< July 23	July 25 >

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. Courcelles (talk) 00:50, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Schola Cantorum de Paris faculty and Category:Schola Cantorum de Paris alumni, respectively. There are several points to consider in support of this change: 1) The name is ambiguous because there are other Schola Cantora (most notably, Schola Cantorum Basiliensis); 2) the full name of this Schola Cantorum is "Schola Cantorum de Paris"; and 3) the related category on Wikimedia Commons is called Category:Schola Cantorum de Paris. Category creator notified using ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 13:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per the worthy Cgingold and also fr:Schola Cantorum de Paris. (There are no categories yet for the Basle one but there are articles to populate them.) Occuli (talk) 13:33, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fantastic - thanks for pointing that out! (the French Wiki article) Cgingold (talk) 15:12, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. As the creator of these cats I support the re-naming. Perhaps the article ahould be moved to Schola Contorum de Paris as well?4meter4 (talk) 14:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Already done! :) Cgingold (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: relisting to 5 August log.. Courcelles (talk) 05:47, 5 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:People by city district or neighborhood to Category:People by neighborhood

Nominator's rationale: I'm not sure if this is overcategorization but at the very least, to match Category:Neighborhoods it should be renamed (and the subcategories changed afterwards). If this is kept, there are hundreds of subcategories from Category:Neighbourhoods by country (second and third levels) that should be included. Ricky81682 (talk) 10:06, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Way too specific. Other than the New York boroughs, which I can see, everything else needs to go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:25, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. These are no more specific than by U.S. county or small city. If anything, I d rename it to Category:People by city neighborhood, district, or locality to be more inclusive of terminology that varies from country to country. Mayumashu (talk) 01:28, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an appropriate means of organizing such categories as a parent. Its existence does not mean that all neighborhoods in all localities will be categorized, but for those that do merit categorization this is an appropriate parent. Alansohn (talk) 04:39, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete. the subcats were not included in this nomination, and are being kept per this nomination, however, this doesn't create any prejudice against a nomination of them. Courcelles (talk) 00:56, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Normally, the structure is based on Category:People by occupation and nationality, nationality, not location. Given this 2007 CSD and this 2009 CSD, there is at least some precedent that categorizing occupations at the city level (I'll leave state for another time) is overcategorization. Ricky81682 (talk) 09:57, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the early CSD also notes Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location which is a current guideline. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:09, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Wikipedia:Overcategorization#Intersection_by_location is a propos. The subcats should also be deleted/upmerged before they grow. (I have never seen the point of splitting a large category into subcats of unrelated articles.) Occuli (talk) 12:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete—at least on principle. We may need the category to keep track of its contents while we go about nominating them for deletion. But it should at least eventually be deleted.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, given that this iniative includes a few more contributors than before, as maintaining not having this tree will take some vigilance. So actors and sportspeople are out but musicians and politicians are in, I guess. What about local tv personalities, probably in too because they contribute directly to the local culture. I don t know if I (will) agree that U.S. states and their equivalents should not have generally divided occupation cats. Mayumashu (talk) 01:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm cool with politicians (direct contribution) and radio personalities (programming for area). I'd probably take out musicians, but the concept of a "scene" might mitigate that.--Mike Selinker (talk) 02:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I ve started a related nomination here [1] Mayumashu (talk) 02:09, 30 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all. Courcelles (talk) 16:37, 1 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: This is a bad intersection, as sometimes acts are signed to labels that specialize in other music--e.g. pop punk/alternative rock Magnapop on hip hop label Priority Records or classic rock's Rare Earth on Motown. But the problem isn't just hypothetical as several Creedence Clearwater Revival and Velvet Underground albums (e.g. VU and Creedence Clearwater Revival) were put out on jazz labels Verve Records and Fantasy Records and are consequently now subcategorized under Category:Jazz albums. For what it's worth, of the 58 subcategories here, I have added Category:Albums by record label to about half of them--mostly jazz. Otherwise, I would suggest upmerging them to that category. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:34, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

* WP:JAZZ notified. AllyD (talk) 08:08, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A triple intersection which will make a lot of work for a lot of people for very little value.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Another example: the existing categorization would place a large chunk of Jonathan Winters' discography within the "jazz albums" category. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 21:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename. Courcelles (talk) 00:51, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Numb3rs to Category:Numb3rs episodes

Nominator's rationale: Rename - with the exception of the article on the series itself, the contents are all episode articles. I don't see any need for a category named after the series so renaming this one to reflect its contents is probably the easiest solution. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 01:24, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't this fall afoul of MOS:TM - decorative lettering ? (Specifically the example of "Se7en" - it is properly "Seven") 76.66.193.119 (talk) 04:43, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I find that provision of the MOS silly and ignore it. The show is called Numb3rs, the article for the show is called Numb3rs, use Numb3rs for the category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 22:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I concur with TCOP - Numb3rs is nothing more than the correct spelling of the show's name. So rename per nom (and keep the main article in the renamed cat, using the sort key to display it at the top of the page). Cgingold (talk) 01:39, 26 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge with Category:Charter 77 signatories. Courcelles (talk) 00:53, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - as with the similarly nominated Category:Charter 08 below there is simply no need for a category to hold only the article and the signers sub-cat. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:19, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep unless we are in the business of eviscerating history, all human endeavour, and all those who took a stand in order to change the state of things. AllyD (talk) 22:23, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – this will eviscerate nothing, and have no effect whatever on Category:Charter 77 signatories (apart from depriving it of a feckless parent). Occuli (talk) 22:56, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if deleted, the link between the main article and the signatories category is lost. --Soman (talk) 01:37, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me that in cases like this -- and there are many, usually for "members of" sub-cats -- the main article should be placed in that sub-category, using the sort key to display it at the top of the page, separate from the members/signatories. And yes, Delete. Cgingold (talk) 01:44, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Put main article in signatories category—there is no reason to have two categories in this instance. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Charter 77 signatories (or vice versa). Charter 77 was extremely significant in its time, but it is unlikely to have more than one article, so that the existence of a category cannot be justified. That article could usefully be made the main article for the signatories category. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: merge Category:Charter 08 to Category:Charter 08 signatories. Courcelles (talk) 00:52, 2 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete both - absolutely no need for a category to hold the single article Charter 08. The signatories subcat seems unnecessary as well. There are only a very few "signers of..." categories and categories for signers of documents like this one have been deleted in the past. Signing this particular document doesn't appear to be the sort of achievement that warrants a category. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 00:30, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep of Category:Charter 08 signatories - Were you aware that both of these were taken to CFD in January and Kept? While I basically share your sentiments as to the merits of the categories, I really hate to see repeat CFDs this close together. Category creator notified using ((cfd-notify)) Cgingold (talk) 02:52, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wasn't aware of that. However, six months isn't a completely unreasonable margin between CFDs, especially ones which didn't draw a lot of attention. Would you agree that regardless of when it was last nominated there's no need for a category to hold nothing but the article and its signatories category, which has little or no chance of ever expanding? Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 03:20, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I basically share your sentiments. That's why I said "Procedural Keep" instead of "Keep". Cgingold (talk) 03:26, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I just read thru your question again and I'm wondering, are you suggesting that we delete Category:Charter 08 now -- but hold off on the other cat for a later CFD? That might be a reasonable thing to do. Cgingold (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I'll withdraw the nomination of the signatories category-although I still find it unnecessary-so that we can focus on the container cat. Are You The Cow Of Pain? (talk) 19:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sounds good. Cgingold (talk)

Keep the signatories one: I have a suspicion that this is a big deal in China. There is Category:Charter 77 which should probably be considered at the same time. (Was there a cfd about scientists who signed something about climate change?) I don't see that Category:Charter 08 itself is serving any useful purpose. Occuli (talk) 09:47, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for same reason as in January 2010 discussion resulting in Keep. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Charter 08; it serves no purpose. I think the other one should be deleted too, but I'm assuming the proposal has been withdrawn for now. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:10, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Category:Charter 08 to Category:Charter 08 signatories. Basically a Delete leaving a lead article. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:10, 31 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as Vegaswikian, making the article in the nom category the main artuicle of the other. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:46, 31 July 2010 (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.

July 24

Category:Schola Cantorum faculty

Category:People by city district or neighborhood

Category:People by city by occupation

Category:Albums by genre and record label

Category:Numb3rs

Category:Charter 77

Category:Charter 08