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. Kbdank71 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Overcategorization by name characteristic. Per WP:OCAT: "Avoid categorising by a subject's name when it is a non-defining characteristic of the subject, or by characteristics of the name rather than the subject itself." This category groups articles purely by a characteristic of the place name. There is nothing otherwise that unites the articles categorized here. If there's a desire to retain the information we could create a list. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:01, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – might as well have 'Placenames with more than 10 letters'. Occuli (talk) 01:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-defining characteristic. We might as well have "people with double-barreled surnames". Peterkingiron (talk) 23:55, 19 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete I thought that this might be better from the description, but a review of place names included shows that about the only thing they have in common is a hyphen. There might be some hope if this were restricted to places that have undergone some sort of merger, which would address the "purely by a characteristic of the place name", but that would be a challenge. Alansohn (talk) 18:05, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - a well-populated and interesting category. Could be useful in terms of geography and history. --Wassermann (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2009 (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:Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues[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. Kbdank71 19:01, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorization venues by event, said in the guildines to have "no encyclopedic value". I've recently tried twodifferent nominations of the same type to "test" and ensure that there is still consensus that this is overcategorization, and neither received any comments, so I guess we can assume that nothing has changed. This information is well-documented in Major League Baseball All-Star Game venues, so no information is being lost. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete venues by event, OCAT, per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:26, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the argument based on overcategorization is completely irrelevant here, and the retention or deletion of this category provides no litmus test on the issue. The fact that the information is listed elsewhere is also invalid as justification for deletion (e.g., we have Category:Presidents of the United States, despite the fact that they are all included at List of Presidents of the United States); per WP:CLN, lists AND categories are intended to co-exist, not to replace each other based on personal preferences. The relevant issue is that the virtually every venue will host at some point, meaning that the list overlaps almost entirely with Category:Major League Baseball venues and Category:Defunct Major League Baseball venues, adding little more for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 03:34, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just curious, but why exactly is WP:OCAT irrelevant to this case? The statement I quoted seems to me to be right on point. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We have a process here by which editors other than yourself are entitled to offer their opinions and in this case I firmly disagree with your interpretation of policy on this matter. The effort to shoehorn this category as a "test case" to push for deletion of other vaguely similar categories is entirely unjustified based on the circumstances of this case and the proper reason for deletion. If you feel that you can convince me otherwise, feel free to make continued stabs. Alansohn (talk) 05:17, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I just found it extraordinary that you said OCAT was irrelevant in this case since it's about a clear a case as will exist. You may've misunderstood my comments, because this is not a test case. Your rationale to delete is not as strong IMO, b/c there are MLB venues that are no longer used for MLB that never did host the event. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:36, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
"Extraordinary"? The far more relevant issue is WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, which states that "If two or more categories have a large overlap (e.g. because many athletes participate in multiple all-star games, and religious leadership does not radically change from year to year), it is generally better to merge the subjects to a single category, and create lists to detail the multiple instances." As stated above, this category overlaps almost entirely with Category:Major League Baseball venues and Category:Defunct Major League Baseball venues. You are more than entitled to disagree, but I hope that you will show a modicum of respect for an alternative position. Alansohn (talk) 22:28, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I respect it, I just don't agree it is as strong a position, that's all. Yes, I thought it was extraordinary, which is why I asked. It doesn't really matter if it gets you to the same place, but as I said I was just curious how OCAT could be said to be "completely irrelevant". You may think there's a better argument, but it doesn't render another applicable guideline completely irrelevant. (Note also that WP:OC#OVERLAPPING, which you just said was the relevant issue, is itself is a subsection of OCAT, which means I guess you don't think it's completely irrelevant.) I think you may be reading too much into some of the comments I made and assuming I don't respect other views, which is false. Multiple sections can be applicable to the same case, and it doesn't mean one that is not preferred by a particular editor is wrong or completely irrelevant. I certainly think both apply here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - despite histrionics to the contrary, this is clearly overcategorization of venue by event, which is spelled out at WP:OCAT. No shoehorn seems necessary when one is slipping into something with as comfortable a fit as There is no encyclopedic value in categorizing locations by the events or event types that have been held there, such as arenas that have hosted specific sports events or concerts, convention centers that have hosted specific conventions or meetings, or cities featured in specific television shows that film at multiple locations.Otto4711 (talk) 16:40, 17 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorization of venues by a non-defining use of a specific technology used only in a particular sport (baseball). QuesTec has a complete list of these stadiums already. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:08, 16 April 2009 (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:Sports festivals hosted in Melbourne[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) 02:47, 23 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Apart from having POV and spelling problems, this category is just not necessary to house the one article that it currently does. The article is adequately categorized already in Category:All-star recordings. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the nom is all too true. Occuli (talk) 22:39, 16 April 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Only contains four articles and one template, which is itself up for deletion. Little-to-no chance of additional articles ever being added to the category. If it is kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Black Cat (manga), per many other meanings of "Black cat" beyond the manga and anime franchise. 「ダイノガイ千？！」(Dinoguy1000) 20:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - small category with little or no chance of expansion. Lead article serves as a navigational hub. Otto4711 (talk) 22:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a useful navigational aid. --erachimatalk 06:26, 22 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:58, 22 April 2009 (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 and prune; disambiguation pages should be removed.--Aervanath (talk) 07:17, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. MostMany of the pages in this category are not disambiguation pages, but rather descriptive articles about a group of fish species that have similar characteristics as well as a common name. See, for example, Bass (fish) or Mackerel. On the other hand, those pages that are disambiguation pages typically have the {{disambig}} template on them, such as Icefish or Minnow, so they are already in Category:Disambiguation pages; therefore, whatever tracking value this category has won't be lost. The proposed new name is simpler and more descriptive. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep every article I randomly checked was indeed a disambiguation page, so where is the problem? Certainly putting more pages directly into the huge Category:Disambiguation pages serves little useful purpose. Hmains (talk) 02:08, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Including the two links that I provided above, the following articles appear to be incorrectly categorized as disambiguation pages:
(Since this is 21 out of 69, your "random" sample must have been very small.) All of these pages would be fine within the renamed category. As to your other point, most of the articles in this category (43 of 69) already are in Category:Disambiguation pages. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:37, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that an argument for the creation of a category like Category:Fish common names and to move the misclassified articles into the new category? Vegaswikian (talk) 05:49, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Since it looks unlikely that there will be a consensus to rename, that's probably what I'll end up doing. The disadvantage is that fish common name pages will be split between two different categories (although I'd make the disambig category a subcat of the new one). --R'n'B (call me Russ) 14:54, 21 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Having two categories for essentially the same thing is certainly not helpful. New name is shorter, and I'll go out on a limb and assume that nobody is going to be confused because Minnow is in a category that doesn't specifically say "disambiguation". --Kbdank71 16:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and declare all articles WP:SIA. As it is, either name would declare substantial numbers miscategorised. But SIA takes all the disambiguation out of these articles. And the Bass (fish) will still be correctly mentioned in the Bass (disambiguation). - DePiep (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Madagascan" is not wrong, but "Malagasy" is the WP standard. (I have a sneaky suspicion that "Malagasy" probably refers more correctly to the ethnic native population/native language, etc. and "Madagascan" refers to nationality, regardless of ethnic background—similar to the distinction between "Kazakh" and "Kazakhstani"—but we can put this aside for the time being.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:35, 16 April 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: I created this category (the "topics" one) as a logical move, to separate the "list category" (articles whose subjects are particular voivodeships) from the "topic category" (articles or subcategories relating to voivodeships in general), per WP:CAT. However, looking at them, it seems perhaps an unnecessary complication, and I would suggest merging the two categories back into one. I would suggest calling such a merged category a "list-and-topic" category (in fact I've jumped the gun a bit by including that new type of category in my work on {{catdesc}} and WP:FAQ/Categories). What do people think - is this specific pair of categories best merged into one (as it used to be), and should we acknowledge the appropriateness of this combined type of category by mentioning it in the guidelines? Kotniski (talk) 11:57, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - interesting nom. I think the present set-up is more elegant, but that the name Category:Voivodeships of Poland topics is at first sight clumsy. The usual method is to use a singular noun for the topic category and the plural for the list subcat (eg Category:Wine and Category:Wines) but a singular here seems elusive and besides the more clunky fomulation of 'XXX topics' might be more obviously seen to be a 'topics' category. Occuli (talk) 13:41, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support merge. While a separate category might technically be mandated here, I don't think it's really necessary - all of the contained articles and subcategories could be contained in Category:Voivodeships of Poland without too much confusion, I think. Robofish (talk) 03:48, 26 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:57, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldn't do anything until the title of the main article is fixed. So, for now, I oppose the proposal. --Checco (talk) 18:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename for compatibility with similar categories. Main article has already been renamed, as suggested. Hmains (talk) 02:02, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename category to Category:Venetian Nationalism and main article likewise. Veneto is merely the modern Italian name for the area of the Repblic of Venice. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 20 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:55, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Petty shares the writing credits on the songs in this category, but for many of them reliable sources note that this was likely a contractual formality and not because he actually contributed to the songwriting (in the 1950s it wasn't uncommong for co-credits to be given to managers, DJs, studio owners, et al). "co-credited to" would be a noncontroversial statement of fact that would apply to all the songs in the category; "written by" is controversial at best in the case of at least some of them. Sssoul (talk) 07:10, 16 April 2009 (UTC) ps:this discussion might shed some light - i don't know what the other editor means by saying he/she "inadvertently re-instated" the category - was it previously deleted? if so it should probably be re-deleted, not renamed. Sssoul (talk) 07:28, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there are plenty of similar categories containing co-written songs, the category is not a recreation, and there is one sole credit (Moondreams). (There is a need to decide in general what to do with co-written songs. We have 'songs by writer', 'songs by composer', 'songs by lyricist', 'songs with music by' … I personally think this is enough and that co-writers should be included in the first with a hatnote to this effect.) Occuli (talk) 12:43, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PS I think Richhoncho means he inadvertently reinstated the category on Not Fade Away when Sssoul had removed it. See hist. This is a matter for the talk page of the song. Occuli (talk) 12:53, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
PPS Having now read Norman Petty I can see that this is a particularly tricky one. Occuli (talk) 13:45, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I can see where Ssoul is coming from, but you would have to rename nearly every category, because ultimately millions of songs are co-written or at least credited as co-written, songwriting partnerships come into existance, dissolve both partners write songs with another partner, not all all songwriting credits means all parties actually contributed to the song i.e. Category:Songs written by Lennon/McCartney. Is Ssoul suggesting that this category is broken down as per this nomination, too? Then we have to take into consideration plagarism claims My Sweet Lord for example, how do we categorise that song? Do we have to create a category Category:Songs credited as written by George Harrison, but the courts found he had inadvertently copied from another song. Finally, there is/was a piece of paper, signed and witnessed by both Hardin (Holly) and Petty that says categorically that they both wrote Not Fade Away which is proven by checking at BMI.com. So irrespective of who wrote what, Holly was happy enough to sign a legal document confirming that Petty co-wrote that song. Anybody interested in this category will run across the allegations against Petty pretty quickly, that hasn't changed. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comment. If this goes through, then Category:Songs written by Buddy Holly would also have to be changed for the same reasons. And I am also concerned with the term "written by" as this term relates back to when songs were written on paper, rather than recorded... <LOL> --Richhoncho (talk) 20:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
my focus is on the *credited to* part, not the "co-writing" part; and the overgeneralizations aren't helpful. the subject at hand is this category. if the name "Songs written by Petty" remains, a number of the songs have to be removed from the category in accordance with WP:V, since miles of reliable sources note that it is highly doubtful that Petty had anything to do with writing them. an alternative to that is re-naming the category to accurately reflect what's in it: "Songs credited/co-credited to Petty", which takes no stand on the question of whether or not he had any part in actually writing them.
your further comment doesn't make much sense, since "the same reasons" don't apply to Holly. Sssoul (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You have missed my point. You cannot deny that legally Holly confirmed, in writing and witnessed, that Petty co-wrote, for example, Not Fade Away. This is a matter of fact and meets WP:V with bells and whistles. The info box also confirms that Petty is a co-writer. The additional point I made is that there are simply tens of 1000s of songs where this kind of dispute arises. I am happy that for the purposes of this category that 1. The category should not be renamed 2. Subject to primary confirmation i.e. BMI, all the songs should remain as listed. --Richhoncho (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for consistency with other such categories. The title does not imply that he is the sole writer of any or all of these songs. Alansohn (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2009 (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:no consensus--Aervanath (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:UpMerge to parent Category:Dukes of the First French Empire. These categories were created 18 months ago and they only contain 1-4 articles (most of them 1). I think this is covered by WP:OC#SMALL. Parent category contains 14 articles. I think it's rational to have a category with 40-50 articles. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now The thing is that most of these are Napoleonic generals whose article names give no clue to these titles. So just chucking them all in to the main category will make it very difficult to find a particular title. If there was a good list this would not matter, but in the absence of this, I'd keep. Voting "listify" is no use, as this rarely ever happens. Johnbod (talk) 22:12, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ultimately upmerge, but not yet but fist we need redirects, which should be to the first holder of the title (sometimes the only one), with a capnote added pointing to a disambiguation page. Note there is an article on each British peerage, gviing a brief listory of the title, its notable holders, and other notable members of the family, followed by a disambiguation style list of the holders. I would suggest a similar solution in this case. We do not need a category for each title, but we do need a mechanism for getting at the title holder. I note that Duke of Ragusa is alreadty such a redirect. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 05:37, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No change from my previous view -- WE ultimately do not need catgories for each title, and do not have equivalent ones for British peerages - only lists, but some one needs to check that all the necessary redirects (or list articles) already exist. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:04, 20 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then Delete. This seems to be a case where the information should be retained, while the categories should be upmerged. And listification does happen. I'll prefer to WP:AGF of the closer, and note that they can very easily place this on the "manual" page. And from there anyone (including us) can implement the close. - jc37 12:17, 25 April 2009 (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. If this was supposed to be for artists who started their own record labels, I'll go out on a limb and guess that Category:Artists who started record labels was created to fix the "supposed to" mistake. Kbdank71 19:07, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Not really defining. There are tons of vanity labels. What if an artist used to own a label but no longer does (for instance, Clint Black and Equity Music Group)? What if they only co-own the label? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can this not be defining? Most artists don't even own a label. Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defining? Not sure. But isn't it common for many artists to start a record label to get their first songs out? Not many major companies are willing to cut records for new artists. Or has this changed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - that it is owned by a recording artist may be defining of the record label (see Category:Vanity record labels) but not I think of the artist. There are also currency issues as artists can establish and disestablish labels, they can take on partners who are not recording artists, they can sue their corporate partners and be exiled from the business and so on. Listifying would allow for such additional interesting and useful information as date of founding, the name of the record label, the dates of operation and current status. If listified I would suggest List of vanity record labels as opposed to List of artists who own record labels as allowing for greater flexibility in information inclusion and presentation. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apple (owned by the Beatles) was clearly NOT a vanity label. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Aervanath (talk) 05:19, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining - so what if they own record labels; the superstars and the failed both own them and they both may own recording studios, reel-to-reel tape players, rolls royces, and ipods, none of which are defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 00:30, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This category is for artists who OWN RECORD LABELS, not exactly co-own them. Tell me how many artists that you people know of that own a record label? I know one thing, and that's the fact that not many artists own a record label. This discussion is acting like as if each artist in the world started their own labels, which they didn't, not every one of them. This category was meant for artists who STARTED their own labels. Maybe i should have named it Category:Artists who started record labels. I'm not stupid enough to create a category like Category:Artists actors and celebrities ever known to man, or Category:Songs that have charted on any chart. I know that categories like those two wouldn't work out. Get the picture? Ryanbstevens (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. If we must have these ethnicity-within-nationality categories, can we at least not use the ambiguous term "Briton" when what we mean in "people of UK nationality"? For many readers, "Britons" refers to the ancient inhabitants of the island of Great Britain, not the people who we would place in Category:British people. And I don't think there were very many "Black Britons" in the former sense. Note that Briton is a disambiguation page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 05:03, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per well reasoned argument; this will help improve the reader's ability to find the underlying articles--which is the purpose of categories. Hmains (talk) 01:59, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:22, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support - this is a category for certain people, who do not belong to any of the four home nations. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:07, 20 April 2009 (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. Kbdank71 18:53, 22 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match its sibling categories. Hmains (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match other such categories within the parent and to address the improper capitalization. Alansohn (talk) 03:23, 17 April 2009 (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.
Nominator's rationale: Redundant. Skomorokh 03:14, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Whichever is the correct name is fine by me. -- Banjeboi 03:21, 16 April 2009 (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.
