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. the wub"?!" 11:31, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose these are not fictional Romani people; they are fictional Gypsies. As the correct parent article indicates in defining the term, "Although in certain contexts it is still used to describe the Romani, it also describes those in English speaking countries who live a lifestyle similar to that of the Romani, or as a translation of equivalent words in other languages." The characters are far closer to a stereotyped caricature of what we think of as a "Gypsy", and are hardly ever accurate depictions of Romani people. Renaming the category as suggested will create the false impression that these are accurate depictions. Alansohn (talk) 18:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No one in the category is a resident of an English-speaking country who lives a lifestyle similar to that of the Romani. They are all Romani. Renaming the category as suggested will create the false impression that these are accurate depictions. By that "logic" we should delete every fictional character category, because they might create the false impression that all real doctors are like Owen Harper or, god forbid, that all aardvarks are like Cerebus. Lord knows we wouldn't want to defame the doctors or the aardvarks. Otto4711 (talk) 19:50, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I've explained my reasoning and stand by it. As usual your attempts at convincing me otherwise are not even wrong, and you are referencing the wrong parent. Marcus Welby was intended to be as realistic a depiction of a physician as possible. Esmeralda (Disney) depicts a Gypsy, not a faithful characterization of a member of the Romani people. Though my research convinces me completely, feel free to try to argue otherwise. Alansohn (talk) 21:30, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Categories are not limited to realistic depictions or faithful characterizations. As for the "parent" I referenced, it's, um, the one you quoted from. Otto4711 (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is . I think Otto is right--the people who fit this category fit much more closely the traditional "Gypsy" than the current correct designation. Conceivably we may need an additional category for the characters who are Romani, in 21st century literature, but I'd hold off until we saw the need of it, especially since it may not be easy to make the distinction. DGG (talk) 03:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In Britain, we also have an Irish traveller community who are not Romanis, but are popularly regarded as Gipsies. Furthermore, a fiction authro has complete control of his subject. He he calls them a gipsy, so should WP; to do otherwise is to impose a PC agenda on the author. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:19, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
One, none of the articles in this category are about fictional Irish Travellers. If there is a sudden burst of such character articles then they would go into Category:Fictional Irish Travellers to match Category:Irish Travellers, which is where such people are categorized as opposed to Category:Gypsies. Second, by your logic, Jim should be in Category:Fictional niggers. Planning on setting that one up any time soon? And seriously, you're going to twitter about being politically correct when you use a phrase like Irish traveller community? Finally, in point of fact we do not always or automatically abide by an author statement when categorizing fictional characters. We don't categorize Harry Potter as a "fictional wizard" despite his author's rather clearly and unequivocally identifying him as such. Otto4711 (talk) 02:41, 12 April 2009 (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:United Arab Emirates Police Officers[edit]
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:rename. Kbdank71 17:21, 13 April 2009 (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. the wub"?!" 11:35, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - criminals by motive is a horrible basis for categorization. Motive is frequently very complex and implementing this scheme could lead to multiple such categories that offer IMHO little encyclopedic benefit. Otto4711 (talk) 23:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too subtle of a thing to boil down to a category. Gigs (talk) 23:19, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there needs to be convictions. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:22, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep; or Rename to Category:Multiple murderers for insurance money, removing Gibbs, O'Brien & Upchurch. I thought this would mostly be people who killed their spouses & happened to pick up the life insurance, but in fact all the others are multiple/serial murderers in a way that was not "subtle" at all. A useful cat on the insurance side. Johnbod (talk) 00:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the purpose of categories is to group articles by a common characteristic for navigation purposes, this one hits it dead on. These individuals are not just murderers, they did it for the money in a manner that usually requires a degree of connivance. As a strong defining characteristic, we should be categorizing on this basis. Alansohn (talk) 18:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Defining characteristic. We could even have fictional murders for insurance money. DGG (talk) 03:21, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but like murderers, frauststers and rapists, it must be limited to the convicted, the dead and the long disappeared. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:15, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I see little evidence that the Domino theory applies to WP categories, & think we should all sleep soundly in our beds. Johnbod (talk) 12:16, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You've never seen one category beget a slew of others? Is this your first day? Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, the dreaded slippery slope. You can feel free to vote to delete your nonsensical categories as soon as you create them. Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So murder for insurance money is a legitimate encyclopedic topic but murder as revenge for infidelity isn't? Interesting set of biases you're showing. Otto4711 (talk) 16:48, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on principle, since criminal by motive sets a bad precedent. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:59, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
As an admin, can you point to anything under Wikipedia policy that justifies "bad precedent" as an excuse for deletion? Would "bad precedent" be a legitimate justification to close this or any other XfD? Alansohn (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
(1) Yes, try WP:OCAT. It sets a bad precedent to keep a category that is clearly overcategorization. It's just another way of stating the same thing. (2) Yes, if that is what consensus decided. Such closes are made every day based on arguments of WP:OCAT and the bad precedent that would be created by keeping a category. See, for instance, #Category:Singles_released_from_compilation_albums, on this very page. Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:54, 13 April 2009 (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:delete. Categorizing art subjects is reasonable, but they should be for, as noted, adequately defined and notable, which it doesn't appear that this one is. Recommend going with Johnbod's suggestion of creating Spiders in art as a good basis for a possible recreation of this category. Kbdank71 14:55, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, I did expect to see her! Even so, there will be very few if any other articles, & the company one should not be there anyway. I think "topic"/"subject" categories in art are the equivalent of "Films about Foo", and should be fairly restricted. We only have Category:Horses in art so far, not even dogs yet. Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and make many more topics in art categories. an altogether reasonable way of categorizing art works. A considerable number of them do in fact have a subject. I see no reason to be restrictive here--if we have been restrictive for Films about..., it's time we changed. DGG (talk) 03:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I am all for creating valid categories for adequately defined common subjects, & have set up a number of such cats myself, but the fact is there are very few notable works of art featuring spiders that people are likely to create articles about. I suspect they don't sell well! Johnbod (talk) 02:52, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And there is a famous Japanese C19 painting, with the rising sun behind a fat spider (the Shogunate) ... But Spiders in art would be a better way to start than a category. Johnbod (talk) 12:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete just doesn't seem viable...maybe Rhinocerii in art; or eggs in art; or owls in art; and then clocks in art and chairs in art and neckties in art......Modernist (talk) 23:25, 11 April 2009 (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:keep as parent category only. Although for the record, being a murderer is not always a defining characteristic, or even notable. Kbdank71 17:27, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. The category's stated purpose is to categorize people who allegedly committed murder. Alleged crimes is not a proper basis on which to categorize anyone. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - consists entirely of subcats not in the nom. There is little point in just deleting this head-cat! The category description is clearly out of date too. Johnbod (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep - without getting into the merits of "murderers" vs "people convicted of murder" the cat is serving as a head cat only. Otto4711 (talk) 23:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I support merging/renaming this (and all subs) into "People convicted of murder". For those that few that might fall outside of this (in antiquity, before modern courts, as was pointed out on the rapist nom), I see two ways to go. One might be a new cat for something like "People suspected of murder"... The other could be "Ancient murderers", which while still suffering from potential POV problems IMO, will at least never run afoul of BLP. Gigs (talk) 23:27, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod - this is only a head-category (or container category) for the more specific and descriptive subcategories. --Wassermann (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If the real issue here is a matter of definition or title, there's no reason to discuss deletion. Being a murderer is a rather strong defining characteristic. Alansohn (talk) 19:34, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Even apart from the need to have this for the subcategories, that's the basis for the notability a considerable number of people. The placement into the category is an editing question with respect to each article.
Keep - provided the category is limited to people convicted or who died before conviction. This can adequately be dealt with by a headnote. The position is the same as for "rapists" and "fraudsters" categories. To categorise living unconvicted people will be libelous. However, I am not suggesting that Lord Lucan should not be included, on the basis that he might still be alive. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2009 (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:rename. the wub"?!" 11:44, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sure—I wasn't positive what I was going to propose to do with those names, so I was just getting these ones out of the way first. You can go ahead and nominate them per your suggestions. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:02, 8 April 2009 (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:rename. the wub"?!" 11:44, 14 April 2009 (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:rename. the wub"?!" 11:45, 14 April 2009 (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:keep all--Aervanath (talk) 04:51, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category and its subcategories have bothered me for a while. I think these categories are inherently POV. Many convicted maintain their innocence, and convictions are sometimes overturned. These categories unnecessarily label the people they are attached to. Many of the nationality categories contain only one or two people. On the other hand, the subcat "People executed for rape" I believe is OK, since that is an event that is verifiable, rather than a pejorative label. Gigs (talk) 19:59, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - discussed once previously in November 2005 as part of a mass-nomination of similar categories. Closed no consensus but some of the nominated categories have been discussed and deleted in the interim, on BLP grounds for the most part. Otto4711 (talk) 20:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Otto. Gigs (talk) 20:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - similar problems could arise with all types of criminals, why single out rapists? There are a few cases of people executed for rape where their convictions remain disputed e.g. Willie McGee. PatGallacher (talk) 21:02, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, and would challenge "Murderers" on similar grounds if this succeeds. Gigs (talk) 21:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The seeming duplication is there because someone can clearly be defined as a "murderer" and yet not have been "convicted of murder". There are many people who commit mass murders and then commit suicide, for instance. Are Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold not murderers? Yes, but they were never "convicted of murder". Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That would be fine if we knew they all were, apart from dead people from before courts really operated, those killed right after, etc. In fact the vast majority probably are convicted, as the categories seem resolutely contemporary - I had to add Sextus Tarquinius just now - no trial for him. Again, this is the primary category for most people in it. If they are mainly known for being rapists, we should be very wary of removing some form of reflection in the category system of this (BLP issues apart). Johnbod (talk) 22:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
People are more than only their crimes. They may be only notable for their crimes, but their life was surely more than only crime. Boiling an entire lifetime down to a pejorative label is inherently POV, IMO. I'm open to withdrawing this request if we can come up with a workable alternative to split/rename this that helps with POV. I've written a little more about this on the Murderers nom. As you pointed out it's no trivial matter to come up with a proper system for this, but I think it can be done. Gigs (talk) 23:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Save it for the jury, Gigs! Johnbod (talk) 02:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but WP doesn't defer to the jury, we just toss labels without benefit of a trial - that's why we need to limit this to basically a category about "People who some wikipedia editor thinks raped someone" or "People accused of rape and were either convicted or beat the rap somehow", neither of which is consistent with BLP, nor useful to any extent. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 17:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
No, if we are categorizing rapists, then Sextus Tarquinius belongs there, whatever the deficiencies of 5th century BC Roman criminal legal process. Johnbod (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All I am more than willing to consider renaming and tightening the definition to include those who have been described as such in reliable and verifiable sources, which should be the criteria for all categories. Alansohn (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all The standard of evidence that is (or at least in most cases should be) required for membership of this category is "beyond reasonable doubt", which is much higher than the usual Wikipedia standard of "someone wrote it somewhere". Sure, courts make mistakes, but when they do and a conviction is overturned, the obvious solution is to remove that person from the category. I don't think we have a legal or moral obligation over and above that, given that we were relying in good faith on the legal process. Deleting the category doesn't fix any POV or BLP anyway, given that to be included in the cat, reliably sourced evidence (i.e. details of a conviction) should be included in the article. Unless the nom proposes to remove this content from articles as well, I fail to see what is achieved by deleting the cat. You can't wish away real-world issues like rape by not mentioning them for fear of having a POV. The problems with this cat (and any crime cat) can be fixed by deleting (or merging and redirecting) articles that are about WP:ONEEVENT and enforcing strict standards of sourcing and evidence before adding members to the cat. The proposed name Category...convicted of rape has two problems. Firstly it is the usual CfD mealy-mouth compromise that makes a category name more complex than it needs to be and is certainly not intuitive. I don't see how, if the category criteria is enforced, one name is worse than the other (they both amount to the same thing and I would be aggrieved to be in either). Secondly, there will be cases, in history or in the present, of people who have committed rape beyond a reasonable doubt but have never fronted a court for that offence. -- Mattinbgn\talk 21:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly clear, and a notable characteristic. for living people, the placement of the category tag is governed by BLP, and for others, its an editing question. As almost all confine their activities to a single country, the national subcats are relevant. DGG (talk) 03:27, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename to "convicted of rape" (for it must be limited to such people, possibly adding those who died before conviction. Rape is a very serious crime. The usual reason for claiming innocence is not that no intercourse took place, but whether it was consensual. Cases where the convicted person credibly denies intercourse should be rare in these days of DNA testing. My guess is that few rapists are truely notable, apart from a single crime. However, only serial rapists may be notable for their crime. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:09, 11 April 2009 (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: Not really defining. There are tons of vanity labels. What if an artist used to own a label but no longer does (for instance, Clint Black and Equity Music Group)? What if they only co-own the label? Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:15, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
How can this not be defining? Most artists don't even own a label. Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:47, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Defining? Not sure. But isn't it common for many artists to start a record label to get their first songs out? Not many major companies are willing to cut records for new artists. Or has this changed? Vegaswikian (talk) 20:00, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and delete - that it is owned by a recording artist may be defining of the record label (see Category:Vanity record labels) but not I think of the artist. There are also currency issues as artists can establish and disestablish labels, they can take on partners who are not recording artists, they can sue their corporate partners and be exiled from the business and so on. Listifying would allow for such additional interesting and useful information as date of founding, the name of the record label, the dates of operation and current status. If listified I would suggest List of vanity record labels as opposed to List of artists who own record labels as allowing for greater flexibility in information inclusion and presentation. Otto4711 (talk) 19:42, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apple (owned by the Beatles) was clearly NOT a vanity label. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:00, 11 April 2009 (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:Singles released from compilation albums[edit]
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: Not really a defining category, or at least overcategorization. Almost every Greatest Hits album has at least one new song on it, so that the label will have something to release to radio until the next studio album is out. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 18:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but not every greatest hits album has new songs. Dan Seals's Greatest Hits album had one new song, which wasn't released as a single. Craig Morgan's greatest hits album had no new material. Some of them do, but on some of them they don't get released. On Keith Urban's Greatest Hits album (I'm not talking about the re-issue), there were two new songs, which weren't released as singles. However, there were at least three new songs from Martina McBride's Greatest Hits album which were released as singles, but that doesn't mean that I agree with the deletion. How can this not be a defining characteristic? Ryanbstevens (talk) 18:41, 7 April 2009 (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:No flagged revisions; no vandal fighting[edit]
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:deleteFor those sick of having to wait for flagged revisions and therefore refuse to do vandal fighting. Not a protest category? WP:DUCK would appear to say otherwise. Kbdank71 17:18, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This user category not only fails to follow the naming conventions for user categories, it also runs afoul of Wikipedia:Overcategorization/User categories by being based on likes and dislikes and being divisive and potentially disruptive. There are better ways to make one's point than by creating protest user categories. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - NOT a protest category, nor is it intended to make a point (unless you let it). Being in this category is a way to show users that might ask for vandalism reversion from a category member... not to bother, because I won't. Therefore it helps with the smooth running of the encyclopedia and avoids wasted time. Rename it if you like to fit the naming convention but you haven't actually shown how it's divisive or disruptive. (Proof by assertion... isn't) ++Lar: t/c 03:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that assertion is not proof. Here are my arguments: Divisive because it divides editors into those who willing to act and those who refusing to do so. Potentially disruptive because vandal fighting is a necessary component of Wikipedia maintenance. If enough people decided to refrain from doing it, it would indeed disrupt the project. (Not that this seems likely to happen.)
I was guessing about the intent; I'm sorry for assuming incorrectly that it was intended as a protest or to make a point. I trust you can imagine why I jumped to that conclusion. Best wishes, --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - overcategorization based on opinion. The notion that someone would peruse this category to avoid asking a member for a reversion is...novel...but highly unlikely. Otto4711 (talk) 13:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Support/oppose category, which consensus has previously determined time and time again are not appropriate for Wikipedia. VegaDark (talk) 05:13, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sounds like a good idea for a userbox, or other userpage notice of some kind, but not for a category. Categories shouldn't be used as "bottom of the page" notices. And there's also the issue of being "not"-based. - jc37 00:16, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If people want to create a userbox to communicate this idea, they should feel free to do so, but this doesn't need to be a category (user or otherwise). --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:20, 11 April 2009 (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:delete. Kbdank71 17:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Created four weeks ago, the category contains of two articles, neither of which cites any sources. For navigation, there are wikilinks between the articles which suffice, so a dedicated category is not needed at this time. Stepheng3 (talk) 16:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specialsised a category to survive. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:58, 11 April 2009 (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:keep--Aervanath (talk) 05:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep that would mess up the parent, & the revues are easily accessible from the main article. Johnbod (talk) 13:38, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
By keep, do you mean keep with current name? Yes, the revues are accessible from the main article, but so are the songs. By that argument, why do we need categories at all? — Tivedshambo (t/c) 13:46, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Johnbod but I agree that we need a F & S category for the revues (F & S being a defining characteristic). Category:Revues exists but is not subcatted. Category:Flanders and Swann has fallen foul of eponyphobia. There is Category:Works by author but there is generally a single author. Occuli (talk) 15:51, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree that a F&S category is the most logical, so I recently proposed it for review here. Unfortunately that failed - hence this proposal instead. Hopefully you'll agree that a category containing just two songs is unnecessarily small, so I'd welcome any alternative suggestions. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 16:39, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - "revue" and "song" are not synonymous and muddying the songs by artist category by adding revues is far too wide-sweeping a change in scope to be left to a single isolated CFD. On a side note, a sub-cat of Category:Revues for F&S strikes me as unnecessary as, with only two possible members and the revues category itself not being sub-categorized by artist (and with fewer than 50 articles, no likely need to so sub-categorize) an F&S revues category would be small with no possible chance of expansion. The revues are linked through the F&S article, a navtemplate and, I assume, each other, so readers interested in F&S revues will be able to locate them easily enough. Otto4711 (talk) 19:34, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I like that idea - how do others feel? — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a solution in search of a problem and categorization for the sake of it. We're talking, ultimately, about two articles here, both of which are accessible through multiple navigational routes. A category isn't necessary for every single aspect of every single creative work. Otto4711 (talk) 17:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
To quote from Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and navigation templates: "...each method of organizing information has its own advantages and disadvantages, and is applied for the most part independently of the other methods." To be honest, I don't see why you seem to be objecting to me trying to improve this category. Yes, I agree that it only has two articles, and that's why I'm trying to expand it so that it encompasses a fuller range. Please, work with me on this, and if you have any better methods of improving this category I'd be glad to hear it. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 21:26, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have no objection to attempts to improve the categorization system. I simply do not believe that your proposal accomplishes any improvement. Otto4711 (talk) 13:40, 14 April 2009 (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:Americans convicted of spying against America[edit]
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:rename. Kbdank71 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. The main reason for the nomination is to change "America" to "the United States", which is the standard name format for the country. As an afterthought I suggest we could change "Americans" to "American people" just because most subcategories of Category:American people use this format. But the latter change would not be essential if it's opposed. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Good Ol'factory. --Wassermann (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support to match name of country. Alansohn (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "Americans" is an appropriate demonym, but "the United States" is more appropriate as the name of the country. --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:22, 11 April 2009 (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.
Upmerge per nom. Johnbod (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per nom, unless some one can suggest that there is room for expansion. None seems likely to me. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:53, 11 April 2009 (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:delete. Kbdank71 17:12, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. It was tagged {{Move to Commons}}, and all images were thusly moved to Commons. The category is empty. Any new images should be uploaded there instead, so the category isn't needed here. – Quadell(talk) 01:14, 7 April 2009 (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:delete. Kbdank71 17:11, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm not sure what this is supposed to be, except maybe an organization of Ricky Martin stuff by date. No need to merge to correct Ricky Martin categories as all the articles appear to be appropriately categorized as a Ricky Martin song, album, etc. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - 1991-2007?? I'm not aware of anything similar for any other artist. Occuli (talk) 12:05, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The creation of this category may have been based on a misunderstanding of the category system. --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:24, 11 April 2009 (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:delete. Kbdank71 17:10, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. These "media-by-sales" categories were deleted in favor of lists some time ago. The problem is definitional: best-selling albums of all time? of a particular decade? the current year? If assumed to be of all time, the problem of arbitrariness appears—how many do we include, and why? The top 10? 20? 100? 1000? List of best-selling albums worldwide deals with this topic much better. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:04, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective as to cut off point and probably not verifiable; if a million are counterfeited and sold does that count? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. This is the sort of thing which is much better dealt with by a list than a category. --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:25, 11 April 2009 (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: The songs listed in this category were written, not recorded, by Desmond Child. Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Many otters • One hammer • HELP) 00:56, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom and per clarity. Occuli (talk) 12:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename A no-brainer in my book. --Richhoncho (talk) 19:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support I met the man while working for a major record label and am more than familiar with his work. While the existing title is not incorrect, per se, the revised title is even clearer. Alansohn (talk) 21:18, 8 April 2009 (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:rename (again). Kbdank71 15:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Technical nomination. Moving from a contested speedy that was renamed out of process. Really needs a discussion. The contention is that Displaced Person is an official designation and should be capitalized. If this is renamed back, I suggest that lead article also be renamed to match. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Original CfD: the 2007 CfD where the caps version was settled on is here. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support capital D and P as official description of status (if support needed). HeartofaDog (talk) 00:52, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert to previous name - I certainly would have contested the Speedy renaming if I had been aware of it. Very briefly, I researched this issue at some length back in 2007 and determined that, in addition to being a descriptive term, "Displaced Persons" was also an official designation that was specified as such in official documents. If need be, I will see if I can locate my notes on the subject. Cgingold (talk) 01:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Revert/support capitalization per Cgingold. I actually opposed this speedy by citing Cgingold's comments in the last CfD, but for some reason the name change was performed anyway. Unless there's a consensus to keep the current name, I think it should be reverted since the most recent consensus that we have had is to use the capitalized version. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the main articles remain at Displaced persons camp and Displaced person. No view on which is right, but here is not the place to resolve it. Later ... ok Rename per nom, now change seems to have stuck. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note I processed the speedy too rapidly, but didn't revert so as not to make possibly more bad edits. I have no preference on the name of this, but do think the category should meet the articles, and as there is wide-spread discussion here would support having the results of this CFD apply to article renames as well. — xaosfluxTalk 03:24, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We don't really like to do it that way round. But if you set up a "requested move" debate at Displaced person (where the issue has never been raised), you should be able to resolve that before this closes. Johnbod (talk) 13:55, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That has just been moved there by Vegas without any debate, which since the matter seems to have been controversial in the past, doesn't seem right. See WP:Page moves. Johnbod (talk) 01:57, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I was bold. I checked and could not find where this might have been an issue in the past. Finding nothing, I did move the page. Given the various redirects, it is clear that many terms are used to describe this. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:07, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I imagine that though it has been an official term, it is not always so. I think this is an issue to sort out at the articles - the solutions may be different for each. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your surmise is correct, Johnbod. I don't believe that the article Displaced person should be capitalized as it covers the topic generically, so in that context it is simply a descriptive term. However, in the specific case of the post-WW2 Displaced Persons camps, it was very clearly an official designation and the article should reflect that distinction. Cgingold (talk) 01:32, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
That's the point I was going to make. While the category and camp article should use the caps, the main article should not. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:42, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, changed above. Johnbod (talk) 02:55, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Displaced persons" is a common noun, not a proper one. --Stepheng3 (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is. The term "displaced person" may be an official designation, but that still doesn't make it a proper noun that needs to be capitalized. --Metropolitan90(talk) 07:30, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just to be absolutely clear: when I said that it was an official designation I also meant that it was spelled as such in official documents. Cgingold (talk) 09:00, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. There is a difference between a displaced person and a Displaced Persons camp. Using CAPS has meaning here. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 12 April 2009 (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.
