Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 11

< May 10	May 12 >

May 11

Category:Internet albums

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 27#Category:Internet albums. — ξ ^xplicit 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Internet albums to Category:???

Nominator's rationale: There has to be a better name than this. Category:Albums distributed digitally is somewhat better, but a bit cumbersome and it has the same ambiguity that the current name has—hundreds of thousands of albums have been released digitally/through the Internet. As the inclusion criteria listed in the category's introduction makes clear, this is intended only for albums that were primarily released via the Internet, but Category:Albums released primarily through the Internet is even more awkward. Thoughts? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:41, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Does this category even need to exist? This could be every album in a couple of years. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:29, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Right now it seems to be largely a parent category for albums available only over the Internet (which is, of course, different from albums distributed digitally, which every CD is an example of, being a digital, rather than analog, format). "Internet-only albums" might be a better title or maybe "Albums legally available only via download." More important than the title, though, is the fact that many of the individual entries should be in Category:Albums free for download by copyright owner, but are wrongly- or double-listed. For example, Machina is double-listed, while U2.COMmunication seems to be a physical CD with a bonus CD-ROM that is activated over the Internet, hardly what's meant by the category. Reorganization should be just as much a priority as renaming. If we get to a point where online distribution of notable albums without physical distribution is common, this can be recategorized according to time period. Calbaer (talk) 23:19, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Soundtracks by date

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:45, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soundtracks by decade

Category:Soundtracks by year

Category:1940s soundtracks

Category:1950s soundtracks

Category:1960s soundtracks

Category:1940 soundtracks

Category:1941 soundtracks

Category:1943 soundtracks

Category:1946 soundtracks

Category:1950 soundtracks

Category:1951 soundtracks

Category:1953 soundtracks

Category:1954 soundtracks

Category:1955 soundtracks

Category:1957 soundtracks

Category:1958 soundtracks

Category:1960 soundtracks

Category:1961 soundtracks

Category:1962 soundtracks

Category:1963 soundtracks

Category:1964 soundtracks

Category:1965 soundtracks

Category:1966 soundtracks

Category:1967 soundtracks

Nominator's rationale: Delete all and upmerge individual albums to its Albums by year subcategory. This is an unnecessary category intersection as it is highly appropriate to categorize albums simply by year (eg. Category:1965 albums) per WP:Albums#Categories. Soundtrack albums have their own scheme to categorize as film, video game or other soundtrack type. The category Category:2010 soundtracks was deleted under a previous CFD. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:31, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/COI This is part of a larger scheme (e.g. Category:2010 EPs, Category:2010 live albums, Category:2010 compilation albums, Category:2010 video albums, etc.) whereas the prior nomination was not. This intersection removes articles from categories that contain as many as 5,600+ articles, and as such is useful and meaningful for navigation. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:46, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – how can Category:1967 soundtracks be part of a wider scheme but Category:2010 soundtracks not? (These 'wider schemes' all seem very recent and mostly created by 2 editors.) I would personally support deleting/upmerging all of them since these endless manual intersections serve no useful purpose in my view and waste a lot of time. If kept they should all be renamed to Category:xxxx soundtrack albums as it is a subcat scheme for Category:Soundtrack albums rather than the less specific Category:Soundtracks. Occuli (talk) 09:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Albums of film soundtracks are a legitimate subcategory of albums. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:23, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Soundtrack albums or Category:Film soundtracks are not included in this CFD. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We split albums by decade and year for studio albums (Category:Albums by decade, Category:Albums by year), EPs (Category:EPs by decade, Category:EPs by year), live albums (Category:Live albums by decade, Category:Live albums by year); I see no reason why soundtracks shouldn't follow suit. Category:2010 soundtracks was deleted prior to the creation of Category:Soundtracks by year, as soundtracks were not split by year at the time of that CFD. Now that Category:Soundtracks by year exists, I do not hold prejudice against its recreation. — ξ ^xplicit 23:16, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This difference is many people don't consider albums and EPs the same thing, and there have been many discussions on here about that. Live albums, soundtrack albums, compilation albums are still albums and I believe the further breakdown of those is excessive as well. A discussion has recently started on this overall issue on the Wikiproject page for albums here. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 03:26, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are so many types of albums, singles and EP records released every year, that using categories would make sense. J 1982 (talk) 19:25, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Air Freight Terminal

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 23. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 07:47, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Air Freight Terminal to Category:Air cargo terminals

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Technical nomination. Found with incorrect merge tag. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:2008 hurricanes in the United States

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:31, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Somewhat redundant to Category:2008 Atlantic hurricane season, but also inconsistent; "xxxx hurricanes in y"-type categories do not have precedence, and only cover two years in the United States. Additionally, they are not populated correctly. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Also including Category:2006 hurricanes in the United States. –Juliancolton | ^Talk 20:44, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom. Kittybrewster ☎ 18:25, 15 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Asian men

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:33, 19 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This seems like an extremely vague category; it could apply to millions of people. It could possibly fall under some sort of gender-studies category and be merged, but it only contains one actual page--Filipino men is actually a subcategory leading only to Men in the Philippines. doorautomatica (talk) 19:00, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. - The Bushranger _{Return fire}^{Flank speed} 19:45, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- If this survives it should be as a parent only category. Articles should be categorised by country, but I am not sure that we need a continental categories. The parents of "Filipiono men" include "Filipino people", whose parents include "Asian people". Peterkingiron (talk) 21:29, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Electronic music compilation albums

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:

Relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2010 May 27#Category:Electronic music compilation albums. — ξ ^xplicit 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Electronic music compilation albums to Category:Electronic compilation albums

Nominator's rationale: Per parent, Category:Electronic albums, not Category:Electronic music albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 14:21, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The name "Electronic music" covers a diversity of musics, which is reflected in the existence of the Electronic music (disambiguation) page. The content of the Category:Electronic music compilation albums is rather lacking on the Stockhausens and Orams; maybe this category should be named to follow one of the more specific pages referenced from the Disambiguation page - Electronic dance music or Electronica? AllyD (talk) 22:28, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Keith Jarrett solo albums

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. — ξ ^xplicit 18:54, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:Keith Jarrett solo albums to Category:Keith Jarrett albums

Nominator's rationale: If anything, the rest should be in Category:Keith Jarrett duet albums or Category:Keith Jarrett collaborative albums, as one would assume that they are solo albums until told otherwise. I think that upmerging is simply the best option. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:47, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comments - yes, if anything it's the others that are oddly named. Eg Standards Live is not in the categories I would expect - it is a 'Standards Trio album'. There are a lot of these albums in all. I would have preferred several self-standing categories - we have Category:The Beatles albums and Category:John Lennon albums and do not attempt to make one a subcat of the other. Occuli (talk) 09:23, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Brooklyn

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. — ξ ^xplicit 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Brooklyn to Category:Brooklyn, New York City

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate (see Brooklyn (disambiguation) and to be consistent with Category:Queens, New York City - will speedily list sub-cats for rename should this parent cat be renamed Mayumashu (talk) 01:03, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Queens is the exception, not the rule. The main article is at Brooklyn, as it ought to be, considering the population of the New York borough exceeds the population of all other Brooklyns combined, and references to it in media and literature probably exceed references to other Brooklyns by orders of magnitude.- choster (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Main article is Brooklyn. Lugnuts (talk) 06:27, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. jonkerz ♠ 06:34, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; maintain match to article title. Unlike Queens, the New York City borough is primary usage for the name Brooklyn. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category pages do not follow WP:Common name nor necessary follow the naming corresponding article pages where disambiguation is necessary or beneficial Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Manhattan

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. — ξ ^xplicit 00:58, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Manhattan to Category:Manhattan, New York City

Nominator's rationale: to disambiguate from Manhattan, Kansas, particularly, and for consistency with Category:Queens, New York City. (Will speedy rename sub-cats should this parent cat be renamed) Mayumashu (talk) 00:49, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Manhattan, Kansas is at Manhattan, Kansas because the overwhelming usage of Manhattan is, well, Manhattan. Queens is the exception, not the rule.- choster (talk) 02:18, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep same as Category:Brooklyn, main article is Manhattan. jonkerz ♠ 06:36, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose; maintain match to article title. Unlike Queens, the New York City borough is primary usage for the name Manhattan. Bearcat (talk) 23:16, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above keeps.--Epeefleche (talk) 01:55, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Who has heard of Manhattan, Kansas, except the locals? The better solution is to retain the present name, but ensure that there is a hatnote dealing with the dab issue. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:32, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, many Americans know Manhattan, KS as the home of Kansas State University. Like Chapel Hill, South Bend, Princeton, Boulder, and not a few other college towns, it does punch above its weight in name recognition.68.49.46.66 (talk) 05:52, 13 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Brooklyn and Manhattan. I have had the great pleasure of visiting the former Brooklyn, CA and the extant Manhattan, KS, which have lovely people, scenic beauty and other merits but they ain't neither of them the real East River thing. Jim.henderson (talk) 22:30, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category pages do not follow WP:Common name nor necessary follow the naming corresponding article pages where disambiguation is necessary or beneficial Mayumashu (talk) 01:00, 14 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.