Nominator's Rationale:Rename; the use in articles of "sophomore" for albums is deprecated as local slang, likely not to be understood outside North America. It's not clear to me that this is a useful category at all, but it should at least be named according to Wikipedia guidelines. Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:41, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the members of this category have nothing in common beyond happening to be the second album released by an artist or group. The association is too loose to warrant a category. Otto471122:45, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unpopulated category, that should not be populated. This might survive as a list, but seems to be an inappropriate way to categorize actors. Delete. -- Samuel Wantman 20:00, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per many precedents against categorizing performers by the studios or networks for which they worked. Otto471120:31, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated. It is just as he says - there were a few articles in this category, but they were all stubs that have now been merged and redirected. Bubba73(talk), 19:50, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Rationale:Rename, According to my understanding as a music fan of many years and, fortunately, according to the article Songwriter too, a composer writes music, a lyricist writes lyrics, and a songwriter writes eitherorboth. Since most of the people in this category are members of Category:Songwriters and since the contents are songs (not lyrics, not music, but either or both) the category needs to be renamed. For the best logical arrangement we maybe ought to have 3 categories (by songwriter, by composer, by lyricist) but in the interests of avoiding over-categorisation I think renaming this category would be the best solution. kingboyk16:54, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Works for me. I've occasionally wondered why we have categories for both lyricists and music writers, since they are very often the same person. But that's another nomination.--Mike Selinker19:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I'm not sure about this; in popular music "songwriter" is probably more common, but not in the huge area of classical and romantic songs. It would be odd to refer to Wolff or Schubert as "songwriters"... --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:43, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's Rationale:Rename, This category currently maintains a large list of templates that are either no longer in use, or are being phased out of use. This strikes me as unnecessary - if a template isn't in use, then surely it should be passed through TfD and deleted? I can, however, see a use for a Category:Templates being deprecated as a temporary holding place for templates while they're being replaced, before passing them through this page. The existing category already does this job to a large extent, hence this rename proposal rather than me creating a new category and later proposing this one for deletion. If this rename is successful, then I plan on running through the templates in the category and either redirecting the disused templates to their replacements, or nominating them for deletion here. Mike Peel11:36, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Oppose. While I understand the logic behind this nomination, not all the templates in here (while orphaned) are ready for deletion. The category adequately describes the templates...they have been deprecated and should not be used, use XYZ alternative. We keep them around for awhile as (especially in the case of high-use templates) some people don't know there's a new template to be used. ^demon[omg plz]14:42, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That makes sense for templates such as Template:Boolne, which have a function replacement rather than a template replacement. However, I can't see any benefit in keeping templates such as Template:Infobox City IE (as a random example) around for much longer than it takes to replace all of the existing usages. That template could be set as a redirect to its replacement template without an issue, or deleted altogether. I believe that having the category named as it is encourages people to use it as a graveyard for old templates such as these, rather than putting them through TfD. Having it named "templates being deprecated" (or better, "templates being decommissioned" as per kingboyk below) implies a transition rather than an end.
Perhaps splitting the category into two would be better: "Templates being decommissioned" and "Templates replaced by functions". Mike Peel
Delete; a potentially infinite, and intrinsically unavoidably subjective, category, serving no encyclopaedic purpose.--Smerus10:19, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Merge; These two categories cover the same topic. However, the term 'music print publishers' appears to be a neologism; a search on Google shows this term only to be employed in a few Wikipedia articles (and nowhere else). The phrase 'publishers of sheet music' is clear and intelligible to all, therefore should be used as the title for the merged category. Smerus07:30, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category related to a comic series. I propose either renaming the category to something more intuitive (Category:Bone (Comic series)?) or deleting it, as it's really not clear what the category is referring to. Cheers, Afluent Rider05:16, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - everything in the category is well-interlinked through the main article and navigational template. The category is not needed for navigational purposes and should be deleted. Otto471112:21, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or rename to match article title if kept) I agree with Otto above that this seems to be an unnecessary eponymous category for the comic book. Therefore I'd support deletion. If the category is kept, though, I'd suggest renaming it to match the main article title. Dugwiki20:03, 7 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
