degree, save to say I find the present category name misleading, and the help of the wider community would be much appreciated. . Richhoncho (talk) 09:23, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. This would add a level of categorization to songs which seems quite obscure. The fact that Paul McCartney's MPL Communications owns Buddy Holly's catalogue might be interesting, but it's not defining to the songs, which were written before anyone knew who Paul McCartney was. That's detail that belongs (and is) in MPL's article, but there's no need for a category for it.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:50, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, maybe rename – This category tree is no different to any other category tree in Category:Products by company, such as Category:Video games by company, which is often just for video game publishers. I deliberately chose "music" over "songs" because I wasn't sure if something like a symphony counted as a song since it may not contain any singing but I see your point about "music" sounding like it does not include lyrics. Even if all the music published by Northern Songs could be called "songs", it's best to have the same name format for every subcategory of Category:Music by publisher. If it is renamed, Category:Songs published by Northern Songs is the best choice. McLerristarr | Mclay1 02:43, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – Maggie May (traditional song) is manifestly not defined by any connection with Northern Songs (not even mentioned in the article). Categories at the bottom of an article should (at the very least) arise in a self-evident way from information contained within the article. Occuli (talk) 19:48, 27 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Are you suggesting the category should be deleted because you don't agree with one article in the category? "Maggie Mae" (the Beatles version of "Maggie May") is published by Northern Songs. The information could easily be put into the article. McLerristarr | Mclay1 07:25, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • A defining characteristic is an essential part of an article, not something that 'could easily be added'. It is a tangential property of any of the included songs. Occuli (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, yes, it can be easily added. A reference can easily be inserted from the album booklets. The information should be part of the infobox really. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:09, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have checked Companies House and the "Northern Songs Ltd" that published the Lennon/McCartney songs was dissolved20th May 1995 - therefore cannot actually hold any copyrights. I notice at ASCAP, that the publisher is either given as Northern Songs Ltd c/o Sony/ATV Tunes LLC or just plainly Sony/ATV Tunes LLC. I not convinced that ASCAP would understand the formality of a UK limited company, but ASCAP, BMI and the publishing company usually list the copyrights owned/owners and contact details. For people in the industry this is all essential information and they know where to find it, for the rest of us, I am becoming less sure. Hopefully somebody will also update the Northern Songs article with this information! Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps the category could be renamed Category:Songs formerly published by Northern Songs? Even if the song publisher does not exist anymore, it's still a useful category. McLerristarr | Mclay1 04:06, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Having read the arguments above, I have decided that delete is the kindest option. There are several reasons for my change of mind, being,
  1. The argument that other companies have their products listed like this does not apply, because rarely do modern music publishers actually print sheet music. That makes "music publishing" very much a "behind the scenes" activity with little or no public interaction as opposed to record companies who are one of the public faces of music retailing.
  2. Very few song articles actually mention who the publisher is - in fact there are many articles (both song and album) that don't even mention who the songwriters are!
  3. In practice a songwriter generally assigns all their work to a publisher and I think a far more efficient way would be to add the names of assigned (past or present) songwriters to the various music publisher articles. The fact that this not done is further evidence, in my mind, that this category is a trivia backwater of no interest to an encyclopedia. I am not convinced a Category:Songwriters by music publisher is required or necessary, either.
  4. This category is almost a duplicate of Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney, which also makes it fairly redundant.
  5. This information is available to the general public via BMI and ASCAP and I see no reason why WP should be duplicating information from single sources.
Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 11:38, 3 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Apart from 4 and 5, they are decent arguments (although I'm not changing my stance). Northern Songs also published most of George Harrison's and some of Ringo Starr's Beatles songs and it did not publish all Lennon/McCartney songs, so it is substantially different. The fact that another website contains information is not a reason Wikipedia should not. There are plenty of websites that list every song written by Lennon and McCartney. Lists and categories provide a simple collection of information, which many other websites will also do. Perhaps the song publishing categories could be turned into lists. McLerristarr | Mclay1 14:22, 3 May 2011 (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:Other Prairie Saints sects in the Latter Day Saint movement[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 - When I created this category, I did not know it is SOP for "remainders" or "miscellaneous"-type category, to be contained in the parent category, I now do. As creator and only "author of the only substantial content" I see no reason to bother with a discussion, since I totally agree with the nominator and I am probably the only person who is going to even comment. Therefore, I have moved all items to the parent category, have tagged the category {{db-author}} (since this category is and will always be empty) and closed this discussion.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 13:10, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Other Prairie Saints sects in the Latter Day Saint movement to Category:Prairie Saints sects in the Latter Day Saint movement
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is a "remainders" or "miscellaneous"-type category, which are almost never used in categorization. Typically, contents of a category like this should just be contained in the parent category rather than be placed in an "other" category, since the scope of the category can only be understood by reference to what other subcategories also exist. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2011 (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:Sects in the Latter Day Saint movement[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: No consensus. Timrollpickering (talk) 19:17, 13 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Propose merging Category:Sects in the Latter Day Saint movement to Category:Latter Day Saint denominations
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Whether they are called "sects" or "denominations", these categories are duplicates and need to be merged. We could have a discussion about what constitutes a denomination versus what constitutes a sect and which is more appropriate in the context of the Latter Day Saint movement, but I'm not terribly interesting in involving myself in a debate like that. The target was chosen as the target simply because it is older and the nominated category is brand new. A reverse merge would also be entirely feasible if that is preferred. The main article is List of sects in the Latter Day Saint movement. Good Olfactory (talk) 07:28, 26 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to understand what you conceder a "Denomination" Acceding to Wikipedia "A religious denomination is a subgroup within a religion that operates under a common name, tradition, and identity." I can think of one other LDS denomination that is distinctly separate from the LDS Church and that the Community of Christ. However, that is the argument that has been going on at Talk:List_of_sects_in_the_Latter_Day_Saint_movement/Archive_1 for a long time.--ARTEST4ECHO (talk/contribs) 19:46, 4 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The view that the LDS Church is a denomination but that there are none other in the Latter Day Saint movement is clearly wrong, in my opinion. But even if it were right, how would that justify keeping things as is? If there's only one denomination, why would we need Category:Latter Day Saint denominations? Why not delete it and just keep the sects category? Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:39, 5 May 2011 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2011_April_26&oldid=1138394736"