Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2013 January 13

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< January 12 January 14 >

January 13[edit]

Category:Regular Show censorship[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. delldot ∇. 07:30, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created for a small number of article by same editor, all up for afd and unlikely to be kept. TheLongTone (talk) 22:14, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as POV, OR, obsession of one editor... Mangoe (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait for AFDs to conclude. Delete if the articles are deleted. Keep if the articles are not deleted. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:25, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete articles contained in this category look like been Snow deleted. For clarify sake I brought four of the articles to AfD. ★☆ DUCKISJAMMMY☆★ 09:36, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- now empty. The basis of the articles seemed to be that different counties had required editorial changes before they considered the cartoon suitable for showing, accordingly to their particular standards of public mortality. In UK, certain "adult" language is not allowed on TV shows that might be seen by children. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete despite having read the lead, I have no clue what is even meant to be put in this category. We do not do intersection of show and theme categories very often, if ever.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per C1. It's unlikely to populate any articles to cover any content of the series. JJ98 (Talk) 07:36, 16 January 2013 (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:Cartoon Network censorship[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. delldot ∇. 07:33, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Category created for a small number of articles by same editor, all up for afd & looking very unlikely to be kept TheLongTone (talk) 21:06, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as POV, OR, obsession of one editor... Mangoe (talk) 22:46, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Besides not being a standard form of categories, the naming is clearly problematic. Much of what is involved is decisions by networks to change a show, which is not generally called "censorship".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. JJ98 (Talk) 03:53, 21 January 2013 (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 Port Wentworth, Georgia[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. delldot ∇. 07:35, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Per WP:SMALLCAT. Only has 2 entries ...William 19:38, 13 January 2013 (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:American Indian music[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. delldot ∇. 07:39, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: These two categories have an enormous overlap, and several of the subcats are called "Native American", i.e. "Native American hip hop," "Native American Music Awards." The categories of American Indian music indicate that it is exclusively for indigenous US music. The term "Native American" is unambiguous, meaning "indigenous peoples of the United States." Uyvsdi (talk) 19:35, 13 January 2013 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
  • Support The main article for the source category is Native American music, and American Indian is merely a disambiguation page for this ambiguous and rather outmoded (imo) term. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 15:43, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per both. Johnbod (talk) 18:46, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. American Indian has a potential to be confused with Indian American. At least most places in the US I have lived the later outnumber the former. We should rename this to a unambiguous name.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:55, 14 January 2013 (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:Non-governmental organizations in Hong Kong[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. delldot ∇. 22:16, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Articles and categories about Hong Kong use British English, and the 'organisations' spelling: see Category:Organisations based in Hong Kong. In this case the correct name Category:Non-governmental organisations based in Hong Kong exists, but for some reason this one does as well. This category should be merged into that one. Robofish (talk) 13:05, 13 January 2013 (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.

Cook Islands people[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: no consensus to rename. If people want to set up category redirects at the plurals, that's fine. delldot ∇. 00:58, 22 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose renaming:
Related subcategories
Nominator's rationale: The convention for Wikipedia categories is to use "xxx islands" as the nationality where no other regular form exists—for example, Category:Solomon Islands people (and subcategories), Category:United States Virgin Islands people by occupation (and subcategories), and Category:Northern Mariana Islands people of Carolinian descent; but Category:Marshallese people. Further to that, "Cook Island" is rarely used as an adjectival demonym, probably because that term suggests a single island, rather than many islands. Searching the websites of the New Zealand Herald and the Cook Islands News (note: not Cook Island News) for simple constructions such as "Cook Island(s) man", "Cook Island(s) politician", and "Cook Island(s) people" show that the plural form is overwhelmingly favoured—for example, 220 Google results for "Cook Islands people" against 26 results for "Cook Island people" on Cook Islands News . IgnorantArmies 12:10, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • The "note, not Cook Islands News" is a canard. Shall we change "Jamaican" to Jamaica" because of the Jamaica Observer, or change "Japanese" to "Japan" because of The Japan Times? Grutness...wha? 02:52, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per previous discussions such as June 2010, Oct 2009, June 2008. Oculi (talk) 12:38, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of those discussions had a particularly strong view either way—2010 was evenly split, 2009 was an opposed speedy that really has nothing to do with this move request, and 2008 doesn't really look like it should have been passed (two for, two against, few undecideds, no real consensus IMHO). Are there any specific objections to what I wrote above? (Or more bluntly, did you read anything I wrote, because links to previous discussions with no additional remarks make it seem like you didn't). IgnorantArmies 13:00, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nom should be linking to previous discussions. The previous discussions give evidence (from different searches) which conflicts with yours. Oculi (talk) 13:07, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all per my comment on the June 2010 discussion and those of the other local people in the previous discussions. Addressing the specifics of this nomination: there is a regular adjectival form for people from the Cook Islands and that is "Cook Island". The Virgin Islands are irrelevant as an example. Of course the newspaper is called Cook Islands News as it's not a demonym (c.f. New York Times rather than New Yorker Times). With respect to the comments on the previous discussions: a) CfD is not a vote and the closing admin takes into account the strength of the arguments; b) 2009 is a series of three discussions, not just one; c) in all five discussions local knowledge along with reference to official documentation was taken into account. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 18:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there evidence that "Cook Island" is the regular adjectival form, or is that just an opinion? Online style guides are quite conflicted—the EU prefers "of the Cook Islands"]as the adjective, the WHO prefers the same, the Secretariat of the Pacific Regional Environment Programme uses "Cook Islander", the CIA Factbook has "Cook Islander". With respect to the Virgin Islands (and others), they were cited as examples of current Wikipedia usage for categorisation of countries that include "Islands" in their name, which I would say is highly relevant to the discussion. IgnorantArmies 11:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename The name of the country is Cook Islands (plural, not singular). See also Category:Cook Islands. These categories should reflect that. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:12, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • In which case, I take it you'll also be wishing to change all the "American" categories to "United States of American", to reflect the name of the country? Demonyms don't always follow a logical pattern, sadly - and this is on case where they don't. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grutness (talk • contribs)
      • Yes, demonyms are not always logical, but "Cook Islands" (plural) is more logical than "Cook Island" (singular). We aren't referring to a specific island here, we're talking about an archipelago. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 21:32, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
        • Do we use what is more logical to you or what is considered to be proper in fact? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:53, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
          • What is considered to be proper is what we use, and plural is proper because there is more than one island in the Cook Islands. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:03, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
            • No, that is absolutely wrong. WP uses what is used in practice, in the real world. WP does not use what its editors decide is proper based on background facts of how many islands there are. It may well be that "Cook Islands FOO" is the correct one to use, but if it is, it is because that is what is used in practice most commonly, NOT because there are multiple islands in the country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:37, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
              • I believe you should've learned the difference between plural and singular in grammar school. I don't see why you're denying that you've ever heard of grammatical correctness now. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 23:34, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
                • Listen, I have been to the Cook Islands. I know many Cook Island people and count them as friends. I know how they use the English language, both in speaking and in writing. You seem to be taking a very abstract or academic approach to the problem, but I'm saying what I say based on real life experiences and knowledge, so .... Perhaps you should tell the Cook Island people who call themselves this that they don't understand English grammar. I'm sure that will go over well, especially if you are a man of European descent. That said, I have made it clear that I am open to the idea that reliable sources often use "Cook Islands people". Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:43, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:People of the Cook Islands. It's grammaticaly better in avoiding ugly compound nouns. Laurel Lodged (talk) 22:40, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not rename. As I commented in the 2010 discussion, it is easy to find both usages, but in official sources "Cook Island FOO" predominates. For things that are not people "Cook Islands FOO" is correct, but when people are referred to, "Cook Island FOO" seems to be preferred, at least in official documents. A good solution might simply be to have redirects on the "Cook Islands FOO" format since they are not "wrong" in any sense, though neither are the categories as they now exist. Oppose Category:People of the Cook Islands: the Cook Islands is a distinct country and has a distinct nationality, so it doesn't make a lot of sense to rename it in a way that differs from almost all other categories for current nationalities. "Ugliness" is a completely subjective standard. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm honestly not seeing any preference towards "Cook Island", in official and unofficial sources—in fact, I would say the opposite is true. The islands' constitution uses "Cook Islands" exclusively as the adjective (the "Cook Islands Constitution Act", "Cook Islands Public Service", "Cook Islands Ensign", "Cook Islands Constituencies"); the islands' government's official website is titled Cook Islands Government Online; Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs uses "Cook Islands country brief". Searching for "Cook Islands people" against "Cook Island people" on the CI Herald's website produces 340 results against 13 results, doing the same on the CI News' website gets 225 against 26, on the NZ Herald's website gets 4 results against 3, on the Government of the Cook Islands' website gets 31 against 1. I know cherrypicking sources is unavoidable, but I really see a tendency to use "Cook Islands" as the adjective. IgnorantArmies 11:38, 14 January 2013 (UTC) Edit: I re-read what you wrote about the different uses before people and objects. That would seem quite odd to me, but I guess my comments above still stand, particularly those at the bottom. IgnorantArmies 11:49, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Cook Islands" is generally used for intangibles and abstracts - such as acts of parliament; "Cook Island" is generally used for physical objects like people, animals, and buildings. It's no more odd than the uses of Scots, Scotch, and Scottish. Grutness...wha? 00:20, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's true that both are used in print. It's not uncommon to use "Cook Island" also when referring to non-people, but you are correct that it is more common to use "Cook Islands" in those cases, which is what we also do here on WP. But I still maintain that "Cook Island" is more commonly used as an adjective for people. Knowing local usage, I see no divergence right now between common usage and WP usage. I also know how people talk, and no one—no one I have ever heard in NZ (where I live) or the Cook Islands (where I have visited)—pronounces an "s" when using the name of the country as an adjective. That may possibly be chalked up to a quirk of pronunciation verses spelling. Ultimately, though, I think it's a relatively unimportant issue and would be happy to simply see redirects on the alternate forms, whichever is chosen, since I don't think either is incorrect. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is per User:Good Olfactory's comments. Mayumashu (talk) 03:22, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for the very simple reason that there are 15 Cook Islands, none of which are called Cook Island. It is obvious that the plural is right. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:00, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • Tell that to the people of the islands, who use "Cook Island people". And a quick glance at any list of national demonyms makes it clear that "obvious" doesn't have a lot to do with correct. Grutness...wha? 00:14, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Cook Islands people since the country is called Cook Islands. It was also clearly demonstated by Ignorant Armies that "Cook Islands people" is more common, and there is definantly no evidnece for generally using "Cook Island people".John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's arguable whether he's proved anything but that "Cook Islands" is often used as an adjective, but the answer is not "obvious" as Peterkingiron has alleged. Some official government sources that use "Cook Island"—in people and non-people instances—are as follows: [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6], and UNICEF. In summary, both are used; neither is regarded as "incorrect"; "Cook Islands" is more commonly used with non-people things; "Cook Island" is more commonly used for people. Whatever is chosen, we need redirects on the other form. Good Ol’factory (talk) 23:45, 14 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as is. The correct adjectival form for the country's people is "Cook Island", as is widely used both by the Cook Islanders themselves and people outside the islands. Shall I cite the New Zealand governments statistics department[7]? Or the Tourism Board of the Cook Islands[8]? Or maybe UNICEF[9]? Or Radio Cook Islands[10]? Or the Cook Islands Herald [11]? Auckland City Council[12]? Or any of the others who regularly use the term [13]? Partv of the problem is that both adjectival forms (singular and plural) are used on occasion - but the singular is the only form used for the people of the Islands. The plural is generally used for intangible or abstract nouns, the singular for physical objects... but even this isn't a hard and fast rule. Cook Island culture is correct, for isntance, and I have seen both the singular and plural used for the language. But for people, it is only ever the singular form. To change these categories and articles would be incorrect. (PS - I have worked with the local Cook Island community here in New Zealand, and I am going by their usage). Grutness...wha? 00:07, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Doing the same google search, but using "cook islands people" instead of ""cook island people" turns up over twice as many hits so I am not sure that really supports your argument. A scholar only search "Cook Islands people" 98 results vs "Cook Island people" 36 results supports that ratio. The sites included under Cook Islands people are the NZ government stats department [14][15], cook islands tourist board [16], the herald [17] (which uses this version 25x more often than "Cook Island people [18]") Couldn't find a decent UN one, but there is the Cook Island High Commissioner to New Zealand using Cook Islands people in an address published by them[19]. The Cook Island radio page linked is a facebook page (which I know is becoming more acceptable as a source), but on their more official looking page[20] they use "Cook Islands artists" which would give some weight to Cook Islands people. Could find no instances of Cook Islands people from the Auckland city council website though. AIRcorn (talk) 00:42, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    Cook Islands is not a member of the UN, but it is a member of UNICEF, WHO, and other specialized agencies, so you are more likely to find sources within those agencies, such as this UNICEF/CI Govt one which has been linked to already a couple of times: [21], or this one from WHO: [22]. Again, it seems to be a mixed bag of either form being used. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:30, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that both are found, it just seems that one is found much more often. These are just from my searches, so I could be missing some. The UNICEF one that has been linked a few times is the only one that uses Cook Island people (I could find none that use "Cook Islands people"). There are at least six from the WHO that use "Cook Islands people", and none use "Cook island people". I am used to move discussions in mainspace, so I might be missing some subtle differences when it come to category renaming, but if a Commonname defence applies "Cook Islands people" has the clear advantage from all the searching I have done and at best the officially used name is divided. AIRcorn (talk) 02:13, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think you are missing anything in terms of principle. If you are interested in any other searches, I know the Cook Islands is also a member of the FAO, ICAO, UNESCO, IFAD, WMO, IMO (all UN specialized agencies, along with WHO and UNICEF), the International Criminal Court, the Pacific Community, the South Pacific Forum, and the Asian Development Bank. I haven't searched all of these out for usage. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:18, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support move On the basis of these two links alone [23] [24], which shows that the national newspaper uses the term "Cook Islands people", much more often than "Cook Island people". Virtually every other web search I conducted (seen in my reply above) showed that this version was used more often. AIRcorn (talk) 00:47, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Cook Islands government has 31 results with "Cook Islands people"[25], while only one (the first one linked above by Good Olfactory) with "Cook Island people" [26]. I am not seeing any evidence that Cook Island is predominately used for people, while Cook Islands is more for non-people. At a stretch you could possible they both have similar usage (again, not something I am seeing), but if that is the case then surely we would be better to keep it consistent as Cook Islands people to match up with all the "non-people"\"intangible or abstract nouns" that seem to have an agreement to use "Cook Islands" AIRcorn (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment—I see that the article on the people of the Cook Islands has taken a different path and is now at Cook Islanders. This would be more acceptable than Cook Islands People (with the s) and may be an adequate solution to at least the main category under discussion here. Beeswaxcandle (talk) 04:28, 17 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
    • I disagree with that approach. All of the by nationality categories use "FOOian people" or "FOO people", not "FOOers". There's no sense changing the top parent category when the subcategories need an adjectival form anyway. We can choose one or the other form here and have a redirect on the other. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:05, 17 January 2013 (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:Baseball players from Cincinnati and Chicago[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: double upmerge. Courcelles 01:11, 21 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Propose upmerging
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge. No precedent for categorizing so finely. There is no Category:Baseball players from New York City, Category:Baseball players from Los Angeles, California, etc. (no Category:Baseball players by American city); nor is there Category:Players of American football from Cincinnati, Ohio, Category:Basketball players from Cincinnati, Ohio, Category:Basketball players from Chicago, Illinois, etc. As it stands, sportspeople are divided by individual sport by state, not by city or county. Mayumashu (talk) 08:57, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Historical note - these category names represented the way we named categories related to these cities at the time of this discussion. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 20:58, 15 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom.--TonyTheTiger (T/C/BIO/WP:CHICAGO/WP:FOUR) 14:55, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge per nom. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 19:13, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Upmerge. As an editor who has created and filled new Sportspeople from city categories and filled up existing ones, I see no need to categorize cities by specific types of athletes. State level is sufficient for that....William 02:04, 14 January 2013 (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 De John Sisters[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. Following up my close from the Clash nomination, the songwriting credit to the band is already built into Category:The De John Sisters songs. If the individual De Johns get articles, then there can be individual songwriter categories for them.--Mike Selinker (talk) 05:14, 24 January 2013 (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. This is supported by WP:SONGS which states, Where a team of people is credited for a characteristic (excluding songwriter credits which should be split to the individuals), the official credit must not be split into multiple categories for individual team members. Previous discussions include The Bee Gees and The Miracles and Lady Antebellum. Further, on the closure of Songs written by The Clash, the nomination was closed with the comment, 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. Richhoncho (talk) 13:41, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Response. According to WP - Two members of the band with a third person wrote the song. --Richhoncho (talk) 13:48, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, keep. If they wrote the song together, it would be WP:OCAT to have a separate category for each band member. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 14:57, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Are you saying the precedent is wrong? Do we really need TWO categories for the the single entry? --Richhoncho (talk) 15:11, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No. We don't need multiple categories, so I say keep this one. That way we won't have Category:Songs written by Leo J. De John, Category:Songs written by Julie De John, and Category:Songs written by Dux De John all at the same time. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 15:59, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
You have confused me totally. Let me recap, as per my intro, "Songs are written by people, not by people who are then associated together in some other way" - Not actually my words, but copied from another editor. The two categories I am referring to are "DJS songs" and "songs written by DJS" - both with a single entry. As none of the 3 writers have their own article space, then there will be no splitting of the category. Again, as stated above this is all covered in WP:SONGS and precedent, yet you had to ask the questions to make the decision. Bizarre. --Richhoncho (talk) 16:07, 30 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, delldot ∇. 06:21, 13 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- Many of The Beatles songs were written by Lennon and McCartney. If two or more people are regularly collaborating, it is obvious that a joint authorship category should be allowed, rather than one for each author. On the other hand if there is a one-off collaboration, we should not have a joint category. I have recently published an article in a journal that was co-written with some one else. Each of us made a contribution. Richhoncho's quotation is of general, but not of universal, application. Joint authorship categories will probably be an exception, but they should be allowed. Peterkingiron (talk) 10:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Response. As the person who initially created the Lennon/McCartney songwriter category I fully agree that songwriting partnerships are acceptable. What this nomination is about is that a category "Songs written by the Beatles" is redundant" Cheers.--Richhoncho (talk) 11:19, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I believe Richhoncho's rationale is perfectly in line with the current guidelines on this issue. It's a bit tricky to "get" if you come at it cold, but the gist of it is that if the articles are already in the category named "BAND songs", we don't need an identical category for "Songs written by BAND". Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:24, 15 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as unnedded when all the songs are already categorized as performed by the group.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:57, 19 January 2013 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2013_January_13&oldid=1138397975"