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: It seems that these categories are categorizing albums of artists by occupation. Aside from being incorrectly being categorized under Category:Rock albums by genre, there has never been a tree structure to categorize albums by occupation of the artists. This would only lead to overcategorization and the intersection seem pretty trivial to the albums themselves, as opposed to defining characteristics of an album, like genre. Do we really want to see categorized like Category:Singer albums, Category:Singer-lyricist albums, Category:Rapper albums? I don't think this is a road we would want to go down. — ξxplicit22:19, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The links provided by User:Andrzejbanas are historically correct, however, the term has now widened to include any singer who (sometimes) also writes their own songs, therefore claims of "genre" are completely weakened to meaningless. The Singer-songwriter article opens up with the words, "Singer-songwriters are musicians who write, compose and sing their own musical material including lyrics and melodies, and includes names like Elton John, each of the Beatles and Jagger/Richards. So claims this is still a "genre" are wide of the mark.
The guidelines at Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Article body states "Per WP:CATEGORY, an album may be categorized by a characteristic (such as producer, composer, record-label, etc.) only if it is a defining characteristic of the album (i.e. reliable, secondary sources commonly and consistently define the album as having the characteristic—not just mention it in passing or for completeness). Of the few albums I checked none defined the album as a "singer-songwriter" album, so it looks like these categories also fail under the guidelines, too.
For a sample of artists who are classified of singer-songwriters in WP, there is Adele (singer), Henry Rollins, Mariah Carey, Bill Haley, Sam Cooke and Geri Halliwell. None of whom I would call singer-songwriters of "the bardic tradition" but would be fully entitled to be listed in these categories. I also note the artist for whom the term was coined is not listed in any of these categories, which also speaks volumes for the lack of worth of these particular categories.
Delete-- I'm a biographer of musicians, & for 4 years have created, edited, & found photos needed for their articles. I negotiated over 1,500 photo uploads to Commons for articles left behind by others without pics, references etc.--and poor writing and categorization!! There should not be a category for their work- I (personally) don't view singer-songwriter as a profession (that would be "musician") and their work draws from different genres which can be listed instead. Jeezy! Singer-songwriters emerged in the 1960s. Generalization? They'd perform their own material which often had a message they wanted to convey. They include James Taylor, Cat Stevens, Simon & Garfunkel, Joni Mitchell, Harry Chapin, and Neil Young- a very short list off the top of my head.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://movies.nytimes.com/2011/02/02/movies/02troub.html?sq=David Crosby&st=cse&adxnnl=1&scp=1&adxnnlx=1296997326-O8SMXwj7ugDmL9hIRrr3ag|title=Troubadors Recalling the Reign of Taylor and King|last=Holden|first=Stephen|date=February 1, 2011|work=Review of a documentary about the golden era of the Singer-songwriters 1968-1973|publisher=''The New York Times''|accessdate=19 October 2011}}</ref>Leahtwosaints (talk) 00:06, 20 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete/Upmerge. WP:OC, not especially defining, badly populated (I'm sure more than one person from Texas has had a ship named after them...) small categories. Suggest leaving the one for New York, as it seems to be significantly more significant (to run the risk of being redundant) than the others with 49 articles, but the contents other by-state subcats of Category:United States Navy vessels named after people should be upmerged both to that parent that and to the Category:United States Navy ''state''-related ships categories. (Note that the "after foreign nationals" and "after Presidents" are very defining and should be kept irregardless of this). The BushrangerOne ping only21:16, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete For one thing, whoever is populating these categories is justifying this with extremely tenuous connections which I for one would not categorize as being "from". For example, of the four people with ships listed under "Maryland", one has no stated association with the state, one was born in Colorado and buried in Baltimore, and one was born in Venezuela, the son of a diplomat from Baltimore. Only one was actually born in the state. The whole thing strikes me as a trivial intersection, especially if this low standard is going to be accepted; considering that most of these are going to be military men, the number of states that most of them have some connection with is going to be pretty large. Mangoe (talk) 12:31, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – I am hard-pressed to see that any of these (including "after foreign nationals" and "after Presidents") have any bearing whatever on the categorisation of a warship. This is categorisation by some property of the name. (I had thought irregardless was a family joke but I see it has wider currency.) Occuli (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment does this include people from territories before they became states? (or people from territories from which states were carved out of?) 70.24.251.158 (talk) 08:02, 16 October 2011 (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:no consensus. We probably need a global discussion on city/province categories in Spain, since we've had a bunch of discussions and no clear direction.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:06, 28 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Listed building is a term used world wide for many different purposes. From historic designation to energy savings it is widely used making the term inherently ambiguous. While there is an article for listed building that does not help with a category like Category:Listed bridges. This is trial balloon at the top of this tree. If this rename has consensus, there will be a need to rename a batch of subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:52, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: This seems impossibly vague to me--what are the inclusion criteria? Any time that color is associated with a political ideology, religious group, military tradition, etc.? —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:04, 14 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Perhaps as Koavf mentioned, it seems that the purpose would be topics in which color is chosen because of its meaning in some other context, as distinguished from where the color is natural or was chosen arbitrarily. I would say this category could be useful, though some of the articles in it right now aren't very good examples. A better example of appropriate topics (which I don't see on Wikipedia yet) would be "Green in symbolism" or something like that. "Liturgical colors" seems like a better example also; the colors used for vestments symbolize different concepts. Color symbolism appears to be the main topic article, though that article is very incomplete. I'm sure there could be articles about why, for example, leftist movements such as labor unions and socialism use the color red. All that being said: I'm not sure there are a lot of existing articles to fill this category, even if there should be. --Closeapple (talk) 16:35, 15 October 2011 (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.
