Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2011 November 6

< November 5	November 7 >

November 6[edit]

Category:Branches of mathematical analysis[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 to Category:Mathematical analysis. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:35, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: There's already a category for analysis topics, Category:Mathematical analysis, so no need for this. JohnBlackburne^words_deeds 20:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree Category:Branches of mathematical analysis is useful for tidying up the Category:Mathematical analysis. It is not immediatley clear why some of the subcategories of Category:Mathematical analysis are subcategories of it. Category:Branches of mathematical analysis is a good start towards fixing this. I would also suggest similar categories for example Category:Branches of geometry Brad7777 (talk) 10:49, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have Category:Mathematical analysis, Category:Branches of mathematical analysis and Category:Articles on branches of mathematical analysis‎ argh, over-categorisation gone mad. Categorization is there as a navigation aid adding extra levels of categorisation does not help. trying to draw a strong distinction between a branch of something, and a particular techniques like Category:Calculus of variations is going to create more problems than it solves.--Salix (talk): 16:34, 11 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Category creator recently created two more categories, which I've nominated for deletion here. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 12:41, 12 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge back to Category:Mathematical analysis ('delete' leaves the subcats without a parent). Occuli (talk) 14:29, 12 November 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:Widgets[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. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:37, 16 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Widgets to Category:GUI widgets

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Clarify that the category is about GUI widgets, not software widgets or some other kind. In theory I'd prefer "GUI controls" but didn't get consensus to change the mainspace articles when I tried a few months ago. Pnm (talk) 18:34, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match main article. Pichpich (talk) 01:51, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename widgets also exist outside of software or computers. 65.94.77.11 (talk) 06:41, 8 November 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:People from Venango, Pennsylvania[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.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:People from Venango, Pennsylvania to Category:People from Crawford County, Pennsylvania

Nominator's rationale: Only one entry, doubt there will be more. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:20, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, as I found another in about 10 seconds. Keep as part of an established scheme of people from foo. Lugnuts (talk) 19:45, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge – there is no established scheme for places such as Venango, Pennsylvania with a total population of 288. Occuli (talk) 20:26, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as part of an established scheme of people from boroughs. The point is not the size of its population but the fact that it's a borough. Monegasque (talk) 21:39, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

A scheme which allows categorisation by sub-sub-sub-national units of under 1000 people is ridiculous and should be abandoned. Occuli (talk) 00:28, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So 1,001 people would be OK? Lugnuts (talk) 07:58, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously you ignore the fact that boroughs in Pennsylvania (and in some other states) aren't subdivisions of cities as you seem to think but self-governing municipalities directly below county level: Borough (Pennsylvania). Monegasque (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I can see that it's in the middle of nowhere rather than within a city. We don't have 'people by village', or 'people by unincorporated community' because they would split up useful categories (eg 'by county') into tiny and useless fragments, exactly as is happening here. No-one outside Pennsylvania would say 'I am from Venango, Pennsylvania'. Occuli (talk) 11:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

You keep missing the point. The crucial difference between Venango and an unincorporated community is precisely the fact that Venango is incorporated and thus part of an established scheme, which an unincorporated community wouldn't be. Monegasque (talk) 13:45, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"No-one outside Pennsylvania would say 'I am from Venango, Pennsylvania'" Because they wouldn't be from Venango, Pennsylvania, if they were outside of it... Lugnuts (talk) 13:37, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge as per User:Occuli's point Mayumashu (talk) 22:00, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth, what determines whether a "People from Foo" category should exist or not is not the place's current population in raw census data, but rather the number of Wikipedia articles that can actually be filed in it. After all, population changes over time, and Wikipedia doesn't apply arbitrary size cutoffs to its inclusion or exclusion rules — a ghost town with a current population of zero can still have such a category if it's had enough notable people living there in the past. And the place's incorporation status isn't strictly determinative, either, as we do have categories for some large unincorporated communities (such as individual neighbourhoods within major metropolitan cities.) All that said, I personally wouldn't create such a category for just two articles: if there were four or five, I'd say keep, but for two I have to go with the upmerge. With, of course, the proviso that the category may be recreated in the future if and when we have a few more articles about people from Venango. Bearcat (talk) 22:24, 9 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So you say "Wikipedia doesn't apply arbitrary size cutoffs to its inclusion or exclusion rules" and then follow that with "I personally wouldn't create such a category for just two articles: if there were four or five, I'd say keep" - so which is it? Arbitrary cut-off or not? Categories with one article are fine, esp. as you say there's potential for growth (ghost-town example). Lugnuts (talk) 18:32, 10 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

How is there any sort of contradiction here? Wikipedia does not apply arbitrary size cutoffs in the sense that a place does not have to have a specific population figure to qualify for a "People from City" category; whether a place has a population of seven million or just twelve has no bearing on the matter of whether the place can have such a category or not. That's quite different from the question of whether we have enough articles about people from that place on here to justify it — but it's a question of how many articles we do or don't have, not of how many people were recorded as living there in the last US Census. Bearcat (talk) 06:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Upmerge. I essentially agree that this is too small to be useful, and there's little hope of expansion. In fact, the bio articles for the two individuals currently included in the category don't even provide very good evidence that they are "from" Venango. All each one says is that they were born there, and being born somewhere doesn't alone make a person "from" that place. So I'd say it's simply not needed right now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:23, 17 November 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:Songs written by The Clash[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. This would be "upmerge to Category:The Clash songs" if they were not all already in that category. I'm going to suggest a precedent here: that if a song is credited as written by a band, and is already in a category of the style "(band) songs", it does not need a category for songwriting. Let's see if that sticks.--Mike Selinker (talk) 04:30, 20 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way. Making categories of songwriters by band member affiliation is a huge headache and not at all helpful to navigation. Previous discussions include The Bee Gees and The Miracles and Lady Antebellum. I would have no objection to the category being split, but as the article for Washington Bullets (song) says the Clash wrote the song, whereas ASCAP says only Jones and Strummer it looks as if some confirmations are needed in respect of the accuracy of the articles. . Richhoncho (talk) 08:37, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: In Sandinista! (Dec. 1980) and Combat Rock (May 1982), the band's traditional songwriting credits (Strummer/Jones) were replaced by a generic credit to The Clash in order for all of them to receive royalties. This is the reason why I've created Category:Songs written by The Clash. A Category:The Clash songs and a List of The Clash songs already exist. I think that ASCAP's data about "Washington Bullets" could be (is) wrong. But, the most important reason why this category (imho) can not be deleted is that if we delete this category, then seven articles will be not categorized by and under songwriting credits, unless we give credits incorrectly. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 11:04, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. According to List of members of The Clash there have been different members at different times whilst this category suggests that all 10 of them wrote each song! You mentioned Sandinista, one track from that album, Magnificent 7, according to ASCAP, is credited to to the 4 individual members from the "classic line up." If you want to split so each songwriter is individually credited I would applaud your edits, but this category must go, as per precedent. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:29, 6 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: For what I know, "The Guns of Brixton" was written and composed (and credited to) Paul Simonon only, while ASCAP atributes it to HEADON NICHOLAS BOWEN/JONES MICHAEL GEOFFREY/MELLOR JOHN/SIMONON PAUL GUSTAVE, which is not correct. And again, "48 Hours" a song from their 1977 debut album according to ASCAP's online database is credited to HEADON NICHOLAS BOWEN/JONES MICHAEL GEOFFREY/MELLOR JOHN/SIMONON PAUL GUSTAVE, while it was written by Joe Strummer, composed by Mick Jones, credited to them only, and at the time Topper Headon (Nicholas Bowen Headon) was not part of the band. About ASCAP & Topper Headon it's about the same with "All the Young Punks (New Boots and Contracts)", "Capital Radio One", "Clampdown", "Complete Control", "Death or Glory", "Deny", "English Civil War" (this is a traditional song arranged by Strummer/Jones on their 1978's Give 'Em Enough Rope), "Garage Land" does not exist, and "Garageland" is correctly credited to Strummer/Jones, "Gates of the West", GROOVY TIMES ARE HERE AGAIN was recorded during the recording sessions for Give 'Em Enough Rope but it has never been officially released, while "Groovy Times" was published within The Cost of Living (EP) and as a double A-side promo single (Epic AE7 1178) flipped by "Gates of the West", "Hate and War", "I'm Not Down", "Janie Jones", "Junco Partner" (the liner notes on Sandinista! reports: "writer, at present, unknown", but is a traditional song that was originally written by Willie Hall as "Junker's Blues". In 1951, Bob Shad renamed and rewrote the song as "Junco Partner", and credited it to himself and Robert Ellen), "Koka Kola", "Last Gang in Town", "Listen", "London Calling", "One Emotion", "1-2 Crush on You", "Protex Blue", "The Right Profile", "Rudie Can't Fail", "Spanish Bombs", "Stop the World", "Train in Vain", "Up-Toon", "Walking the Slidewalk", and "White Riot" ... all these songs are wrongly credited by ASCAP to Topper Headon. I fear that ASCAP's online database has/shows incorrect data about Topper Headon and I can't figure out the rest. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 09:31, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Fine. If you say there is no accurate non-primary source for credits, then so be it, especially as you argue so convincingly that Headon didn't write some songs, when the very category you are defending automatically includes Headon for everything anyway! Nor does it change that songwriter categories should not exist by band and the further fact that everything here is also in Category:The Clash songs, so the category is redundant, too. --Richhoncho (talk) 09:53, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
All the above songs, plus the seven songs catagorized within Category:Songs written by The Clash, as well as all the rest of their songs at the moment are well organized and categorized here on Wikipedia, while ASCAP's database shows incorrect data. There are more than 50 songs written by (and credited to) The Clash, 5 written by (and credited to) The Clash & Mikey Dread, and 2 songs "Guns on the Roof" (1978) and "The Card Cheat" (1979) credited to Topper Headon, Mick Jones, Paul Simonon, Joe Strummer. I am sure there are other cases in which the credits of a song are attributed to a band or a group seen as a single entity, the single recipient. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 14:15, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom--saying that a band wrote a song might be true in a sense, but is not useful for an ontological scheme. Who constituted the band at that time are who are actually wrote the song. Also, I would have pointed out the Bee Gees example from above, but the nominator already did--there is a precedent against this. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 01:09, 7 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I did a little research on Wikipedia, Discogs, Allmusic, and my collection of albums (vinyls and CDs), and I found that there are several bands/groups that are credited for writing the lyrics and/or composing the music. The following is an incomplete list:
A Certain Ratio, Audioslave, Beastie Boys, Big Audio Dynamite, Black Sabbath, The Boys Next Door, Butthole Surfers, Cabaret Voltaire, Can, Chickenfoot for "Alright Alright" on Chickenfoot III (2011), Chumbawaba, Cock SParrer, Cocteau Twins, Drowning Pool, Einstürzende Neubauten, Foo Fighters for Wasting Light (2011), Gong+Zero, HORSE The Band, Joy Division+New Order, Killing Joke, Korn, Minor Threat, Misfits, Modern English, Mudhoney, Muse, Opeth, The Offspring, Oysterhead, Pere Ubu, Primus, Popol Vuh, Porcupine Tree, Prong, Radiohead, Rage Against the Machine, Rites Of Spring, Siouxsie & the Banshees, Skinny Puppy, Slipknot, T.S.O.L., Talking Heads, The Adicts, The B-52's, The Clash, The Cramps, The Redskins, The Stooges, The Stranglers, The Sugarcubes, Tool, Tuxedomoon, U2, Wire, ... and many more.
Even if we delete this category, sooner or later, the problem will surely reoccur in the future. Furthermore, the purpose, the scope of these categories is to categorize all articles about a song (or a composition) by song-writing/composing and NOT by royalties. –pjoef (talk • contribs) 16:50, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response. And they will continue to be nominated for deletion as per precedent and policy like this category. BTW A number of the band names you have mentioned above have songwriter categories by songwriter, rather than marketing name. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:56, 13 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response I have Scott McCaughey/The Minus 5's My Chartreuse Opinion which credits Bob Dylan with drums--this is clearly fraudulent. We're not obliged to categorize by the conventions that others have on their releases--they can credit or style or capitalize however they want. What we do is decided by us and is no incumbent upon outside forces other than the standards of styling in professional English-language publications. U2 (e.g.) are free to say that "U2" wrote a song and that is intelligible and fine (note also that they haven't had a line-up change since 1977), but saying that "The Clash" wrote a song is slightly confusing as who constituted The Clash at a given time is not always the same and ultimately, songs are written by human beings. Albums are credited to bands/performers and it makes sense to follow that widely-used standard. It would be maniacal and unwieldy to credit every album to every performer on it. But songs are routinely described as being written by individuals or songwriting teams, even if this is not universal. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:34, 15 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm not 100% sure [but around 99.99% :)], but The Clash (as a single entity formed by Joe Strummer, Mick Jones, Paul Simonon, and Topper Headon, which is known as the "classic line-up") were credited for song-writing, music composition, production, and copyright (as Nineden Ltd.) for about all the songs written in the period from 1980 to 1982. Even if we know who really wrote the songs, Joe Strummer and Mick Jones with a few exceptions such as "Rock the Casbah", in this case, it is not correct to attribute the writing credits to each of the individual members of the group. We will make a mistake, an error if we attribute the credits of those songs to each of the members of the band into one of their related articles. Similarly, this applies to categories.
We can also add Dream Theater to the above list [see When Dream and Day Unite (1989), A Change of Seasons (1995), Falling into Infinity (1997), Metropolis Pt. 2: Scenes from a Memory (1999), and Octavarium (2005)].
Mainly, as in the case of Dream Theater or U2, many groups/bands split the music credits equally (or in the name of). The following are a couple of articles, the first published by The Guardian, and the second by The New York Times, about this subject: "Calculating the credits behind songwriting" and "The Statesman (Page 4 of 14) "U2 is also one of the very few bands [note: no, that's untrue, there are a lot] in which all revenue is shared equally; Bono and the Edge could have claimed the songwriting revenue but didn't."".
About U2, I see that the song credits, for example for "Pride (In the Name of Love)"'s article, are misattributed to/categorized under: Category:Songs written by Bono, Category:Songs written by The Edge, Category:Songs written by Adam Clayton, and Category:Songs written by Larry Mullen, Jr., while in reality Bono wrote the lyrics, The Edge and probably Brian Eno composed the music, and the latter, the music composition, must be attributed to U2. This is more correct than attributing the music compositions to those who have not actually written them. We are not a law firm but an encyclopedia.
One of the primary purposes of the category system, here on the English Wikipedia, is to provide links to all Wikipedia articles in a hierarchy that defines the characteristic of a topic, and, in the case of Category:Songs written by The Clash, in a way that produces the expected (and correct and best) results, which is something that is missing for example for U2. In other words, if readers want to know which songs by U2 were composed by U2 by exploring the categories (for the existing articles, of course) then they will miss this point, they will fail because (imho) all of those articles/songs are NOT actually correctly categorized. Happy editing! –pjoef (talk • contribs) 10:43, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

In which case, the simple solution is to merge this category into Category:The Clash songs as "Songs written by The Clash" is non-defining, unreferenced and a duplication of another category. I could also make further points about what people do in private cannot be verified (i.e. songwriting!) and ask you to consider the difference between primary and secondary sources which also applies to your comments. Cheers. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:33, 18 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]

PS. And just to confirm what a ridiculous argument is going on. Nineden Ltd is a publishing/music administration company. This is confirmed by ASCAP. A search of the company files at Companies House states that the directors are Jones and Simonon ONLY and the shareholders are Jones, Simonon and Lucinda Mellor - each holding precisely one-third of the issued capital. Limited companies CANNOT write songs, individuals do, which is pretty much why this category was nominated in the first place. --Richhoncho (talk) 14:13, 18 November 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.