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 - Totally POV category. Additionally, category appears to be added indiscriminately to articles without explaining how they are "victims" of this "Loudness War". WesleyDodds (talk) 10:50, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - An opinion based category with no reliable sources for the articles included in the category. Peter Fleet (talk) 10:58, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the waveforms on the compact discs that the audio is stored on speaks for itself there is no explination needed open the audio in a wave editor a picture paints a thousand words, a simpleton with no knowledge of audio wouldn't be able to tell the difference between high quality audio and low quality audio that has been affected by the loudness war. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Borgy (talk • contribs) 12:04, November 2, 2008 (please remember to sign your comments)
Stating that something is a "victim" of the loudness war is totally based in personal opinion, and is not an acceptable form of categorization. And yes, the articles would have to discuss the audio quality for such a category to be added. WesleyDodds (talk) 12:07, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Audio is recorded as a Sine Wave that rises in volume when there is an increase in intensity, a CD that looks like a Square Wave has been pushed to the point of distortion and is therefore a CD affected by the loudness war, it is not a personal opinion because it is a fact, the only time a square wave occurs during recording is when a guitar is run through a distortion effect… because that effect intentionally clips the signal leading to distortion.(talk) 12:20, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, please explain how the waveform if proof of anything? If a band normally plays at 110db, and the CD is 'recorded' at 110db does that mean that they should be included here? What about 90db? Or 100db? or whatever the maximum is for a CD? Vegaswikian (talk) 17:44, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - too subjective for a viable category. And there is already a sourced list toward the end of the main article -- a much better approach for this sort of thing. Cgingold (talk) 12:05, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: without reliable sources for these albums being "victims" it is purely WP:POV. --JD554 (talk) 15:00, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subjective and unnecessary. A CD being loud doesn't make it a "victim" of the loudness war. Should really be speedily deleted. U-Mos (talk) 16:21, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When has recorded music not be colored by the engineers and record labels? Why is this any more important of a distinction then any of the other tools used, say compression or expansion? Given that there is no subjective measure, inclusion would be arbitrary. Is this defining for the album or is this a common occurrence of the times? Doesn't this affect every CD on the market today since what defines the loudness war also defines the direction taken to deal with playing CDs in cars and on MP3 players? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:33, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hell, I'm even for publicizing this sort of thing, but not in such a blatantly POV fashion. Rtollert (talk) 21:28, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Linking to a section titled "Examples of 'loud' albums" increases the issue with a biased POV that plagues this category. WesleyDodds (talk) 04:32, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that section of the article should also be removed, sources or no sources. U-Mos (talk) 09:21, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well that could also be a reason to delete since a list exists that can be cited. We don't need to have both a list and a category in every case. No need to opine listify since the list exists. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:41, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The trend is objective, but examples generally are not. PiracyFundsTerrorism (talk) 10:36, 3 November 2008 (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. In case anyone wants to make a list I've dumped the contents on the talk page. Flowerparty☀ 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify - dubiously defining. If kept, needs something to indicate that just US networks are meant. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
If kept I don't know why it would need to be restricted to US networks. How common is network-jumping outside the US, anyone have any idea? Otto4711 (talk) 19:01, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you could have it air on one network in the US and another in a different country, right? I'm beginning to like the listify option. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:35, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You're talking about syndication, and we've already had a number of CFDs that establish that we don't categorize TV shows based on being syndicated to other countries. That distinction should be noted in the category description, or perhaps Category:Television series that changed networks during their broadcast run would be more specific. I don't strongly care, btw, whether this is kept or listified. Otto4711 (talk) 20:16, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What about those shows that are aired on two networks during the first release? Don't some of the USA network show air earlier in the same week on other networks? Sorry, but I don't remember any of the program names right now, but I believe that the USA network produces the shows. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
One example is Heroes, that airs on Monday nights on NBC and is (or was, not sure if they're still doing it) re-broadcast on other stations later in the week (the SciFi channel initially and then G4, IIRC). That wouldn't be an example of changing networks, though, because the show never left its original network. Otto4711 (talk) 20:20, 3 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So is that what is intended by Category:Television series that aired on multiple networks? If so then that proposal is OK and it can be well populated. However I wonder when that might cross the line into OCAT. How would we deal with shows on BBC America that were first shown on the BBC, would they be included? What about all of the shows on CNBC that were previously carried by another NBC brand network? Is this defining or an item of interest? Is listing in the show's article sufficient or do we really need a category? The more I think about this the more I lean towards deleting. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:05, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think you're over-thinking this. The category is meant to capture television series that started their broadcast run on one network and, in the course of their broadcast run, stopped being broadcast by that network and started being broadcast on another. For example, Wonder Woman (TV series) started its broadcast run on ABC and then switched to CBS after one season. The category is not intended to capture series that air on one network and then are syndicated to other networks (BBC to BBC-A) or for series that are broadcast on one network and then re-broadcast on another network owned by the same parent company (NBC to CNBC). Otto4711 (talk) 11:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Listify/Delete - Mostly because it would allow for presenting the "multiple networks". - jc37 16:37, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Listify. The discussion above convinces me that the category name here would be an issue. The point raised by jc37 about listing the multiple networks is valid and it allows for dealing with multiple networks at the same time. What I think is the scope proposed above might be overly narrow and the list is the better solution here. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 7 November 2008 (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 all. Flowerparty☀ 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Category:Churches by continent is not clear. Even with a note about the intended contents (buildings) there would still denominations of churches put in these categories. This rationale follows CfD: Oct 17: Category:Churches and follows the names of the parent categories. --Carlaude(talk) 04:22, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom; supported by recent precedents to distinguish buildings from organisations. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:41, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom & GO. Johnbod (talk) 17:59, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- "Church" may refer to a building, the people who worship in it, a denomination, etc. This ambiguity is inevitable. If this change is to be made, ALL subcategories MUST be tagged, and some one must sort out articles that refer to the assembly of those "called out" to follow Christ (the meaning of ecclesia, whence we have the word "church") from those that merely refer to buildings. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:54, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There have been a number of precedents to reduce, & eventually remove entirely what is not an "inevitable" ambiguity. Where articles have significant coverage of both the building and the parish or independent congregation, they should be categorised in these categories and others as appropriate. Where the article is essentially just on the building, it should just be in this tree. Johnbod (talk) 08:46, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
rename to match the sister categories and to match the contents of the categories, which should be read. Hmains (talk) 05:39, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all. This is part of a long effort to fix ambiguous category names. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:14, 7 November 2008 (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. Flowerparty☀ 21:31, 8 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: as per ad hoc conventional name for people by ethnicity (and besides to differentiate from the language - see Ulster Scots) Mayumashu (talk) 00:55, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I don't know much about Irish geo-socio-political boundaries and such, but if I'm reading Ulster correctly, this is roughly the equivalent of categorizing people of a particular ethnicity who are all from, for instance, the US state of Kentucky or the Canadian province of Ontario? Otto4711 (talk) 20:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom, "Scots" is normal. To Otto - in fact not all Ulster Scots live/d in Ulster, just most. It is the equivalent of Cajun. A Scot who moved to Belfast now would not be an Ulster-Scot, any more than someone who moved from Paris to Gainsville, LA would be a Cajun. Johnbod (talk) 21:23, 2 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, there isn t, say 'Munster Welsh' or 'Connaught Germans'. It s a unique ethnicity type that in American English is Scots-Irish (people) Mayumashu (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This is an American description of ethnicity, not now known in Great Britain and Ireland. It refers to people of Scottish descent who emigrated from Ulster to America. In Northern Ireland, the Protestant communities of English and Scottish descent have coalesced, and there must have been intermarriage with those of Irish descent as some of the Unionist political leader have Irish surnames and some of the Catholic politicians non-Irish ones. Scot is an acceptable noun for a Scottish person, so tha tthe suffix "People" is redundant. The noun can hardly apply to anything but people. This needs to be determined by those familiar with American usage. (An Englishman) Peterkingiron (talk) 23:04, 4 November 2008 (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.
