The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep. There was some support for a rename; this could be pursued in a new nomination. Users also suggested that an RfC may be a more practical venue to consider the appropriateness of this category and all of its subcategories. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Even setting aside that a lot of these pages are redirects to some album/recording, I presume all of these songs will still be categorised in other ways (by songwriter, for example).
We have long precedent to not categorise works by a performer. These should be no different.
Comment. Not sure deletion is correct, but renaming Songs recorded by performer Songs by recording artist' would be more accurate, for that is what is intended by the category. --Richhoncho (talk) 22:05, 8 April 2021 (UTC) Amended --Richhoncho (talk) 16:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - articles are categorised by 'defining characteristics' and the recording artist is usually defining. Eg House of the Rising Sun has been recorded definingly by the Animals and Bob Dylan (and less so by a host of others). 'Songs by recording artist' would be my suggestion. Oculi (talk) 00:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Defining? I look at the categories of White Christmas (song) and doubt that that is true, and I doubt that is true of even most of the entries in these categories. Even your example has a lot more than those two listed, But then, I wouldn't be surprised if we both could subjectively cherry pick examples of defining and not defining, but that still doesn't get past performer by performance. How is this different than people who have played Prince Hamlet or been in Hamlet? Any singer can sing any song. If there is a definitive version, I presume that will be noted in the article. And that provides much better navigation for our readers than these categories, in which all are listed the same, without any way to indicate the "definingness" you mention. - jc37 01:23, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, possibly rename to Category:Songs by recording artist per Oculi. Grutness...wha? 01:09, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, just a rename of the top category will not prevent the article White Christmas (song) becoming overcategorized. If we want to avoid that, all subcategories should (also) be renamed, to something like "Songs originally sung by". Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, there is no notification of this discussion on the Songs WikiProject page. I would expect massive opposition from there because Songs by artist is the very first type of category they mention to be added to songs. Marcocapelle (talk) 05:50, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Marcocapelle. I'll notify the project page, but your suggestion of orginal artist doesn't work, unless you think Madonna's version of American Pie, or Houston's I Will Always Love You shouldn't be categorised.--Richhoncho (talk) 09:27, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The original singer is usually one of the main defining characteristics of a song, while later singers usually aren't, so this sounds like a reasonable compromise. It does imply having American Pie (song) only in the Don McLean category but not in the Madonna category. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:35, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
John Fogerty seems to be more defining for the history of the song, despite the lower numbers. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
A version of a song which opened one of the biggest charity gigs in history, watched by 1.9 billion, is better defined by one which made 27 on the charts - OK.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This wouldn't work for something like "House of the Rising Sun", where the Animals were neither the writers nor the original artists to have recorded it, but made the best-known version of the song. Would you say that Gloria Jones' version of "Tainted Love" is a more defining version than Soft Cell's? Richard3120 (talk) 14:11, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
WP:DEFINING says "A defining characteristic is one that reliable sources commonly and consistently define", it does not say "always define". Marcocapelle (talk) 14:49, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but we were coming up with examples where the original singer is not the most defining characteristic of the song, which was your original statement, so some kind of exceptions are going to have to be made here. In the case of "Rocking All Over the World" I am 100% confident that Status Quo's version is far better known worldwide than Fogerty's original, and has been written about far more, if we could find the sources for it - it's their "signature song" (which is why they opened the Live Aid concert with it) and their biggest-selling single, with sales of over 500,000 in the UK alone and very likely a worldwide million-seller. Both Blondie's and Atomic Kitten's versions of "The Tide Is High" will be better known and more widely discussed than John Holt's. In the case of "American Pie" as well, it would seem strange that a version that has reached number one in 13 countries would not be categorised by that artist. Richard3120 (talk) 17:14, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural oppose: this nomination lists only the container category. Deleting it would leave all the actual "Foo songs" categories in place. If the nominator wants to delete all the "Foo songs" categories at CFD, then they need to list and tag them all. Alternatively, open an RFC. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:07, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I did nom all the subcats. Once upon a time there were people around with bots who could/would help with tagging. If you know someone in particular to reach out to for that, I'm all ears. - jc37 10:21, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
No, you did not nominate the subcats: they are neither tagged nor listed, so they are not nominated. You have been here plenty long enough to know where to ask for help ... and to know how to make that request before opening a half-baked nomination. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:45, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to get "technical"... Tagging is merely a type of notification of a nomination. This here. this on this page is a nomination. Now we have preferences on notification of nominations at CFD, to be sure, but lets please not conflate the two. - jc37 11:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't even made a list of the categories, just a vague wave. That's not a valid nomination in any sense. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with BHG that this discussion can probably better be started as an RFC, since an RFC does not require a formal nomination of the subcategories. It will save a lot of tagging and listing effort in case there appears to be no consensus. Marcocapelle (talk) 12:44, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral. I have some sympathy with the nominator's logic, but not with their absolutism. Being sung by a given artist is often a defining characteristic of a song ... and also often not defining. The ideal solution would be to apply the WP:DEFININGness to each categorisation, as has been done with "My Way", which has had squillions of recordings, but is in only 4 "Foo songs" categories. Unfortunately, that rigour is not sustained across all songs. The nominator's preferred remedy is to demolish the whole thing, but I think that other solutions should be explored first, such as a standardised hatnote in each such category noting that WP:DEFINING applied. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:26, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
(apologies in advance for the obvious question but) - Who decides that, and how is that subjective determination not WP:OR? This and many other reasons are why we don't categorise performers by performance. - jc37 10:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Jc37, you have been here for long enough to know how editorial judgements are made: WP:CONSENSUS. WP:DEFINING is a core principle of en.wp categorisation. If you have concerns about that principle, then feel free to open an RFC ... but this CFD is not the pace to challenge a broad principle. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:42, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus doesn't trump WP:NOR. And as for WP:DEFINING, rather than just vaguely wave at it, here's a quote from that page - "Definingness is the test that is used to determine whether a category should be created for a particular attribute of a topic. In general, it is much easier to verifiably demonstrate that a particular characteristic is notable than to prove that it is a defining characteristic of the topic. In cases where a particular attribute about a topic is verifiable and notable but not defining, or where doubt exists, creation of a list article is often the preferred alternative." - subjectivity that would need consensus would seem to equal doubt. Which brings us back around to WP:OR. These could be lists at best, but not categories. - jc37 11:05, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Subjectivity and OR are different concepts. Please don't conflate them. As above, if you have an issue with the principle of DEFIINGness, then that applies to all categories, not just this set. So an objection to the concept of DEFININGNesss is a matter for a widely-notified RFC, not a CFD. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, so you keep saying that I have an issue with DEFINING. I don't recall making that statement. And not sure why you seem to be trying to place me on the other side of an arguement like that, but whatever.
To instead try to clarify, here's a quote from WP:OR - "...This includes any analysis or synthesis of published material that serves to reach or imply a conclusion not stated by the sources." - So yes, subjective analysis is OR. The issue isn't DEFINING. the issue is the subjective application of DEFINING. Which, I think, and please correct me if I am misunderstanding your words, You yourself stated at the start of this thread - "...Unfortunately, that rigour is not sustained across all songs.." - Hence (for this and other reasons) my assertion that, per WP:CLS, these should be in articlespace (list or whatever) so that such definingness can be referenced and explained, something that we cannot currently do in categories. And there are apparently well over 10,000 of these entries, many of them redirects. One might venture that "definingness" in most of these cases is likely rather in doubt. And I would not envy the poor soul who would need to go through all of these to verify each entry... - jc37 16:14, 10 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@jc37, please don't do that. I am not trying to place you on the other side of an arguement. You have chosen to raise a concern that in your view, applying WP:DEFINING is a form of WP:OR. You try to narrow that by saying that in these cases, DEFINING is being applied subjectively. However, you offer no grounds for any belief that DEFINING is more or less subjective or OR in these categories than in other categories. So far as I can see, every application of DEFINING to every content category is an editorial judgement ... so your argument applies to every application of WP:DEFINING. In other words, your objection is to the principle. Any such issue of fundamental principle should to be discussed at an RFC, not at CFD, because CFD is where we discuss applying established principles to specific cases (or sets of cases). And yes, you do misunderstand my point about lack of rigour. Lack of rigour in applying polices and guidelines is a broad problem caused by the fact that en.wp is edited by fallible humans like me and thee. It applies to every article and every category, and we resolve that lack of rigour by applying more rigour, not by ignoring the policy or abolishing that type of page. Consider for example WP:SUBCAT: widely flouted by editors who are unaware of it, or who just make an error. But we don't decry SUBCAT; we try to fix the misuses. Finally, you say that we should use lists, because in articlespace definingness can be referenced and explained, something that we cannot currently do in categories. That too is mistaken, because WP:CATVER mean that the definingness of each artists's recording of that song should be covered in the article as the basis for categorisation.--BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 02:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop. As Jc37 does not agree with your interpretation of what they are saying, maintaining that your interpretation is correct leads nowhere. Marcocapelle (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This is not "my interpretation". It is a point of fact that JC37 has not advanced any argument that WP:DEFINING is more WP:OR for these categories than for others. There is therefore no rational basis for JC37's desire to disapply WP:DEFINING here without disapplying it globally. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 04:57, 19 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - and limit its application to only where a version is mentioned and passes WP: SONGCOVER.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:46, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I was asked to have my bot go through and tag all of the categories that are being discussed, but given the scope of 8700+ individual categories I think that would be premature. As some users discussed above, it may be better to start with an RFC about if we want to have this type of category, instead of just nominating them *all* for deletion. That being said, if there is broader support for tagging them all, let me know --DannyS712 (talk) 20:24, 11 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per Oculi. --Just N. (talk) 16:29, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:songs by musician. This is a much better term.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and take concerns to an RfC if still deemed warranted. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 21:16, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Just an aside at this point, but I do find it interesting that there do not seem to be any comments addressing the rationale for the nom - WP:OC#Role or composition by performer. - jc37 21:22, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
To me, a defining characteristic of "Yesterday" is that it is a Beatles song. Errol Flynn portraying Robin Hood is not a defining characteristic of the character. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me 20:35, 20 April 2021 (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:Rowing regattas
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.
Regattas: Any rowing competition may be referred to as a "regatta" depending on the variety of English. In the UK, I believe sometimes they don't call head races regattas, but in the US it is very common to call them regattas (i.e. Head of the Charles Regatta). It seems better to make a Category:Head races as a subcat of this than to try to separate "regattas" as non-head races.
Races: Similarly, there is no clear difference between a race and a regatta. A race might mean a single contest start to finish where a regatta may mean a series of races over a day or more, but I see very few members of this category that are single races. The only notable single-race events I can think of are The Boat Race and the Harvard-Yale Regatta, and even for those the women's (for The Boat Race) and JV and 3V (for Harvard Yale) races are often included. Jfhutson (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:24, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per shared name guidelines. We categorize things by what they are, not what they are called.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 14 April 2021 (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:Biden administration controversies
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. At the time of the close, the category contained Imam Ali military base and February 2021 United States airstrike in Syria. Should those articles be removed from the category by consensus, it could be deleted as empty. I suggest discussing the category on the article talk pages before removing them from the category. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:08, 21 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: No major controversy has occurred involving the Biden administration so far. The only article used for the category is the February 2021 United States airstrike in Syria which isn't or was a major scandal. Any news article that uses the word controversy is about undoing Trump's executive actions, Biden's vast number of executive orders in his first month, or initially not holding a press conference. You'll see it in the headlines of the news articles on the first page of the google search for "Biden administration controversies". --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The controversies so far (only 79 days in) may be minor, but they do exist and need to be grouped. Plus, it's almost inevitable that there will be some major controversies in the course of Biden's presidency, so the category will need to be crated at some point. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 09:32, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: At some point, as you say. But the point isn't now. Those things that are referred to as controversies aren't real controversies. Nothing that warrants notability to create an article on Wikipedia. --WikiCleanerMan (talk) 16:34, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per virtual WP:C1, controversy is not a defining characteristic of the only article in the category. Marcocapelle (talk) 20:16, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BrownHairedGirl. --Just N. (talk) 16:22, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Marcocapelle....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 15:57, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category has been emptied. LizRead!Talk! 01:09, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Reply@Liz: I restored the category's one entry. It was removed by the editor @WikiCleanerMan: who began this CFD....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:13, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per BHG Juno (talk) 04:10, 16 April 2021 (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:Alopoglossidae
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This is a monotypic taxon, and it does not make much sense to have a category that will only contain one member, Category:Alopoglossus. 𝟙𝟤𝟯𝟺𝐪𝑤𝒆𝓇𝟷𝟮𝟥𝟜𝓺𝔴𝕖𝖗𝟰 (𝗍𝗮𝘭𝙠) 15:46, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:20, 13 April 2021 (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:Christianity in Ireland by denomination
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.
Merge -- The target is better structured. This is a case where an all-Ireland category is appropriate, as most denominations operate on that basis. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:43, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Admin note: this is a downmerge so would need to be processed manually (otherwise the bot would mess up the head categories). – FayenaticLondon 19:32, 11 April 2021 (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:Christianity in the United Kingdom by denomination
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.
Merge per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2021 (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:Young Victorians of the Year
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.
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia has an annual Victoria Day celebration and the festival includes a Victorian of the Year award ceremony, including a version to young people. Most recipients aren't notable and don't have Wikipedia articles and, for the 4 that became notable later in life, this early award is reduced to a passing reference. We have a Catch-22 where, when the award is defining enough for a category, the winners aren't notable enough for an article and, when they're notable enough for an article, the category is no longer defining. The current contents are already listified here in the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a category like this implies that winners of this award are default notable, they are not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:37, 14 April 2021 (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:Sapir Prize recipients
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 Sapir Prize is a literary award issued by the Israeli lottery. Per the article, the award has been criticized for picking best selling authors rather than based on literary merit which matters to us because the award is just reflecting pre-existing fame: 9 of the 10 articles mention the award in passing while 1 mentions it in the lede. David Grossman also won the more prestigious Israel Prize for Literature and the very different treatment of the two awards in that article is telling. The recipients are already listified here within the main article for any reader interested in the topic. - RevelationDirect (talk) 00:09, 8 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Just N. (talk) 16:19, 13 April 2021 (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.