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 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:Immigration Control Stations in Hong Kong
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.
Comment at this point. I'm not convinced that we need to categorize these when we already have a list and a template. The problem is this seems to be including buildings that contain a customs and immigration station. I don't believe that these are mentioned, except in passing at most airports. So why is this group so important and defining to need a category? Vegaswikian (talk) 19:13, 11 June 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 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 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: They appear to be redundant. The "Islamic" category is older than the "Islam" one, but I'm not actually sure which category name is better. Mu Mind (talk) 16:09, 11 June 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 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:Upmerge. There is no need to subdivide British rhythm and blues musicians into a loosely defined "boom" period for British rhythm and blues. We have no article about the boom in particular, nor can its dates be defined with precision. Good Ol’factory(talk)09:03, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
If that is the case then obviously we have an ambiguity problem, since it's unclear in the category name whether the "British" refers to the musicians or to the boom, or to both. Good Ol’factory(talk)22:58, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I created the separate category to distinguish those musicians that specifically emerged from the 60s boom. The term is very common in the literature and is easily defined by the decade of the 60s. It is in fact much easier to define than other accepted categories such as Category:British Invasion artists. The category British rhythm and blues musicians is different in two important ways. First, British R&B tends to be used only for musicians that are or have remained primarily R&B, probably because it suggests a current or primary categorisation, whereas this category catches the very large number of significant musicians that emerged from the scene and then moved on to other genres. For example, few would tend to think of Mick Jagger as British R&B musician, but he was clearly a vital part of the British R&B boom. The existing category also cannot include musicians that were not British but nationality but part of the boom, such as Geno Washington and Jimmy James (singer). I submit that this category does what categories are meant to do, allowing readers to pursue connections without resort to reading large amounts of text or the creation of endless list article. There is no detriment to the project in having both categories, even if editors use the British R&B musicians, which does have only a small number of entries.--SabreBD (talk)09:25, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Defines those R&B musicians who came to prominence in the boom period in Britain defined to be the 1960s as opposed to R&B musicians in general.--Egghead06 (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Category system may be unwieldy but something like this is needed, because this little culture, time and place is important in its field. A few early 60s London clubs like Klook's Kleek and Eel Pie Island, where less-known figures like Ian Stewart, Alexis Korner and Cyril Davies were hugely influential, gave a home to John Lee Hooker, Sonny Boy Williamson and Jimi Hendrix, and bred The Yardbirds, The Rolling Stones, Manfred Mann, The Pretty Things, David Bowie, Cream, Led Zeppelin. Yet the period is vague in most American web accounts of the "British Invasion" and the connections with jazz and folk that were to give rise to progressive and other later forms are only dimly appreciated. Wiki coverage needs improving, not pulling apart. While we have musical pseudo-categories like Category:British Invasion (yes, capital "I"!) classed as a "British style of music" - while, that is, we got the facts from 50 years and 5000 miles away - this category is not a redundancy but your only hope of accuracy. Redheylin (talk) 01:23, 23 June 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 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.
I see a need for a category that has all countries that are recognised. I agree that "modern" is subjective but there is a set of countries that are generally accepted as such. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 06:06, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why would this muddle things up? It's not like this page would be the one used to figure out what countries currently exist and what ones do not. If everything is alphabetized, there is no muddling. Good Ol’factory(talk)07:42, 14 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Not for the knowing to figure out, but for the knowing to document for the unknowing reader so the latter can use the category to see which are current countries and which are not--without having to read the article texts to find out. This is a proper and help navigation use for which categories exist. Both the 'current countries' and 'non-current countries' categories would be proper subcats of Category:Categories named after countriesHmains (talk) 02:44, 15 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see that countries are differentiated in this way with an entire Category:Former countries category tree to handle those that no longer exist. A few countries in transistion does not change the overall argument that currently existing countries are, and should continue to be, separated from no longer existing countries. Hmains (talk) 04:17, 18 June 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.
Why was the article deleted? I would not be offended if the category were deemed unnecessary--I just created it because I felt there were enough albums to be grouped together. If, however, the label could be notable then why delete? --Another Believer(Talk)04:59, 11 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The rationale for the Prod looks flawed: "Reissue-only label. Fails WP:CORP, no non-trivial sources." Proper Records has a substantial catalogue of reissues, but has a significant roster of first-issue artistes (as were visible in the deleted article) and in the referenced BBC News article which also pointed to the label's awards. I'm minded to get the Prod reversed, in which case the category removal would be premature. AllyD (talk) 16:07, 12 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as the Proper Records article has now been restored. (Obviously, if it next gets taken to AfD and deleted, then the associated category would then be in question again.) AllyD (talk) 16:34, 12 June 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.
