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:Merge. Main article is at Film4 Productions. Both categories are defined as films by Film4 Productions. The name of the nominated category suggests that these are films by the television channel Film4, which is not the same entity as Film4 Productions. (Both the production company and the TV channel are owned by Channel 4, so it does become confusing.) Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:46, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 13:42, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - maybe speedy to match the main article? Lugnuts (talk) 15:40, 28 November 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:administrative close: speedily deleted by another user. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:54, 28 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Seems to be a gray area as far as being a notable intersection. However, it does seem that the anarchy of some of the individuals in this category is intimately connected to their sexual orientation. --☑ SamuelWantman 23:54, 26 November 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. — ξxplicit 01:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this context, the terms "Ancient" and "Classical" are largely interchangeable; there is no advantage to be gained by maintaining two separate categories The Sage of Stamford (talk) 23:19, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepClassical Greece is a distinctive period in the history of Greece. Debresser (talk) 13:40, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Classical Greece refers to a couple of centuries before Hellenistic Greece and after Dark Age Greece, which followed Mycenean and Minoan Greece. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:57, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Classical Greece and Ancient Greece are not interchangeable. Classical Greece is a subset of Ancient Greece. ThemFromSpace 02:29, 29 November 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: Rename: The proposed name would be more consistent with the existing Category:Performers of Christian music (rather than Category:Christian musicians). It would also fit better with the guidance in WP:CATGRS that Categories should not be based on religion unless the belief has a specific relation to the topic, as the categorisation by religion would be on the basis of the characteristics of the music composed (which is usually the reason for a composer's notability), rather than the individual composers' beliefs 'per se', which may be much less notable. For example, Reginald Spofforth would, on the basis of his article, clearly not be a candidate for Category:Composers of Christian music, while his brother Samuel, as a cathedral organist, quite possibly would - this is, however, a reflection of their differing employments and the recorded range of their compositions, not necessarily based on any difference between the religious beliefs of the two. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 22:35, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This seems to me to be a very sensible proposal. We care about whether or not the music is Christian; the composer's religion is irrelevant. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious rename I might just be a Jewish composer of Christian music, no? Debresser (talk) 13:31, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. I agree that peopel like Bach may need a seaparate category. An alternative might be to rename to Category:Composers of modern Christian music and prune out the classical composers, perhaps into a separate category, but as most classical composers wrote some sacred music, it might not be a useful category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:02, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split as alternative to original proposal. Reviewing the contents of the category in the light of Johnbod and Peterkingiron's comments above, the originally-proposed rename, while it would improve the definition by referring to the characteristics of the music rather than the composers, would not resolve the underlying problems - that this is an overly-broad 'catch-all' category which lumps together very disparate composers. Propose a split into: 1. Category:Classical composers of church music, using the definition of Category:Classical composers (i.e. music derived from the traditions of Western art music, rather than necessarily composed in the Classical era), and including composers a substantial proportion of whose output consisted of church music, and 2. Category:Composers of contemporary Christian music, the title matching the article Contemporary Christian music. It would seem sensible for Category:Classical composers of church music to be a member of Category:Classical composers, and for Category:Composers of contemporary Christian music to be a member of Category:Composers by genre. The existing Category:Religious composers would not be needed, as its only member at present is Category:Christian composers which would be deleted. Not sure whether this would require the relisting of this CFD - if it does, it might be best at the same time to work in Category:Sacred music composers (which is outside the hierarchy of genres at present, and only has a few members), removing it and sharing its members out between the new categories as appropriate. Thankyou all for your patience with the convoluted discussion, Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:44, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest that Category:Hymn writers should be taken out of the categories being discussed - the title implies, and the members (including Thomas Ken and John Keble) suggest, that it is a category of the writers of hymn texts, rather than the composers of hymn tunes. As such, it belongs in Category:Hymns, Category:Writers by format and Category:Writers by non-fiction subject area, in all of which it is already a member, but it should probably be taken out of the musical structure. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 23:35, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
They include both (often the same person) and the articles are mostly infuriatingly unclear on whether they wrote music or not. They are clearly not going to be divided anytime soon, so I think they should all be included - better than all being excluded. Johnbod (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be content with that for the time being, though the muddled state of Category:Hymn writers is clearly not satisfactory in the longer term. Perhaps we should put it into Category:Composers of Christian music for the time being, but put a note on the page of Category:Hymn writers to notify editors that it should ideally be hymn text writers only, that if there are people in there who only wrote music they should be removed and categorised as composers instead, and that if there are people who wrote both texts and music they should be categorised both as hymn writers and composers. Carminowe of Hendra (talk) 21:03, 3 December 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. — ξxplicit 03:20, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Company deleted in AFD. Products are up for PROD, and I don't see them being saved. TheWeakWilled (T * G) 21:21, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete regardless of outcome of PRODs. Do we need a category for the products of every firm in the world? Debresser (talk) 13:30, 26 November 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 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:Rename. Per MOS:CAPS, Unofficial movements and ideologies within religions are generally not capitalized unless derived from a proper name. See discussion on the evangelicalism article. Ἀλήθεια 14:54, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with choster--no opinion on whether these should be capitalised or not, but we would need to change them all. I suppose these could be done speedily if users are sure they should not be capitalised. I think on balance the RFC at the article talk page sided with capitalisation not being the standard. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:29, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per MOS:CAPS, which is in agreement with MLA, APA, and Chicago Manual of Style. The only time it should be capitalized is in reference to a specifically named denomination, such as "Evangelical Free" or "Evangelical Lutheran". HokieRNB 17:27, 3 December 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:Comparative and international law journals[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.
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Essentially duplicate categories; only one is needed. The target is older and is the usual terminology used in journal categorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:14, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose reanme, per Black falcon. Also oppose split, because there only 8 articles in the category. Split would make sense if it was more heavily populated, but not in this case ... unless there is a feeling comparative and international law are so different as to be a daft combination for category. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:59, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Scrub that, there are better ideas below. I'll go with AllyD's proposal. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 22:23, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (nom). I agree with what AllyD suggests. There's no sense having a comparative and international law journal category and an international law journal category. There should be an international law journal category and a comparative law journal category. Rename the nominated category to Category:Comparative law journals and move the international ones to Category:International law journals, or merge them all and then create Category:Comparative law journals. Either way, some manual work is required. Good Ol’factory(talk) 20:33, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with AllyD, and sincerely hope she will do the reallocations. :) Debresser (talk) 13:28, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Bit surprised by the gendered pronoun but aye, will do if/once consensus is confirmed. AllyD (talk) 23:38, 26 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split as others have suggested. The mechanics of doing this might be to prune this cat of the international ones and them rename to Category:Comparative law journals. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:05, 27 November 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 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. It's a speedy snowball. -- ☑ SamuelWantman 00:07, 27 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom. This is one of the most fantastically named categories of all time. (If only there were an ellipsis after that last comma.) A definite daftify candidate. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:02, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense. Isn't that a speedy criterion? Debresser (talk) 13:26, 26 November 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:Rename. Rename to replace initials with the name of the company's article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:30, 25 November 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:Rename. Rename from an ambiguous title to one that matches the name of the main article. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why should DB be moved to Deutsche Bundesbahn but DSB not moved to Danske Stadsbanen or whatever is the correct spelling? Sussexonian (talk) 20:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because the main article here is DSB (railway company) and for the other it is Deutsche Bahn. DSB is the company name as I read the article. So it gets disambiguated. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:38, 25 November 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:Appalachian State Mountaineers men's basketball head coaches[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 (category was empty at close; I assume the contents were upmerged to the general coaches category). Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:27, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I can't even begin to guess at a single solitary reason why we would need or want Category:College men's basketball coaches to be subdivided by individual college or university, to be honest. Definitely delete, but I'd personally favour killing all basketball coaching categories which are restricted to a single specific university's coaching staff, "head" or "regular" coaches. Bearcat (talk) 22:38, 28 November 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.
