Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2014 June 6

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 5 June 7 >

June 6[edit]

Category:Digital health[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: I can't be bothered looking for the right link justifying the deletion. The cat is absurd on its face. Bbb23 (talk) 22:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete health informatics and subcats and cats like TeleHealth fulfill the need sufficiently.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 00:10, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment I'm curious because there's no rationale here. What's absurd about the term "Digital Health" as term involving information tech and medicine?__ E L A Q U E A T E 00:29, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmm, this category may involve a COI consideration. I'll investigate a little and bring it to the noticeboard if it's serious enough.__ E L A Q U E A T E 14:34, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete unless it becomes clear how 'digital health' distinguishes itself from its parent category 'health informatics'. Marcocapelle (talk) 10:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as redundant with parent Category:Health informatics and other subcats. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 15:28, 9 June 2014 (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:Visual artists from Indianapolis, Indiana[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. No need for merger to Visusl artists as that now has many subcats, and articles should be in one of those. – Fayenatic London 22:03, 11 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. This is the only "Visual artists from X" category, and it sticks out to have this one category be for a single city. LukeSurl t c 21:04, 6 June 2014 (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:Evangelical and Reformed Americans[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. – Fayenatic London 23:50, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category could easily be confused as the cross-section of Evangelical, Reformed, and American people when it is in fact a denominational and nationality category. JFH (talk) 17:08, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question: is just membership of a church a good reason for classification at all? Marcocapelle (talk) 10:08, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think not! But I will wait to see what other people have to say about this particular entity. Right now I lean delete. --Lquilter (talk) 12:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Most of these are ministers, so we could rename Category:American Evangelical and Reformed ministers, though there are other membership only categories.--JFH (talk) 14:27, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Many people deeply identify with there membership in a church, and it is a defining characteristic of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:53, 12 July 2014 (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:Christian festivals and holy days[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. – Fayenatic London 23:58, 12 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: the term 'festival' is hardly ever used when it comes to Christian religious holy days, so I would propose to remove this. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
For example, the Feast of Christ the King is a festival and not a holy day. Holy days are the days marked as solemnities in the Missal. Feasts and memorials are only considered to be holy days if there is an overriding reason to make them solemnities. Taking the same example, if a parish or a church is dedicated to "Christ the King", then the day of the Feast becomes a Solemnity and, for that community the day is a holy day. But for the rest of the Church to which the community belongs, it remains a feast day. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 07:28, 10 July 2014 (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:Christian holidays[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. – Fayenatic London 00:00, 13 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:: The meaning of the category titles is very similar and also the content of Category:Christian holidays is nearly all included in Category:Christian festivals and holy days already. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:14, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
(Note: see also the proposal just above, to remove 'festivals' from the parent category name.) Marcocapelle (talk) 16:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep—Athough the term "holiday" derives from "holy day", there is a distinction between the two. Not every holy day is a holiday—from work. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 08:44, 14 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment That's very true, though confusingly enough there are holy days included in the "holiday" category that aren't holidays from work (e.g. Palm Sunday). Next to that, should we categorize holidays from work at all (since that's different in every country)? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:12, 21 June 2014 (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:Station (Australian agriculture)[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category is a set category, not a topic category, so should be named in the plural, per WP:CAT#General conventions. See also the discussion at WP:Australian Wikipedians' notice board#Categorization of homesteads, pastoral leases and stations. Mitch Ames (talk) 14:13, 6 June 2014 (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:Calvinist theology[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:30, 19 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: While "Calvinism" is still a popular term for the Reformed tradition, "Calvinist theology" is pretty rare. See this ngram. I cannot find any books on "Calvinist theology " but there are several on Reformed theology, Reformed dogmatics, etc. Please note that we have been using the Calvinism category tree for a broad religious tradition, rather than any narrower conception which might be denoted by "Calvinism". JFH (talk) 13:32, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral: this is a tough one. Sometimes Calvinism is regarded as broader than the Reformed tradition (because Calvin influenced not only Calvinism), sometimes as narrower than the Reformed tradition (because Calvin is not the only person who influenced the Reformed tradition). At least I would say, let's be consistent. So if we are to use the term 'Reformed' instead of 'Calvinist' while referring to the tradition, let's do this in every category name. Marcocapelle (talk) 13:59, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding is that Category:Calvinism is for the tradition, not things Calvin influenced (that would go in Category:John Calvin). I would like to move Calvinism and a lot of other stuff to Reformed Protestantism, but I think I need to get some sources together to make that argument. As for consistency, RSes are inconsistent here, talking about the history of Calvinism but almost never Calvinist theology. --JFH (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
So far as I can tell, around here at least, JFH is right that "Calvinism" is used in place of the "Reformed tradition" and other options. I'm not particularly sure I like the alternative name better, maybe myself thinking Category:Theology of the Reformed churches (or "Reformed Churches," which I think I've seen most often, or "Reformed Protestantism", as he proposes, I don't know about the capitalization there) and allowing the Calvinist category to refer specifically to theology specifically relating directly to Calvin, whether within or without the Reformed tradition. I remember when the Calvinism WikiProject was started it intended to deal with "Calvinism" in all its forms, including within the Anglican and other churches, and that struck me as a kind of bad idea at the time, and still does. I definitely support the establishment of top-level categories for the Reformed churches, under whatever name. John Carter (talk) 20:56, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think Category:Theology of the Reformed churches would actually be a little bit narrower, referring to the official theology of churches (i.e. Reformed confessions), while Reformed theology refers to the theology of Reformed theologians. Reformed theology is a common term. --JFH (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose as proposed Christianity is not the only religion with a reform movement or branch. What kind of theology exists in Reform Judaism if it isn't reformed theology? Therefore the highly generic nature of the requested name is very bad. "Reformed Protestantism" is a better choice if not using Calvin. It should be clearly marked that this is for Christianity, and as Wikipedia has a technical defect in not allowing lowercase leading letters, any separation between "Reformed" and "reformed" is impossible if "Reformed" is the leading word. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a fair point. I would not mind using 'Reformed Protestant theology' for this reason (if not keeping 'Calvinist theology'). Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
      • I've never heard of reformed Jewish theology, but I'm fine with Reformed Protestant theology.-JFH (talk) 11:04, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • In Reform Judaism, the term "Reform" (e.g., Reform Jewish theology) is used very consistently, not appearing as "Reformed" or "reformed," so I wouldn't anticipate any confusion or offense on that basis. As evidence, comparing a count of Google results, "Reformed Judaism" gets 3% of "Reform Judaism." Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose per WP:Common Laurel Lodged (talk) 21:14, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • What? It seems like common sense that we should use terms which are actually common in reliable sources. Calvinist theology is not. --JFH (talk) 22:32, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Where sources are divided, go with what a reasonable person would be most likely to use. Most people have a good idea of what "Calvinist" means but probably less so so for "Reformed". This is even more true for people who are non-Calvinists/Reformed. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support: I prefer "Reformed Protestant theology" over "Reformed theology", but would support either name. Lwarrenwiki (talk) 16:05, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose the proposed name as too vague and ambiguous for a general purpose reference work, but I would not have any objection to the alternative "Reformed Protestant theology". Lankiveil (speak to me) 07:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC).[reply]
  • Support as an established term, and the potential ambiguity is not an issue in practice as Judaism uses "Reform" without "ed". As for alternatives, "Calvinist" is currently used to avoid ambiguity, so it is not a bad situation to keep as we are. Sticking "Protestant" in the middle results in a term that is not common; rather than that, I would suggest appending a qualifier instead: Category:Reformed theology (Protestantism). – Fayenatic London 00:13, 13 July 2014 (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:Religion in the Roman Republic[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 but to Category:Roman Republic, and without prejudice to re-creating it if multiple members can be found; the potential for growth has not been demonstrated. The person opposing merger has not explained why this additional level is worth keeping while it only contains Category:Religious leaders of the Roman Republic. That sub-cat is already in Category:Religious leaders of Ancient Rome which is in the target suggested below, Category:Ancient Roman religion, so merging to that one is not necessary or appropriate. – Fayenatic London 11:27, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is only one child category in 'Religion in the Roman Republic' which entirely refers to 'Ancient Roman religion'. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:21, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a parallel proposal from the same proposer on May 31. It might have been better for that discussion to have wound up before commencing this one. However, the proposal is wrong because it ignores the well-established tree category of 3 periods of Ancient Rome reporting to an overall parent of Ancient Rome. The 3 periods are the Kingdom of Rome, the Roman Republic and the Roman Empire. It's true that the current category is poorly populated but it has potential to grow. Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:05, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Request to closer: could you please leave this discussion open while mediation is ongoing? Marcocapelle (talk) 20:22, 24 June 2014 (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:Religion in the Ancient Roman period[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: Withdrawn by nominator. Lankiveil (speak to me) 03:09, 15 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge grandchild category into main category because they both refer to all religions in the same period in the same region. Marcocapelle (talk) 16:22, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is a parallel proposal from the same proposer on May 31. It might have been better for that discussion to have wound up before commencing this one. However, the proposal is wrong because Rome was one of the regions of the Greco-Roman world. Duh! What next - exclude ancient Greek religions? What about Judaeism - should that be merged as well? Laurel Lodged (talk) 20:09, 7 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Withdraw proposal. The proposal was based on the category title and a too quick inspection of its contents. After reviewing the contents more carefully, it appears that the category is broader than the title suggests. It does not refer to the Ancient Romans only, but to all ancient religions on the entire globe. Therefore the suggested merger does not make sense. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:40, 12 June 2014 (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:Janggi variants[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:17, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Currently, Gwangsanghui redirects to Janggi variants so this category has only one page with actual information, and what's the point of a category with only one article in it? It doesn't categorize anything if it has one article in it. Also it seems to me that this category will not expand beyond Janggi variants (a current stub) for a long time, and when Janggi variants is split this category can simply be recreated. Seonookim (What I've done so far) (I'm busy here) (Talk with me) 06:41, 6 June 2014 (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:2010s rock single stubs[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: upmerge to Category:2010s rock song stubs and Category:Rock single stubs. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:13, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge. Low populated stub category. Can be upmerged to Category:2010s rock song stubs (which itself was just recently created) and Category:Rock single stubs. --StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 01:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support. It's maintenance category and does not need diffusing. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:57, 7 June 2014 (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.

Island of Newfoundland categories[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: withdrawn; article is now at Newfoundland (island). Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: One IP user oppose speedy. There is an article is simply titled Newfoundland without the island name in brackets by undisambiguation. I was going to speedy rename to match the main article but it was rejected and the categories are going into a full discussion to rename the categories to match the main article Newfoundland. The categories must be renamed in order the main article to be matched and follow the matching article title. Steam5 (talk) 01:31, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment Category:Newfoundland offers 3 good reasons why this merge should not occur. But maybe the fact that the article Newfoundland (disambiguation) exists might be enough to ignore the 3 good reasons. Hmains (talk) 02:29, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There is an main article titled Newfoundland and title Newfoundland was undisambiguated by removing the island word on the article title to match the title. Let's see what other users say about that. Steam5 (talk) 03:30, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong oppose the province of Newfoundland and Labrador is frequently called just "Newfoundland", so this will cause an incessant maintenance headache, as provincial articles will get categorized here endlessly. Further, there's the former country of Newfoundland, which was just "Newfoundland". -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 05:25, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Support The category names should match the article. If anyone has an issue with the undisambiguated article name, that's a different discussion for a different place. This is the wrong place to be worrying that the term "Newfoundland" is ambiguous - have that debate over at the article, and this category should follow suit either way. While I would have some sympathy for 65.94.171.126's argument if this were Wikimedia Commons, where tens of thousands of files are being categorized daily, this is not Commons and here categorization is relatively stable, generates little work, and any errors are easily corrected. I'm hard-pressed to understand how a "maintenance headache" will occur (are we, for example, suddenly going to have an huge influx of new articles on the Dominion of Newfoundland such that we will suddenly be up to our ears in category management? - no.) Worries that readers and/or editors are too easily confused are never a good reason for disambiguation. And it's also a terrible reason to deviate from the norm of having the category name match the article title. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2014 (UTC) ::I note that the article was boldly moved to Newfoundland from Newfoundland (island) less than a year ago without any discussion. If anyone is concerned about ambiguity, I would initiate a reconsideration of that undiscussed move over at the article talk page and deal with the issue head on, rather than trying to fight a rearguard action here at the category by trying to keep it inconsistent with the article. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:36, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

  • oppose categories are sometimes overspecified compared to articles. Also shouldn't the people category be based on the province? The fauna cats should remain tied to the island.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 14:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
They shouldn't be "overspecified". If there is a problem, the problem itself should be addressed (i.e. an ambiguous article title), and we shouldn't be attempting band-aid fixes (category names) to address non-existent problems (the alleged maintenance headaches). Unclear how "overspecifying" helps anything. Agree that the people category should be based on the province. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 17:55, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
this is common practice - when the base name is ambiguous - esp a case like this where we have an island and a province both commonly called the same thing and accordingly different but overlapping scopes, a more specific category name is often used, whether you dislike it or not it's still standard. We try to avoid the 'but this is primary topic' issues by over specifying ambiguous names even if a so-called primary topic exists.--Obi-Wan Kenobi (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The common and standard practice, when we have an alleged ambiguity problem, is to disambiguate the article, not to compound a problem by having categories that don't match the related article. Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
OWK is correct, there are many cases where categories carry more specification than their counterpart articles, as categories require maintenance and articles do not, to keep out incorrectly categorized articles. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
No, he is not correct. He's pointing to a small handful of cases where editors, unhappy with the consensus over at the article, use lightly-monitored CFD discussions to create competing consensuses. And you keep talking about maintenance. In the context of this article and categories, please explain how this massive amount of maintenance (the "maintenance headache" you've referred to) will occur. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

*Hold this discussion temporarily in abeyance - Finally, a discussion has been initiated at Talk:Newfoundland#Requested move 07 June 2014 to move Newfoundland to Newfoundland (island). We should wait to see what happens there - if the article is moved, this proposal becomes moot (other than perhaps Obi's suggestion above about the people category), and by waiting we avoid simply gathering here in a month to have another discussion about these categories. --Skeezix1000 (talk) 12:59, 9 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

    • Even if the article isn't renamed doesn't solve the ambiguity problem in categories, as excessive ambiguity is much greater in categories than article names, due to the function of categories. -- 65.94.171.126 (talk) 05:13, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have an objection to holding this dicussion in abeyance, or are you just repeating your views from above? If the article name is changed, this discussion is likely moot and can be closed. If the article name isn't changed, then we can continue with this discussion. In either scenario, it's better than closing this discussion prematurely, which I can assure you is quite likely going to lead to us having this same CFD again, again and again over the next few years (and depending on how the article move discussion goes, this CFD could get re-initiated quite soon if we don't hold it in abeyance). Do you have any objections to holding this CFD in abeyance while we wait a few days to see how the article RM discussion goes? --Skeezix1000 (talk) 15:16, 11 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The main article for the island has now been moved to Newfoundland (island). For that reason, I have crossed out my comments above and now oppose this proposal. I still support Obi-Wan Kenobi's comment above that the people category should be tied to the province rather than the island. Skeezix1000 (talk) 18:16, 16 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
  • Since it's a strong oppose and the article change back to Newfoundland (island), I have decided to withdraw the nomination. Because the category and article have already matched. Steam5 (talk) 00:18, 17 June 2014 (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:Empire Distribution artists[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. – Fayenatic London 11:09, 14 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: As a distributor, Empire does not have artists signed to them, just artists they make deals with in order to distribute their projects, usually on a one album basis. To call them an "Empire Distribution artist" is incorrect. STATic message me! 01:17, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I'll be posting the label page here soon, if you feel the need to delete the category go ahead, though your use of signing isn't quite clear to me (if an artist releases multiple re-issues on a label in a new country, do they not count as one of the label's artists, for example? so, only artists that release original albums produced by the label count?). The label uses 'signings' frequently in its language to refer to its artists, perhaps you could direct me to some wp:alphabet soup so I'm able to better make the distinction. Earflaps (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]
A key thing would be multiple, but still I would say no. The main factor would be if the artist actually partnered up with the label, or if the label gained the right to release the material through a deal with a publishing company or something. I am happy you are creating the label page, they definitely deserve one. Yet as I said, they do not necessarily sign artists, the partner with them to distribute albums, usually on a one album biases. The category for the albums released by them works good as a cat, yet no so much their "artists". Notice they biggest independent distributors RED Distribution, Fontana Distribution and RBC Records do not have cats for their distributed artists either. STATic message me! 02:12, 7 June 2014 (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/2014_June_6&oldid=1138399601"