< June 14	June 16 >

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 14:31, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian miracle narrative (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category overlaps with Category:Gospel episodes in a manner where categorization would necessitate having two categories, when one should suffice. I do not believe we need to separate the miraculous from the non-miraculous stories. Currently, Category:New Testament narrative is separated into Gospel episodes and parables. Christian miracle narrative sort of sits outside of the tree. It could perhaps become a subcat of Gospel episodes, however I do believe that is a bit of overcategorization, so I am taking it to CfD to see what others think. Andrew c 20:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• If taken literally, as stated, it would absorb all of the miracles of the saints; it already has one. Much too broad. Delete. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 21:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This seems an odd rationale: it might become too big, so let's delete it completely now! Johnbod 18:46, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Suggest "Gospel Miracle Naratives" or "New Testament Miracle Narratives". If we need a category for miracles narratives by saints that should be a differnet one. I have not researched this issue in detail. Peterkingiron 14:45, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for now We have Category:Miracles and a Christian sub-category seems desirable. At some point the New Testament ones should probably be split out. Johnbod 22:16, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Conscious 05:18, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Guitar World magazine covers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Empty category, created June 2006. GentlemanGhost 19:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:16, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The page itself describes the genre of “rocks-and-diamonds”, not “action puzzle”, and the current name is somewhat misleading—Boulder Dash–type games can’t be the only games that could be considered “action puzzle games”, but they’re the only ones in the category. Frungi 18:01, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as overly specific. Definitely don't keep it under this name; although there are quite a few action/puzzle games, this category as it exists isn't for them, and I'm not certain that the intersection of those two genres necessarily merits a separate category. -Sean Curtin 07:28, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:50, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Female organists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Propose deletion - Nominator's rationale: Pointless category. There is no general division of most 'people' categories into male or female in the English wikipedia, so I suggest this one should be deleted. There is no 'male organists' and sex is in any case irrelevant to organ-playing. Clavecin 16:56, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to nominator. I know it's not compulsory, but it still would have been nice if the creator of the category and / or the relevant WikiProject (whose banner is on the category talk page) had been informed of this discussion. I'll post a non-canvassing message on the project page now. Bencherlite 22:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

There's no such thing as a "non-canvassing message" to a special interest group. All special interest groups are biased. Mowsbury 16:35, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Oliver Han 20:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:OC. Doczilla 09:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Alex Middleton 17:09, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. There are some 380 or so organists on Wikipedia (as found by WP:ORGAN here) but only 25 in this category. The test, according to WP:CATGRS is "can a valid, encyclopedic head article be written for this grouping?" Whilst I can't go so far as to say that there's a "female way of playing the organ", I'm struggling to think, for example, of any female English cathedral organists. There is no article yet on why women are underrepresented in professional organist circles, but I would be surprised if someone couldn't write something on the topic without falling foul of WP:OR. There isn't a "male organists" category for the same reason that there isn't a Category:Male heads of government but there is a Category:Female heads of government (to use the example from the guideline here): historically, and currently, it appears that there are many more notable male organists than female; a closer example from the musical world would be Category:Women composers. I've plumped for "weak keep" on the basis that I see the inevitable answer "Go and write the article, then it can be seen whether the category's a valid one", and I'm not the person to write it, unfortunately! Bencherlite 22:59, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep per Bencherlite's rationale above. —Cor anglais 16 00:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bencherlite. - Philippe | Talk 00:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete Introduces left-wing politics where it is not needed. Can't we just enjoy the music? Mowsbury 16:34, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. It's rare that I find myself disagreeing with Bencherlite about musician categories, since he's one of the few people more active in categorizing musician articles than I am, and we've long since worked out most of our minor points of disagreement through various wikiproject discussions, but I have to confess that I am still quite dubious about instrumentalist-by-gender categories. Like Bencherlite, my opinion here is not a strong one, but I would rather see an article on the topic first before agreeing to such a category. Xtifr _tälk 22:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gender does not affect organ-playing. Perebourne 23:50, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. As much as I love organs, I just don't see how this category adds much to the encyclopedia. However, I think that as long as we have a Category:Women in music we should keep this as a subset, so I don't know. I would hate for the king of instruments to go unrepresented in any musical category. I'd also like to point out there are no female hornists or flautists categories. --W0lfie 02:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Bencherlite: There are very few professional female organists, and so their work goes largely unnoticed - in a similar manner to Category:Women composers/Category:Women in music, therefore can they not be categorized together, or would List of (notable) female organists be more acceptable? If an argument can be made to delete this category, I can't see why it is any less useful than any other category-by-gender. I understand that perhaps categorizing in this manner is unnecessary, but several do exist, and don't seem to be under argument. As for the nom in particular, having (at a guess) 95% of organists in Category:Male organists seems a bit pointless. As to the argument that gender has no bearing on organ-playing, can I not use that in favour of keeping the category, because although gender should have no bearing on organ-playing, the numbers suggest that it still is a male-favoured category, therefore in some respect gender does have a bearing on organ-playing. In masculine-orientated disciplines, can the few female exceptions not be categorized? –MDCollins (talk) 10:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete. Conscious 05:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional Characters who appear in Telegraph Publications (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, badly named and non-defining. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Many of the characters who could be categorised in this way are in widely-syndicated cartoons, so this is a form performer-by-performance overcategorisation per WP:OCAT#Performers_by_performance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. (Side note: It's incorrectly capitalized.) Doczilla 01:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:47, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:Celebrity football (soccer) fans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Overcategorisation and highly likely to have verifiability problems. The Rambling Man 15:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and Delete all sub-categories. ArtVandelay13 15:23, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but keep the sub-categories. I only added this category so that the sub-categories I also created had somewhere else to go other than the category for the club they pertain to. I can provide references for most of the people I have added to each category. If you could tell me where I can place the references, I will provide you with them. - PeeJay 15:27, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Even with the best sources in the world, it's not enough of a defining characteristic to be worth a category. ArtVandelay13 15:30, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It does stop certain silly people from asking "Why isn't there a list of famous <insert team name here> fans in the <insert team name here> article?" which is the primary reason why I started doing all this. It takes up very little room, and many people will find it useful, nay interesting. - PeeJay 15:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom and Delete all sub-categories as well. Otherwise can have categories such as 'People who like Cheddar Cheese' WikiGull 15:39, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

But a category on people who like cheddar cheese is neither notable nor relevant to a topic. This, however, is. Your use of hyperbole may typify you as an exponent of the English language, but it does seem a rather silly example. Please don't try using this as an example for deleting silly categories, as I believe that this category serves a purpose. - PeeJay 15:52, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

While I understand your interest in this topic, categories are simply not intended to be there to organize individuals based on their trivial interests. Categories are there to group the most defining aspects of articles. Unfortunately, no one on your list is famous or notable because they are a football fan. I believe people bringing up counter examples is relevent. Imagine what the bottom of an article looked like if we started listing personal preferences as categories. Would we start including MLB and NBA teams? NFL? Why stop there, why not start listing people by what band's they like? What movies they like? etc. Being a football fan is no more notable than any other trivial interest. I can understand that myspace and livejournal and other social networks group people together by interests. However, this simply isn't how wikipedia categorization works. Other editors are correct in their overcategorization assessment. Feel free to add citations to reliable sources in each individual article stating that the subject is a fan of a football club. Hope this helps.-Andrew c 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind seeing properly annotated list articles for this kind of thing. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom, and Delete all sub-categories. --Angelo 15:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as categorization by opinion. -- Prove It ^(talk) 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as categorization by opinion per Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Opinion_about_a_question_or_issue. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:55, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. (Mind meal 16:05, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete all per above.-Andrew c 16:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cat and sub-cats (which are still being created). Overcategorisation. - Dudesleeper · Talk 16:46, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Andrew C's response above.Lugnuts 18:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WikiGull's response above. The Menace 13:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and delete all sub-categories per WP:OC, cat by opinion. Doczilla 08:07, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this and delete all sub-categories. Overcategorising. Not always provable. Not always defining.  slυмgυм [ ←→ ] 20:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all These pop up on a regular basis, and are always deleted as non-defining. Osomec 10:40, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all - overcategorising. WATP  ^(talk) • _(contribs) 14:53, 20 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Conscious 05:15, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bluegrass groups (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Bluegrass music groups, or the reverse, Category:Musical groups by genre is somewhat confused. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Category:Bluegrass music groups per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Bluegrass music groups (Mind meal 16:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Comment. Category:Musical groups by genre seems confused on the form being used. It appears that musical is used more often then music but there are other forms. I think that Category:Bluegrass musical groups reads better then Category:Bluegrass music groups and would suggest a rename/merge to that name. Maybe this nomination could be withdrawn in favor of a proposal to standardize Category:Musical groups by genre which is one of the parents? Vegaswikian 19:35, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't have a strong preference for a naming convention, but I'd like there to be one. If someone creates such a nomination, I'd be happy withdraw this one in favor of whatever the consensus is, probably one of Foo groups / Foo musical groups / Foo music groups. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:21, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've been considering this for a while, and I don't have a strong conclusion. All three are awkward in some cases, and not in others. Also, many of these have large numbers of by-nationality subcategories, so any renaming effort will be massive and extremely painful. For the moment, I'd be happy just to have consistency within each one (e.g. Category:Rock music groups by nationality currently has one inconsistent member, and I'd like to see that fixed. Anyway, this is all part of the scheme that is, more-or-less, documented WP:MUSCAT, which is part of the WP:MUSICIAN Wikiproject. Discussion should probably start there. (We already discussing some other changes and clarifications.) Xtifr _tälk 06:13, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Bluegrass music groups seems like the best choice for now, to me. The broader issues already have a better forum (see above). Xtifr _tälk 06:15, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:13, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles within the scope of WikiProject The Apprentice UK (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:WikiProject The Apprentice UK articles, to match Wikipedia:WikiProject The Apprentice UK. -- Prove It ^(talk) 14:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:43, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose deletion Category:James Bond authors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - *Delete - Categorization of authors by their subject matter does not work well, and many versions of these categories (especially for comic book writers) have been deleted in the past. Many of these authors have worked on multiple subjects besides James Bond, and categories for all subjects would be lengthy and cumbersome. Therefore, this category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 13:49, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The authors are all listed in the article on James Bond. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:09, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. The list is more useful. The category is OC. Doczilla 01:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:12, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People by city or town in the Wales (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Rename to Category:People by city or town in Wales, convention of Category:People by city or town in the United Kingdom. -- Prove It ^(talk) 13:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename, obvious error. Bencherlite 13:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom, but not speedy since this does not appear to fit any of the criteria in WP:CFD#Speedy_renaming_and_speedy_merging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I assumed it would fit #1, typographical error, since Wales is never called "The Wales". Bencherlite 16:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

An obvious error which nobody spotted at the time that the category was renamed to this in a CFD discussion last month! Bencherlite 11:17, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Oliver Han 20:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Carlossuarez46 21:48, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Sppedy Rename obvious typo. Peterkingiron 14:41, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was merge. Conscious 05:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Austrian motorcycle riders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Merge into Category:Austrian motorcycle racers, convention of Category:Motorcycle racers. -- Prove It ^(talk) 12:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Oliver Han 20:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:09, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Primates of the Antiochian Orthodox Christian Archdiocese of North America (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename - The individual appears to be most commonly referred to as "Metropolitan" in external websites (such as this one). The category should be renamed accordingly. Dr. Submillimeter 10:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename - there is a full article on him at orthodoxwiki.org where he is described as 'primate' rather than Primate. (Why is there no link these days to the category being renamed? The code is ((lc1| rather than ((lc|. What purpose does this serve?) -- roundhouse0 12:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Note that orthodoxwiki.org should not be considered a reilble reference, mainly because of its unstable nature. (Also, the templates for these discussions are broken and need to be fixed.) Dr. Submillimeter 13:42, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply to roundhouse, see the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Categories_for_discussion#CFD_discussion_templates. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom Johnbod 22:12, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 20:42, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Olympic track and field athletes for Canada

• Delete - This is a poorly named substitute for Category:Olympic athletes of Canada, per all other countries in Category:Olympic athletes by country. I recat'd the three articles, and two subcats (which are included in the mass deletion below for a separate reason) to the appropriate cat.Neier 09:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:12, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename to Category:Animal rights and welfare legislation. Conscious 05:07, 22 June 2007 (UTC) Propose renaming Category:Animal rights legislation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Rename, It was pointed out to me on my talk page that the laws contained in Category:Animal rights legislation cover animal welfare rather than animal rights. Please rename the category accordingly. Kurando | ^_^ 08:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Animal rights and welfare legislation. There is a philosophical dispute between the "rights" and "welfare" approaches, and some legislation may be classified either way depending on POV. Better to have an inclusive category name which covers both than to take stance. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 15:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per BHG. Original proposal isn't any more inclusive than the current name.-Andrew c 16:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per original proposal. With the exception of the Animal Enterprise Terrorism Act (which does seem to be misplaced), all the Acts listed are about protecting animal welfare. None were put forwards by their respective Governments as being about animal rights. There may be legislation about animal rights somewhere in the world, but the default category title should be the more inclusivespecific one. MikeHobday 16:48, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Animal rights and welfare legislation in line with MikeHobday argument that the more inclusive name should be chosen. Mowsbury 16:36, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was dual merge as nominated and to Category:Olympic competitors for Canada --Kbdank71 19:03, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1900 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1900 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1904 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1904 Summer Olympics
• Category:Competitors for Canada at the 1908 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1928 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1928 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1960 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1960 Summer Olympics
• Category:Competitors for Canada at the 1960 Winter Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1960 Winter Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1964 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1964 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1968 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1968 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1972 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1972 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1976 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1976 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1984 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1984 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1988 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1988 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1992 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1992 Summer Olympics
• Category:Competitors for Canada at the 1992 Winter Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1992 Winter Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1996 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1996 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian competitors at the 2006 Winter Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 2006 Winter Olympics

Also, adding these two:

• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1932 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1932 Summer Olympics
• Category:Canadian athletes at the 1936 Summer Olympics upmerge to Category:Competitors at the 1936 Summer Olympics

Note to closing admin - the upmerge cats were explicitly added after the initial nomination, per discussions below. Neier 02:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all and recatupmerge per recent CFD discussion. Categorization by year/country is overcategorization, and breaks the scheme of the rest of the Olympic categories. Neier 07:06, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong oppose deletion , but support dual upmerger. There are clear reasons not to have these categories, but if they are simply deleted, there will be a huge manual recategorisation job to follow. I would support a nomination which proposed something like "Upmerge Category:Canadian athletes at the 1992 Summer Olympics to Category:Olympic competitors for Canada and Category:Competitors at the 1992 Summer Olympics", because that will ensure that the articles remain correctly categorised.
  I am increasingly worried at the number of CfD nominations to delete intersection categories where dual upmerger is the proper solution, and I hope that the nominator will either withdraw this nomination or correct it to a series of dual upmergers. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 08:13, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Based on what I just went through at Category:Competitors at the 2000 Summer Olympics, your concern is justified. But, it is not such an overwhelming task. The largest cat right now has 19 people, and, most of them have fewer than ten. Of the 2000 category I cleaned out, most were already sorted into "sport by year", so, the solution there was to remove the redundancy. Some did not have "sport in 2000", so, "competitors at . . ." had to be manually replaced. There was a total of 60 or so in there before I went through it. AWB or another tool can probably do it even quicker. Neier 08:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Also, all articles in the above cats are now in Category:Olympic competitors for Canada or one of the proper (by sport) subcats. So, the upmerge just needs to be to the "competitors by year" cat, and then the sport sorting can take place like I did for 2000. Neier 09:29, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Then please amend the nomination so that the closing admin can give the necessary instructions to the bots. Otherwise I will continue to oppose the nomination. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 14:37, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Done. Neier 02:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete/merge all per nom. Oliver Han 09:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Dual upmerge in order to preserve information. GregorB 19:50, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Another very bad example of overcategorization: Category:Competitors at the 1908 Summer Olympics by country. GregorB 19:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all - I am going to argue against deleting these categories mainly because they could reduce category clutter on the articles for individual athletes as long as the second categorization rule is not applied. For example, if a Canadian athlete was in the 1992 Summer Olympics, he would get one category ("Canadian athletes at the 1992 Summer Olympics") under the current scheme but two ("Athletes at the 1992 Summer Olympics" and "Olympic competitors for Canada") if the proposed merge/deletion goes through. If the articles contain fewer categories, the categories will be easier to read and to use for navigation. Moreover, this cross section is a perfectly reasonable one for people to search for. (The other option that I would endorse would be to only categorize Olympic athletes by country and to delete all "Athletes at the NNNN Olympics" categories.) Dr. Submillimeter 20:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• On the other hand, every category for every sport in every Olympics would have to be subdivided by country, and it might frustrate people who like to browse categories. I'm more concerned with consistency than anything else, so, if there is a movement to recategorize all the Olympic competitors into "year/sport/nation" intersections, I think I would support it. I'm being less-bold, and just proposing to fix the inconsistencies in the current category split of "sport and year(s)" and "sport and country", which seems like a valid compromise. Neier 02:37, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all All of the Olympic categories should be deleted for being non-defining category clutter with a regrettable tendency to breed. Mowsbury 16:37, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:41, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge Category:Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles Adventures (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) - Merge - there doesn't seem to be any good reason to split these few articles out into a separate subcat. Otto4711 06:40, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge also. (Mind meal 06:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Merge per nom. Turtles are Turtles. Doczilla 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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 discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. 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 result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:New Orleans jazz musicians --Kbdank71 20:26, 21 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge: Category:Jazz musicians of New Orleans (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) to Category:Musicians of New Orleans and Category:American jazz musicians.

Nominator's rationale: Overcategorization as WP:OCAT#Trivial intersection of location and genre. The musicians wikiproject categorizes musicians by nationality, genre and instrument, but strongly discourages categorizing anything more specific than nationality by genre or instrument. See, for example, earlier discussion on New York rappers (including various subcategories), California Hardcore musical groups, and Rappers from Florida. It's true that New Orleans is sometimes considered the "birthplace of Jazz", but as discussed at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Jazz/Archives/2008 1#Proposed Category:New Orleans jazz musicians, this does not mean that every jazz musician in New Orleans contributed to that birth (most weren't even born themselves at the time). I suggested a more targetted list, but since the category was created anyway, I'm bringing it here for wider debate. Xtifr _tälk 02:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I will oppose such an action in every way that I can. [[Category:Musicians of New Orleans]] is a general category for any and all musicians. New Orleans is the cradle of jazz music and as such deserves a category entirely unto itself. New Orleans is not "sometimes considered the birthplace of jazz", it is the birthplace of jazz. To not have a category exclusively devoted unto it would surely be a crime. (Mind meal 02:51, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

As I said in the discussion at the Jazz Wikiproject, those are all great arguments for adding information about the history of Jazz to articles and for making lists. It is not a justification for creating overspecialized categories and impeding navigation. See the discussion about New York rappers for some of the reasons why we don't categorize by both genre and state or city. There's nothing wrong with the information; but a category is simply the wrong way to present that information. I advised you to review Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes for some insight into how to set this up properly, but you seem to be fixated on (mis)using the category system. I'm sympathetic to your views, but this violates all relevant guidelines and precedents, and is absolutely not necessary, as there are a wealth of great alternatives. Xtifr _tälk 03:54, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I respectfully disagree with your entire premise. First of all, categories are the easiest way for users (new ones especially) to tag their articles. Series boxes are seldom added to articles, because most people aren't even aware of how to go about doing that. A list isn't exactly a bad idea, but they do not grow at a fast rate. Also, users seldom add a "See also" heading with, ie. [[Jazz musicians of New Orleans]]. It would seem to me you are trying to make it hard for users to find information efficiantly. I find it absolutely necessary, but that doesn't matter. What I feel is absolutely necessary or not isn't the point here. This isn't a generic category like "New York rappers", because New York cannot be said to be the birthplace of rap music. This category would seem to be a blatant example of the exception to the rule, as any historian will tell you that New Orleans is at once the most important area concerning jazz music. It continues to be today. Without New Orleans, there would not BE jazz music. This is a silly contest, though I know you have done so in good faith. It is funny you speak of "impeding navigation", because I find this to accelerate navigation. How does this category impede navigation? Explain that.(Mind meal 04:04, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I will also state that this category does not, in my opinion, violate intersection by location. I say this because in the guideline it states "However, geographical boundaries are useful for dividing items into regions that are directly related to the items' characteristics." New Orleans jazz musicians wear their heritage like a badge of honor. In this case the location is directly realted to the item: jazz musicians, because as I stated it is the birthplace of jazz music. That is a fact that actually cannot be contested. It all started in the brothels of New Orleans by black musicians as a way to entertain the white customers. I mean think of it. When I say New Orleans, you think jazz music. They are critically linked. (Mind meal 04:22, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

I think that New Orleans is important enough to warrant its own category in Jazz Music. I have learned how Jazz spread from The Big Easy up north to the clubs in Chicago and Kansas City. I believe that the birthplace of Jazz deserves its own category, even if some of today's New Orleans musicians were not living 100 years ago. Jollyjoegiant 04:26, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I'm not sure how I feel about this. There is the historic importance, but other cities could argue that for other forms of music. However what might tip me toward "keep" is that "New Orleans jazz" can also be the term for a specific kind of jazz. In that sense "New Orleans jazz musician" should be just as valid as Category:Bebop musicians.--T. Anthony 04:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • On further consideration keep as is with an option to rename it Category:New Orleans jazz musicians. I didn't realize how long Category:American jazz musicians so subcats might help. I mean if we start using the more specific subcat when valid.--T. Anthony 05:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This category is quite large, with 187 articles, so it is not as if there is overcategorization here. Given the importance of New Orleans in the development of jazz, the city definitely warrants its own category, as Jollyjoegiant noted. I have one suggestion, though: shorten the name to New Orleans jazz musicians. The "of" is a bit awkward, in my opinion. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 05:14, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:New Orleans jazz musicians, per above. - jc37 05:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:New Orleans jazz musicians also, so long as we can do this without manually changing each entry in articles. (Mind meal 06:16, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Rename Category:New Orleans jazz musicians per above. Doczilla 06:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment (brainstorming) New Orleans jazz redirects to Dixieland - I am fairly sure that is not what Category:New Orleans jazz musicians is supposed to match, but it might look like it did. For me, the (debated) historic "birthplace" role does not justify a special treatment of the city which would include contemporary and future New Orleans musicians, and the category does not relate to that role, but simply to the city. I find subcategories of musicians' national categories rather confusing than helpful, see British, English, Scottish and so on (I find "American" which is mostly supposed to mean U.S. American misleading too, but that is another problem). The longer I write this, the more I get the feeling that I support the merge - on the other hand, what about Category:San Francisco Bay Area rappers? My 2 (Euro)cents. Cheers, BNutzer 06:47, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not necessarily opposed to it being a "Dixieland musicians" category instead. Although I think New Orleans Jazz does include other elements and some of them see "Dixieland" as a demeaning term.--T. Anthony 07:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Perhaps I should create a well-researched article on New Orleans Jazz to demonstrate that it encompasses so much more than dixieland, which is a common perception. The tradition of jazz in New Orleans has always been one of progression, though there are "traditionalists" (ha ha!) such as Wynton Marsalis who wish to block progressive strides. I'd like to see that debate, as I've yet to read anything in all my studies of jazz that suggests it originated anywhere but New Orleans. It is also loosely coined the "Mecca of Jazz", the importance of the city in the development of jazz music and culture cannot be understated. The thing here that convinced me to initiate the category is the synonymous association the city has to the particular genre of jazz, in all it's myriad forms. The article on Wikipedia is a former featured article, and just look at the opener. It is spot on. New Orleans easily has to be the most important location regarding jazz music that there is. (Mind meal 06:59, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep. A notable subject and useful categorization. The fact that 190 articles at present are in this category is an indication of the category's usefullness, and helps keep supercategories of more managable size. I have no objection to the proposed name change to "Category:New Orleans jazz musicians" if this is considered more in line with naming guidelines and someone is prepared to do the work to move the articles. -- Infrogmation 07:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is that subject exactly? The fact that musicians are based in New Orleans or some (in my view not clearly defined) "genre" New Orleans jazz/New Orleans Jazz? BNutzer 07:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment for BNutzer. Actually, that is not even the point. This isn't about defining New Orleans jazz as a genre, because New Orleans jazz musicians play in all kinds of variations. What exactly makes Mardi Gras so captivating? It isn't just the parades and beads, it is the locally driven music. This category meets the standard for categorization by location, because New Orleans is to jazz as butter is to bread. I don't really understand the "controversy" here, myself. It really seemed to be a no-brainer for me. (Mind meal 07:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]
• Keep/rename Trivial? Pah! Oliver Han 09:45, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as a genre category, this would actually be fine, as long as it were limited to musicians who play New Orleans-style jazz (regardless of where they actually come from). We might even have subcategories by nationality, giving us, e.g., Category:German New Orleans jazz musicians. That would be completely fit with existing categories. That would be my preferred choice. As a second choice, if there were an were an article about New Orleans Jazz, then this category would also be acceptable. But again, it would have to be for musicians who play New Orleans Jazz, not just Jazz musicians who happen to be from or live in New Orleans. If it's going to be an exception to the general rules, then it needs to justify that by being about the exception to the general rules. I might go so far as to suggest renaming it to Category:New Orleans-style jazz musicians, just so it doesn't get filled with musicians whose connection to New Orleans is merely physical. To be specific: if, say, Kenny G were to plop his scrawny behind down in NOLA and start calling it home, I still don't think he should be included in this category—otherwise, IMO, this category does not justify its existence. If we can figure out a way to pin that down, I would happily withdraw my nomination. Xtifr _tälk 11:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:New Orleans jazz musicians. Considering its role as the birthplace of jazz and the huge category for Category:American jazz musicians, New Orleans unique history and dominant role in the birth of jazz music threatens to be lost within a huge category. I would also urge Mind meal to start the New Orleans jazz article a.s.a.p. detailing the role and influence that the city has had and still has on jazz music as a whole, whilst internally linking to the new article from jazz and New Orleans, if as Mind meal says, references and notability can be established to warrant its inclusion in Wikipedia. --tgheretford (talk) 15:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Additional comment for Mind meal - Music of New Orleans should ideally be created first before New Orleans jazz. You could explain in summary about all the styles of music in New Orleans before expanding in a greater detail about New Orleans jazz in its own article --tgheretford (talk) 15:25, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I'm going to build on what I believe were T.Anthony's comments. I think that the Category: American Jazz Musicians holds primacy, with subcats as available for specific cities. I don't think you can take away the status of New Orleans in jazz, certainly its artists are reknowned as groundbreakers. But in fairness, if we focus on the artists and from where they hail, we should level the table, as many other cities, such as Kansas City, Chicago, New York, Washington, DC, and Pittsburgh, just to name a few, have contributed many groundbreaking artists and leading names as well. I understand the argument for N.O's primacy, but my personal interpretation of the issue is dissuades me from supporting it, this debate is about artists not N.O's status in jazz or the mix of styles developed there.Internazionale 15:21, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I could not agree more with Internazionale concering other cities, as the cities they have mentioned have made mounumental contributions to the artform. I mean Count Basie and Kansas City! Jimmy Ponder and Pittsburgh! Chicago, New York....don't even get me started. I think this would be an excellent way to classify jazz musicians, as one will see that 90% of all jazz musicians hail from one of these cities or call them home! (Mind meal 15:44, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

The problem with this notion is exactly the same as was discussed with New York Rappers. People don't necessarily know what city (or even state) a musician is from, but they certainly know what genre and usually what country. That is why we generally classify by nationality and genre (and instrument). Not because the cities of origin don't deserve praise for their influence on their local musicians, but because it makes it harder for people browsing the encyclopedia! New York has made monumental contributions to the art of rap! But city or location is still not the right way to categorize rappers or jazz musicians. You're arguing directly against Wikipedia convention and consensus here; convention and consensus that were arrived at after lengthy discussion and consideration. You seem to be arguing that the city is special. Nobody is debying that the city is special. But categories are not the right way to demonstrate that the city is special! Xtifr _tälk 07:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• It comes likely as no surprise, but I disagree that this actually violates anything per the standards set forth by Wikipedia on the matter. To be frank, the initial claim that the category is a WP:OCAT#Trivial intersection is not correct. The proper issue at hand deals really with location alone, so it would be WP:OCAT#Intersection by location. The language used in this states "Avoid subcategorizing items by geographical boundary if that boundary does not have any relevant bearing on the items' other characteristics. For example, quarterbacks' careers are not defined by the specific state that they once lived in (unless they played for a team within that state). However, geographical boundaries are useful for dividing items into regions that are directly related to the items' characteristics (for example, Roman Catholic Bishops of the Diocese of Columbus, Ohio or New Orleans Saints quarterbacks). Intersection by location is appropriate if it represents the best option for splitting a large category: for example Category:American writers by state." My argument is that New Orleans does in fact have a direct association with jazz music that is both unique and extraordinary. Also, as has been mentioned by User:T. Anthony and others, the mother category for American jazz musicians is very large and could use such categorizations to helps break it down. I would propose Category:Kansas City jazz musicians, Category:New York City jazz musicians, and so on in the best of worlds concerning this subject. But I know when to push and when not to. Are we coming to the conclusion here that the city of New Orleans has no relationship to jazz or jazz musicians that is distinct and unique? A city which actually carries on the very tradition of jazz in a country that has for a long time now underappreciated the artform? It is hard to even think of a comparison that fits here as far as the instant association people have concerning "jazz" and "New Orleans". I mean entire families in New Orleans just play saxophones, trumpets, cornets, guitars as a hobby! It is an integral way of life in the city. In New Orleans, jazz musicians are like royalty. A quality jazz musician is treated with the same sort of reverence that a great athlete is given elsewhere. The music, the city and the people are just so critically a part of New Orleans that the case can't even be made that there is not a strong connection. (Mind meal 08:40, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

You're quite right that I should have cited "intersection by location" rather than "trivial intersection". But this is absolutely not the best way to subdivide Category:American jazz musicians which already has a plethora of subcategories (and should be nearly empty—I've just cleaned up most of the 'A's, and am starting on the 'B's.) In addition to the by-instrument subcategories, musicians can be categorized by sub-genres, and this is more likely to be more useful to a much wider audience. This is not a category of cities, this is a category of musicians, so arguments about the importance of the city to jazz are somewhat off-point. Yes, the jazz in NOLA is evolving, but a large part of that evolution is being influenced by jazz from outside the city. NOLA jazz musicians are not an isolated and distinct group; they are part of the wider world of jazz music and the ongoing development and evolution of that artform worldwide! And the "New Orleans-ness" of these musicians is not particularly relevant to their notability or influence in the wider world of jazz. Some New Orleans jazz musicians have had a massive influence on jazz in general, but many (I might go so far as to say most) have not, which makes this not a defining characteristic in my opinion. And how musicians are treated in New Orleans is not relevant to a world-wide perspective, which this encyclopedia should reflect. The many arguments you have raised make an excellent justification for a list, but I do not believe they justify a category. And your arguments against listifying seem extremely weak, at least to me. Xtifr _tälk 00:18, 18 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Hello Xtifr. The tradition of jazz in New Orleans has surpassed categorization as a mere genre; New Orleans jazz is not static or unchanging. Kenny G does not live in New Orleans nor would he dare to do so. The tradition of jazz musicians from The Big Easy is firmly established in the very culture of the city, and is not at all limited to such a narrow view as dixieland. If Kenny G actually moved there, and began playing with the local musicians, he would get schooled. That would be a good thing, not a bad thing. The average street musician playing for tips in New Orleans has more talent in their finger than Kenny has in his entire soul. As the city does for any musician who has the guts to go and play there, the very atmosphere of the place changes their appreciation of the artform. Jazz in New Orleans is a way of life, not a genre. I would be happy to develop such an article, as time permits. The view you express concerning "New Orleans jazz" being limited to a classification by genre is not a new one, and it is a debate that goes on among the very musicians of New Orleans. I am opposed to "New Orleans-style jazz musicians", as such a "style" does not exist. New Orleans has been recognized by our own federal government as a national treasure in terms of the culture, and jazz as it pertains to New Orleans is the major force behind that perception. (Mind meal 15:38, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Now you're way off into POV territory. The idea that NOLA jazz has "surpassed categorization as a mere genre" could never qualify as more than a subjective opinion, even if you found a cite for it (at the moment, it's pure WP:OR). To say that Kenny G would not dare move to NOLA is both preposterous and missing the point (he was just an example, there are millions of musicians around the world who might move to NOLA). As for the general influence of NOLA music on musicians living there, I agree, but it's not limited to jazz musicians, and is the reason I created Category:Musicians of New Orleans. Jazz is a strong tradition in New Orleans, but so are R&B, Funk, Zydeco, etc. We even have a template of Louisiana roots music.

My problem is not with categorizing musicians from this fantastically musical city. My problems start with assuming that the jazz musicians, and the jazz musicians alone, from this city "deserve" (more properly, need or require) separate categorization. Yes, NOLA is a national treasure, but that doesn't make each and every musician from the city (whatever genre they might play in) into a national treasure. National treasurehood is not contagious. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, and we need to be precise in our definitions, and you are arguing for some extremely vague, subjective and POV inclusion criteria for this category. That might be appropriate for a jazz fansite, but not for Wikipedia. IMO. Xtifr _tälk 21:03, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Performers of New Orleans jazz to disambiguate from other jazz people in New Orleans, same as was done with by renaming Category:Christian musicians to Category:Performers of Christian music. Carlossuarez46 21:53, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment You see, the problem with this idea of a New Orleans jazz is that it is hotly contested within the jazz community. It discredits all that has come from this wonderful city since in terms of style. It would be unfair to lump all jazz musicians of The Big Easy into a category devoted to performers of New Orleans jazz, for the current definition on Wikipedia for New Orleans jazz is dixieland. Such an action would eliminate a great many performers who perform and were trained in New Orleans who have decided to take their music in different directions. If by New Orleans jazz you imply dixieland, that just cannot fly. Take the example of Irvin Mayfield, cultural ambassador of New Orleans and Afro-Cuban jazz and post-bop jazz trumpeter. Every governmental body that made him Ambassador of the city did so with full knowledge that his association with the local jazz community was a key element in the decision; but Mayfield is not even a traditional dixieland artist. That alone, for me, says that the very government of the United States and state of Louisiana consider this city to be the hub of jazz culture. I hope those arguing for this odd idea of New Orleans jazz as limited to some archaic form will consider this with due measure, as I think personally the point has been lost on some. (Mind meal 22:17, 15 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Comment As I see it, the question is: what does the category actually represent?
  1. Jazz musicians who live in New Orleans
  2. Musicians who play "New Orleans Jazz", an archaic style
  3. Jazz musicians who participate in some sort of local New Orleans musical tradition

It looks like the general feeling is to delete the category if it refers to a simple location, but to keep it (in some form) if it refers to players in a particular style or tradition. I am in agreement with this, but I think it is important that, if kept, the category correspond to the article New Orleans jazz (currently a redirect to Dixieland). If the category is used to identify players in the local tradition, then we'll need to change the article to match it. Otherwise, we're inviting confusion. --Wayne Miller 02:34, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think the real question is whether or not jazz music in New Orleans is alive or dead. Is it a living, breathing tradition? Is it stuck in some early form of the music that the city produced? I believe it is important to point to Irvin Mayfield yet again, as his position as cultural ambassador represents the idea that New Orleans jazz is one of many styles. They could have easily selected a musician from the city that limits their playing to a traditional form, but such a decision was not made. That explicit decision was not made by chance, and speaks to the breadth of genres the city incorporates. To play my own devil's advocate, it could be argued that the same could be said of many cities. My counterpoint to that is there are only a handful that even come close to having a culture that is so steeped in the jazz tradition. When is the last time you went out for a picnic in your town to hear a local jazz band playing in the park? Or attended a funeral that starts blocks away from the church with a marching band? By the way, I am all for correcting that redirect to dixieland, as many of the artists themselves resent greatly the term. This discussion is becoming very positive, really. (Mind meal 03:03, 16 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

• Rename to Category:New Orleans jazz musicians. New Orleans is a very special city for Jazz, and it has a very special historical sound associated with it. It would be useful to categorize the many musicians historically associated with New Orleans Jazz. Algabal 04:18, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - I assume this category is meant for musicians who come from or live in New Orleans, not players of some sort of New Orleans style of jazz. That should probably be specified in the category. -- Cielomobile ^{talk / contribs} 20:53, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – I don't think people looking for New Orleans jazz musicians are likely to think of "Musicians of New Orleans" as the logical place to start. Merging them into "American jazz musicians" seems more like losing them there to me. I understand the reasons for the rules being cited as reasons for not keeping the category, but often exceptions are necessary to accomplish the goals the rules are intended to achieve. John FitzGerald 21:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Meaningful and useful categorization. --Metropolitan90 07:39, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • It may be meaningful, but what does it mean? (Note: it's only useful if we know what it means)
  1. Jazz musicians who are from New Orleans, regardless of where they now live
  2. Jazz musicians who live in New Orleans, regardless of where they are from
  3. Jazz musicians whose careers are based in New Orleans, regardless of origin or current domicile
  4. Jazz musicians who have some connection to New Orleans, however vague or tangential that may be
  5. Musicians who play "New Orleans Jazz", regardless of origin, domicile, including those who never have set foot in the city
  6. something else

I was assuming its the 5th one, but if another is meant then a different title would be required. Carlossuarez46 21:47, 17 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. 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.