Delete per nominator. I note that we don't have corresponding "Truthers" or "Moon Landing Hoaxers" (or whatever) categories. -- ChrisO (talk) 19:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because everyone in this category should be mentioned in Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. (I first wrote "is mentioned" but somehow Pat Boone got deleted again, even though most editors in this discussion favored inclusion.) At this point, the set of notable people championing this cause is small enough that they all deserve inclusion in that article. Therefore, a reader who wants the complete list can look at that single article. That some Republican legislators made offhand pro-birther comments isn't important enough in their lives to be flagged with a category listing on their bio articles. JamesMLanetc03:00, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Breaking research institutes down to the city level is over-categorization. If kept, then it need to be renamed as the members of the categories are not lists. Whpq (talk) 11:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply - I'm not too familiar with categories. I'm not dead set on deleting this. If creating a more general geographic division is possible, then merging it into there sounds like a reasonable course of action. -- Whpq (talk) 14:23, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Category:Research institutes in Foo has plenty where Foo is a country, none that I can see where Foo is a state or city; but there is one for the San Francisco Bay area. US categories are generally broken down by state, but not this one. I don't myself see any objection to state subcats being created. Occuli (talk) 19:43, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: In this successful nomination, we renamed all the "(artist) music videos and DVDs" categories to "video albums." So now we have two categories that do the same thing. The subcategories (except for Category:Music videos) should all clearly move over, in my opinion. I'm inclined to move all the articles over as well, with the goal of either deleting the "video albums" category if they are already in subcategory, or giving a new "(artist) video albums" category if they don't, in accordance with the songs and albums precedents.Mike Selinker (talk) 00:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments – the subcats were mostly of the form (when renamed) 'Foo video albums' and clearly now belonged in Category:Video albums by artist, so I have moved them. The (many) articles probably need to be considered one by one - some are video albums, some might be music videos and others might be something else. Occuli (talk) 01:33, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reasonable enough. I'll probably start going through them soon, and then there might not be a category left to talk about. Meantime, let's see if other people agree with this course.--Mike Selinker (talk) 01:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Further comments - I think Mike would like a bot to move all the 400+ articles at the top level to Category:Video albums and then the few that are not video albums could be moved by hand elsewhere. There is however a need for a music subcat of Category:Videos and DVDs to collect together the music-related categories we have been discussing of late. Occuli (talk) 14:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine too. I think it's all part of a process to get the video albums into by-artist categories, and whatever helps is good. I'm not sure this is the right phrasing for the top-level category, though. It suggests that individual songs are OK in it, which is what I'm hoping to avoid.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm all for dismantling huge, senseless categories. However, I'm not too keen on the term "video album"; there isn't a precise definition of what constitutes a video album. Even on wikipedia there is no "video album" article. Imperatore (talk) 19:18, 1 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 July 31
