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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:57, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This is a recent creation. I'm amazed that this category hasn't been created/discussed in the past, but apparently it hasn't been. We generally do not categorize people according to familial or parentage issues such as this. But rather than advancing a position one way or the other, mainly I'm just looking for a discussion on whether to keep this category or not. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:12, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete anyone who outlives their parents becomes an orphan. (People do use the word that way, regardless of how old one is when they are "orphaned") 76.65.128.198 (talk) 09:19, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
According to orphan, it's most often used in reference to children, though it's not necessarily incorrect to refer to an adult as an adult orphan. I think on balance that's right. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:21, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Good Olfactory. While it may be an important to note in an article if a person has lost their parents as a child, it is trivial to categorize and subjective as noted above.--TM 03:13, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not necessarily a defining characteristic. However, I would argue in favour of keeping the sub-cat Category:Fictional orphans as the characteristic is then generally more significant to the subject. – Fayenatic(talk) 00:16, 25 December 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.
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) 15:25, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Only four three articles (in addition to the main)--all can be interlinked easily. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:03, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Note I turned Karamu (feast) into a redirect--it was an unsourced orphan stub (the only inline ref was Wikipedia itself.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:07, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I've reverted your redirect from Karamu. There are many sources available with even a cursory google search. I've added two of them. I think the lack of articles on Kwanzaa is mostly a result of Wikipedia's systematic bias and not a lack of possible content. There are now 5 articles in the category and we would be better served to expand the content on Kwanzaa than to try to delete this obviously useful category for an under-covered holiday.--TM 14:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
FYI, the total is now up to 6. I see no reason this category cannot grow even larger with even the slightest bit of effort and research.--TM 21:12, 28 December 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.
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) 15:26, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This seems like a trivial intersection to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 15:50, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (as creator). There is a long history of International Socialist Women's Conferences and other specifically socialist women's socialist organizations. Socialist feminism is an ideology which specifically links women and socialism. I think it makes perfect sense to have a category containing both female socialist people and socialist women's organizations.--TM 18:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
No, I am not confusing it with anything. There are huge numbers of essays, books and academic articles written on the topic of women and socialism, which has been the standard for keeping other gender or ethnicity-related categories. So, if the question is, do women practice socialism differently than men? The answer is undoubtedly yes. Female socialists, not just "feminist socialists" (though they are primarily coterminous), is a sufficient category.--TM 19:31, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
To quote WP:EGRS#Special subcategories, combining gender and political orientation is permitted when the "combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right," in the same way that Category:Female heads of state and Category:Women in politics are valid intersections because they are widely recognized as unique. If this is doubted, I can easily provide dozens of academic journal articles, essays etc about women and how their relationship with socialism is different.--TM 13:24, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Sure Please explain to me how women as a class practice socialism differently than men, but not as feminist socialists. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Essentially all socialists are feminists. Also, can you explain how as a class women participate in politics differently than men do? Whether it is Women and Socialism by August Bebel (written in 1879) or the organization Socialist International Women (founded in 1907) or any more of the seemingly countless articles and organizations linking socialism and women, this is an independent topic which meets all the criteria for a separate category. Moreover, the primary focus of all socialist women is not socialist feminism. Nearly all socialists, male and female, advocate for feminism (which makes the category you mention somewhat irrelevant. It's like having Category:Socialist workers' rights activists), but not all women make feminism their primary topic. For example, Gloria La Riva ran for President in 2008 and, though she likely essentially all socialists advocates for feminism, she is most well known for making solidarity with Cuba a primary issue.--TM 13:43, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - trivial intersection, and arguably a sexist distinction. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:05, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
In what way is it "arguably sexist" and every other split on gender is not?--TM 01:24, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Socalism doesn't change because one is male or female. Perhaps those other categories shouldn't be split by gender when gender isn't relevant? - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:53, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Ever read WP:Cat gender? It says "A gender-specific category could be implemented where gender has a specific relation to the topic." Obviously, given the amount of research and writing done on the specific topic of socialism and women, this is the case. Going whether in the guideline, it says "As another example, separate categories for actors and actresses are not needed, but a female heads of government category is valid as a topic of special encyclopedic interest." Are female who identify with and agitate in favor of socialism a "topic of special encyclopedic interest"? I would argue yes. Could we write an article about women and socialism like women and Mormonism or women and video games? Yes, easily. It's not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument so much as an Wikipedia:Categorization/Ethnicity, gender, religion and sexuality argument.--TM 03:37, 26 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Female heads of government are an entirely different kettle of fish than females who are socalists, IMHO. The former are women who reached the top in a traditionally (for whatever reason) male-dominated area. The latter are women who happened to espouse a specific point of political view. - The BushrangerOne ping only 03:51, 26 December 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.
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) 16:36, 31 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category contains only NHL-related articles and categories.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:29, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there are many mascots for non-NHL teams though... so there is the possibility for growth. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 06:54, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have no problem with a merge currently with no prejudice towards recreating the category when/if non-nhl mascot articles appear. -DJSasso (talk) 19:16, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Going to go with keep now that Pichpich has found a hockey mascot not from the NHL. -DJSasso (talk) 19:03, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I mentioned Steagle above. We're going to keep a category to contain one redirect and one subcategory? That really doesn't seem like what we do.--Mike Selinker (talk) 03:28, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
You should check for university teams with mascots, there should be many more to fill the category. 76.65.128.198 (talk) 05:30, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
As yet there are not. Find me some articles (not just redirects) about other leagues' hockey mascots, and I'll withdraw the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:36, 23 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Mike, let me clarify my argument. I'm assuming that we agree that categorizing the Steagle Colbeagle the Eagle makes sense. This gives us two options: either categorize it in Category:Sports mascots (in which case we don't need Category:Hockey team mascots) or categorize it in Category:Hockey team mascots. Both options are perfectly workable but I think the second one is slightly more likely to help readers find what they're looking for. Pichpich (talk) 15:35, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm not being clear. I don't think Steagle should be categorized, because it's a redirect. If Steagle had an article, I would be in favor of it. But it doesn't, so I'm not. And if it's not, this category is NHL-only, and thus should be abandoned in favor of the NHL one.--Mike Selinker (talk) 23:12, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Since Steagle Colbeagle the Eagle redirects to an article that has a section on the topic, I believe Wikipedia:Categorizing redirects recommends categorizing the redirect. Pichpich (talk) 20:55, 28 December 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.
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. I have several arguments for the deletion of this and similar named categories under the general heading of non-defining and the analogy is because I cooked my own dinner last night it does not make me a chef, therefore the catgeory should only include people who have been paid to produce, not just people who can claim to be have been involved!:-
WP:SONGS states, Per WP:CATEGORY, a song may be categorized by a characteristic (such as producer, composer, record-label, etc.) only if it is a defining characteristic of the song (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the song as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness). A suitably amended version of this is also in Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body
Record producer states, A record producer is an individual working within the music industry, whose job is to oversee and manage the recording (i.e. "production") of an artist's music. A producer has many roles that may include, but are not limited to, gathering ideas for the project, selecting songs and/or musicians, coaching the artist and musicians in the studio, controlling the recording sessions, and supervising the entire process through mixing and mastering. Producers also often take on a wider entrepreneurial role, with responsibility for the budget, schedules, and negotiations. As you can see there is a natural overlap between what a producer and an artist do, this does not make the artist a "producer."
The technical part of the job of producer is understanding and knowing how to use a mixing desk (especially before the invention of the undo button in the digital age) and is quite a complex task and the job of "production" is done by the recording engineer under the supervision of the artist.
The continual inclusion of redirects in these particular categories is misleading because there may be more than one version of the song and a production would only refer to a specific recording - not all recordings of the song. This category contains 3 members, of which two are redirects.
There are instances where somebody is credited with "producer" just because they are in the room, husband of, or just have the clout to get their name as producer on the disk label! c.f. Category:Songs produced by Yoko Ono.
The term "producer" for some artists is merely a way of telling their fanbase that they have "control of their product," but even then, this can be misleading.
In general categories in Category:Songs by producer should only include those people who are defined as record producers, or in addition to self-produced, have produced for other artists, this I interpret as contained in the guidelines anyway.
Comment. This nomination is in respect of songs, not albums, and the three entries only refer to Stevens' own songs. As you correctly say, if there was WP articles about other artists' songs, I wouldn't have nominated would I? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:39, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Response I'm still leaning toward keep on this, as there is a legitimate prospect for growth (unlike, say, Category:Virgin births.) Since he is a producer and not simply a musician who has Pro Tools and made a demo, I think it's legitimate. Also, it's never been clear to me when to make redirects for songs—it seems like there should be redirects for virtually every artists' songs on Wikipedia, so creating a category full of redirects would be appropriate. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 16:07, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further response. Actually Category:Virgin births does have legitimate prospect for growth, albeit outside the Christian concept of the term! That is not to say I or anybody else should support the creation of any category merely because there is prospect of growth. If at any time in the future there is an article for a song produced by Stevens that he is not also the artist I would have no problems whatsoever with the recreation of this category. Categories are the muscles of WP, without them the whole edifice would fall apart, another good reason why we should take care in what categories we support and which we delete. For me this category is a trivial intersection (see my more detailed response below to User:SilkTork, this category is no more a defining characteristic than Category:Female socialists you have nominated for deletion above and I have supported your nomination.
In respect of redirects, I support you with the addition of some categories, providing that category is relevant to the song and not to a recorded version of the song. In other words, by year of creation, songwriter(s), recording artist(s), but not by any category which is variable by recording, i.e. producers, foo-language songs etc.. Any category added must be supported by text, even if on the target page as would be the case for a redirect, for very obvious reasons, we cannot assume there is only a single recording of the song! --Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 27 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there aren't articles about other songs now, but they may well be written later - there is room for expansion. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:18, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If and when there are actually other artists' songs to be added there would be a prima facie case to reinstate the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:23, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep under the principle that producing your self is as valid as producing someone else. SilkTork✔Tea time 23:54, 20 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I made, what I considered a number of valid points for the deletion of this category. Nobody has actually bothered to refute any of the 9 points I made - specifically numbers 1-3, where I quoted guidelines or made the comparison with other categories that could be created on the back of this category. There have been 3 responses, one missed the point entirely - this is a nomination for songs by, NOT albums by, another on the grounds that the category may be expanded in the future (keeping it topical, how about Category:Virgin births on the grounds there might be another one?) and the third opposition was merely a variant of WP:ILIKEIT. There is no viable objection to my nomination, none of the three comments get past Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. No one has managed to dispute any of the points I made - I may have missed something that actually makes the category a reasonable creation, but nobody appears to have found it. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:19, 24 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If reliable sources show that someone has produced a piece of music, that is defining - it answers the common questions: "Who produced this?" and "What else has he produced?" An objection because the person produced them self rather than someone else, or because the music is a song rather than an album does not appear to be valid. SilkTork✔Tea time 01:45, 25 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Further response. As I have already pointed out, you can find reliable sources that Stevens actually sang on his own songs, does this mean somebody can create a category 'Songs that Stevens sang on?" The reason that this category should not exist is actually the same reason, it's primarily a duplicate category, being substantially a duplicate category is enough reason not to have the category. Specifically at what point do you think a WP reader will use the produced by category instead of the useful Category:Sufjan Stevens songs?
I am not familiar with Stevens, but for other examples of this you can check out Blood on the Dance Floor: HIStory in the Mix where you will note that Michael Jackson is credited as "Executive producer" not as THE producer, but with a heavyweight named producer brought in for different tracks. We all know what Executive Producer means in films, and it is the same for music. Also if you look at Category:Albums produced by Jeff Lynne you might like to note that for two or more of the albums the credited "engineer" is Bill Bottrell, a noted record producer. A lot of the John Lennon songs are jointly credited John Lennon, Yoko Ono and Phil Spector, who do you think actually did the 'production?' This is fairly standard practice for "self-produced songs or albums" - the person sitting in the engineer/producer's chair is a pretty knowledgeable hands on record producer. NB I am not saying that any of these categories should not exist as I haven't checked every entry, just trying to bring home the ridiculousness of categories that only contains self-produced songs/albums.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:48, 27 December 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.
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: Thoroughly unneeded category, linking together disparate groups such as a protest camp, several tax dodgers, cities which "seceded" to protest one action or another by the government, and a "nation" which claimed all of space. Horologium(talk) 12:35, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and because of that word "failed." WP:OR perhaps? --Richhoncho (talk) 12:56, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, that would not be a good parent category; the articles in that category are for former real countries, not fake ones. We already have way too much micronation cruft as it is, and mixing them in with real countries (even defunct ones) only makes the problem worse. Horologium(talk) 14:05, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge -- We do not like "former" categories. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Who is we? Have they done this search? Lugnuts (talk) 15:25, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"We" being Wikipedians and the consensus of many CfD discussions now.. The fact that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS doesn't mean we WP:DEMOLISH the ongoing effort to discard the "Former"/"Current"/"Defunct"/"Active"/etc. category types. Thanks for the list, though - that shows us what needs to be CfD'd next. - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:23, 19 December 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.
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 the Canadian and New Zealand categories; no clear consensus on the Vietnamese category. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:30, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category:Students' unions by country is all over the place due to differences in local usage, but I think in foo should be used over than fooish regardless of the actual names of the type of organisation used in particular countries. Tim! (talk) 10:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just checked the Vietnamese category which is different to the other two in that it contains association of Vietnamese students at universities in other countries. Shows quite clearly the name is ambiguous. Tim! (talk) 10:27, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Does that match the rest of the tree, though? If the tree is for associations-in-Foo, those should be removed. - The BushrangerOne ping only 23:20, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Except that matches no existing scheme, as far as I know, and is a grammatical train-wreck. - The BushrangerOne ping only 08:19, 19 December 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:Former North American Soccer League teams[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) 15:23, 29 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As "former"/"previous" categories are discouraged, I believe that this should be merged into the parent category. The BushrangerOne ping only 09:33, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support per recent precedent of former minor league baseball affiliates.--TM 18:31, 18 December 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.
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) 03:12, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category doesn't appear to have much potential for expansion, and isn't part of an overarching category tree. Only content is an article also categorised under parent Category:Citizens' band radio in Australia. The BushrangerOne ping only 08:58, 18 December 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:Establishments in the Thirteen Colonies by millennium[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. Note that the parent category has been deleted per this CFD. Jafeluv (talk) 01:09, 28 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Exactly how many millennium did the Thirteen Colonies exit for? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:10, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. - I'd agree with the OP, except looking at Category:Establishments by country and millennium, the same could be said about a good many of the other categories that are subcats of it, like this one. Yes, it's a WP:OTHERSTUFF argument, but there is a rather large category tree that this is a part of. (The tree shouldn't exist, IMHO, but that's a different discussion). - The BushrangerOne ping only 09:00, 18 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Category fits into a comprehensive scheme. The point is not whether it might be useful to navigate from the bottom up, i.e. from a category for one year's establishments in the thriteen Colonies, that's obviously not something we'd be interested in. The useful part is to be able to find all subordinate members of Category:Establishments by country and millennium. __meco (talk) 12:02, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- The converse to this would be a 21st cnetury category. We abolished the 20th/21st century distinction in category some tme ago as an attempt to re-create a current/past distinction, of which we disapprove. Since there will be little in America to be categorised before the 16th century, there is no need to have a distinction by 1000 years: the highest level for periods should be by century. There may be a case for a millennium category where there are a significant number of BC categiories, for example in Middle East and China, but certainly not in America. It is not merely this category but the whole tree that needs cutting down. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:06, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case you didn't happen to read my rationale for voting to keep this category, I think it addresses just the issue you are raising. __meco (talk) 20:00, 19 December 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.
