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. MER-C 10:06, 20 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category should be merged BACK INTO its parent, Category:Slave narratives, which it duplicated entirely, including the use of all of the original parent cats. It appears that the editor who created this subcat wished to separate out the articles about individual books from the handful of other articles on the subject, but that can be better dealt with by simply grouping those articles under a sort key at the top of Category:Slave narratives. (Notified Category creator using {{cfd-notify}}) Cgingold (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support per WP:OVERLAPCAT, as it seems we don't have any articles about slave narratives that haven't been published. Marcocapelle (talk) 09:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Support because the distinction seems to be meaningless. Slave narratives which were not published are either forgotten oral histories or written lost works. Dimadick (talk) 10:08, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:merge. – FayenaticLondon 10:41, 30 April 2016 (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.
Support, when looking at the content of the category it seems to be a case of WP:SHAREDNAME. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:07, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I can see the argument for issues of scope, but I think that WP:SHAREDNAME is not an actual issue here. While they do, at least momentarily, mostly possess the same "open source" component, if you read any of the articles, you will see that the designation is not a superficial one - it actually describes a real and meaningful way that each of the topics are pursued. In all due respect, I would encourage you to take some time to read any number of the articles categorized and see if you still feel that they are associated in name alone. Buddy23Lee (talk) 10:42, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I humbly admit my failings when it came to trying to name this category, way back when. I was trying to encompass the many and varied applications of the open source, if not philosophy, than perhaps phenomenon? As you can see from the examples in the category, open sourcing has expanded and grown well beyond software creation, and even just computer technology, to encompass a wide variety of different things, from drug research to music creation. While I clearly have no crystal ball (and am very mindful of the eponymous policy), I believe the number of articles that will emerge to become examples of this will really proliferate in the near to mid-term. While that's clearly not a valid argument for retention itself, and while I'm not sure how much open sourcing does or doesn't qualify as a "movement" per se, perhaps something like Open-source movement, might better describe what this category was attempting to encompass. Would anyone support the idea of renaming the category to "Open-source movement"? Alternatively, we might consider merging it with its parent category of 'Collaboration', but I really do think the ever expanding world of open sourcing describes a more narrowly defined/particular form of collaboration, with its own, well, philosophy. Buddy23Lee (talk) 10:30, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the two, it's hard to find a substantial difference simply in the articles currently categorized, or the main articles of either. In this sense, I could see the potential of merging such. My only hesitation is based on my personal ignorance (not being an expert on either) and wondering if there at least could be meaningful differences between the two approaches. Buddy23Lee (talk) 00:23, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Posted a notification about this discussion on talk pages of WikiProjects Open, Computing and Sociology/Social Movements. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2016 (UTC) [reply]
Anything that provides a clearer understanding to readers and sufficiently addresses any sense of scope concerns is something I would support, for whatever it's worth. Buddy23Lee (talk) 06:32, 14 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Free culture movement I actually am not sure of the best course of action, and could support keeping this category. I am suggesting a merge for these reasons -
"Open source" historically is used to refer to software only. There is no one managing the difference between the terms "open source", "open content", and "free culture", and some sources use them interchangeably. There is no one accepted term for "openness" but so far as I know, "free culture" is used as the term most likely to apply to everything. This is confusing and always has been because all the projects are called "open" then the philosophy seems to be most called "free culture". "Open philosophy" seems like a great term but I do not think it is popular.
Many of the items listed in this category might not actually need "open source" for their title. For "Open-source governance", for example, the sources cited do not uniformly use the term "open source governance". This and other articles might not be titled in alignment with the sources they cite.
I do not immediately see the distinction between this term and the existing free culture category. They seem to be covering the same kinds of topics, so by default, Wikipedia usually just keeps the older more popular category when a distinction is not made.
As I said, I am not sure. There could be more conversation about this. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:45, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly fine with me (I'd suggested this as one of the possibilities before.) Marcocapelle (talk) 09:37, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. This has now been discussed twice in the past month (previous discussion here). I suggest we accept the result for now and give it a rest for a period of time.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:17, 24 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep part of the master category Category:Songs by artist which states "This category is for songs by recording artist. Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded". If you want to change this, I suggest an WP:RFC, as right now, this nomination smacks of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. LugnutsDick Laurent is dead 07:43, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not at all convinced having all this single article songs by artists categories has any navigational merit beyond WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I'm not comfortable with a test case being based on "hate" for a particular artist though. RevelationDirect (talk) 10:46, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – United States of Whatever is a notable song, the paramount defining characteristic of which is the recording artist. (I am not convinced that removing a category altogether assists navigation in any way.) I have removed the category from Category:American rock songs which appears to be the nom's main gripe. Oculi (talk) 01:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the reasons listed by Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. That an editor dislikes the artist is no reason for deletion. I am somewhat unsure, however, if the "musician" part is needed in the title. The only other Liam Lynch with an article on Wikipedia is Liam Lynch (Irish republican), a general in the Irish Republican Army who likely did not write any songs. Dimadick (talk) 10:15, 16 March 2016 (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:President's Certificate of Merit recipients[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. Marcocapelle (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
During World War II, the top American civilian award was the Medal for Merit but nominees who were turned down for that could receive the President's Certificate of Merit as a consolation prize. Almost all of these were scientists and, while their articles generally do mention the award, its usually as part of a list in the recognition section. Having a secondary WWII-based award for civilians doesn't seem defining. (I've already listifed the award winners here). - RevelationDirect (talk) 02:19, 11 March 2016 (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.
