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, except on the fact that Lord Opeth did a bad thing. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:02, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Technical nomination. This appears to have been emptied by Lord Opeth. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom. Lord Opeth should probably have brought the emptying up for discussion before just replacing this cat with Category:Fictional organizations wherever it was used, so that it could be more easily disputed if consensus was against it, but I agree that the merge is the right thing to do. –Drilnoth (T • C • L) 22:50, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Administrative closure This is at least the second case where Lord Opeth has emptied a fictional category. I think he should be reprimanded for such actions. Discussion should be continued after restoring the category, so that we may asses it properly. Debresser (talk) 21:28, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I have been trying to catch these so that they can be discussed if needed. Any user can repopulate the category by going back and undoing the changes that the user made to get us here. I'm not generally going to do this for the ones I'm nominating since I don't know if they would in fact be kept. If the discussion looks to keeping, then someone will need to do the restore. Given the results so far, most of these nominations have resulted in allowing the deletion, in effect approving the change. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:27, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – I have restored 4 articles using Google cache and also restored the category inclusions - as User:76.66.203.200 points out above, there is Category:Dragonlance, a substantial structure, and Opeth's edits removed the pages from this altogether. Occuli (talk) 08:43, 29 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with the entries restored, it is clear that this category is most effectively used as a standalone under both the proposed merge target and the well-defined Category:Dragonlance. Alansohn (talk) 16:28, 2 July 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:Merge and Delete per nom. --Xdamrtalk 20:42, 16 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. A single entry category with multiple intervening subcategories. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see the rational behind all of this. Debresser (talk)
We don't need three layers of categories for one article. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- pro forma -- as Vegaswikian has been doing some logical cleanup in this area. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 11:28, 4 July 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:Merge. As pointed out by the nominator, because the category was removed from Category:Sex workers by nationality, the rationale for having the category does not exist anymore and merely adds an unnecessary extra layer to the scheme.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:12, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. No need for this extra category layer, simply upmerge to the parent. Very few entries and no need to depopulate the main category. No need to upmerge to Category:Sex workers by nationality since these are not sex workers as identified in sex worker, these might better listed as Category:Sex worker employers. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:26, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. I just updated sex worker, including a citation that basically says that the workers are paid to provide a service. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:36, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
My guess is you have had them deleted at one time or the other... Debresser (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep defining characteristic that is well-served by dividing up on a national basis to fit within the occupation by country structure. Alansohn (talk) 16:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The national categories are being kept and will roll up in the national trees. This also deals with a small extra category level and removed an inconsistent category name. If kept this would need to be renamed to Category:Brothel owners by nationality to reflect the parent name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:14, 2 July 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:Merge as nominated. Only one of these needs to exist, and since there is no consensus here on which is correct, we'll default to keep the older one. Anyone should feel free to nominate for a rename to "players". Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Merge. Technical nomination for an out of process move. Category appears to have been emptied by PeeJay2K3. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I emptied the category because there were three articles in there that didn't need to be, as there was a perfectly good category already in existence. No idea why this category was created in the first place! – PeeJay 21:06, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and merge Category:Scottish rugby union footballers into it. Also move all similar categories to "players". Almost no one has referred to them as "footballers" for at least fifty years, it's old fashioned usage.--MacRusgail (talk) 21:32, 24 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: To match precedent for other similar cats. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to match standard and make category contents clearer. Alansohn (talk) 21:49, 24 June 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 Note that this is empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:10, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Redundant category because all images that could appear here are public domain so should be uploaded, or moved, to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 15:00, 24 June 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:Deutsche Bundespost Berlin stamp images[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:Delete Note that this is empty. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Redundant category because all images that could appear here are public domain so should be uploaded, or moved, to the commons. ww2censor (talk) 14:55, 24 June 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. There is no reason that I can see to having a category for a single DAB page, especially when dab pages generally are not categoriized! Vegaswikian (talk) 20:11, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Biased category, Black Muslims is a term used for Nation of Islam members not people of Black race, where in this case African American Muslims should be used. DinajGao (talk) 13:38, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now. All of these seem to be African-American, so an upmerge could be considered to Category:African American Muslims. However a note on that category rather oddly says that it only includes "mainstream" & Sunni muslims. The nominated category seems to be intended to cover the US-only groups, like Nation of Islam etc, ie Black Muslims. However most of the articles I looked at were on rappers etc & very short on information on the precise denomination the subject belonged to. The logic of the nom seems aware of these issues, but a tad fuzzy in dealing with them. Not many of the individuals in Category:Nation of Islam seem to be in either of these categories. There are enough for an "NOI people" category. Somebody really needs to tidy these up & suggest a clearer rename for this category - Category:Members of Black Muslim groups perhaps. Whether the head cat really is, or should be, so restrictive is another question. But it is hard to see what just deleting this will accomplish. Johnbod (talk) 16:10, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume they're all American?!--MacRusgail (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't assume, I sampled, & looked at their names. Are any not? Johnbod (talk) 22:58, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup Reliable and verifiable sources support the use of the term, and there is a clear parent article to correspond to the category. this article in The New York Times from 1993 describes "Imam Yusuf Shah, a Black Muslim who helped to lead the Nation of Islam's Harlem mosque for 23 years". The term should not be used for most of the individuals in this category, who do not meet the definition of Black Muslims, but the category should remain. There appears to be a need to cleanup this category and the parent Category:African American Muslims, with Malcolm X moving to the Black Muslim category and Ice Cube shifted to African American Muslims. Alansohn (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think Malcom X ended as a mainstream Sunni, so should be in both. Johnbod (talk) 16:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume they're all American?!--MacRusgail (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - "Black Muslim", while certainly used in reliable sources to mean "members of the Nation of Islam", is ambiguous because it can also be interpreted to mean "Muslims who are black" (as evidenced by the inclusion of "African American Muslims" as a sub-cat). Black Muslims is a disambiguation page, noting that the term can refer either to any Muslim who is black but can also refer to any of several African American Muslim groups. If there are notable members of the various groups that fall under the dab then there should be categories for them, i.e. Category:Nation of Islam members. Otto4711 (talk) 20:18, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you assume they're all American?!--MacRusgail (talk) 21:37, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not making any assumptions about the nationality of anyone in the category. I'm not really sure as to how you formed that impression. Otto4711 (talk) 04:08, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Otto. We shouldn't categorize people by intersection of religion and skin colour. If intended to refer to members of the Nation of Islam or other groups, then there are different categories for those. Category:African American Muslims can also handle all of the American ones. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Only the NOI has a category, and as mentioned above, the AAM category is currently definbed to exclude these groups. We might usefully discuss here whether that actually is or should be the case, if editors can raise their view from the rifle-sights. Johnbod (talk) 14:49, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your rename suggestion would be fine. The current name is too ambiguous if that's what it's intended to be. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:41, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Notice I have created the category, Members of the Nation of Islam, therefore this category is not required plus the Nation of Gods and Earth do have a category here. Dimario (talk) 11:53, 2 July 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 to rename to this, but a new nomination to rename to something that indicates that this is an architectural style may be appropriate.Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:04, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. The purpose of the "built" is presumably to indicate that these hotels were built during the period when the Soviet Union existed. Certainly they are not in the Soviet Union now, so "Hotels in the Soviet Union" is inaccurate - they are in Russia, Ukraine, etc. As such, I see no problem with this formulation, but have more concerns about the other categories you mention which list hotels which exist (present tense is implied in the title) in countries which do not currently exist. Grutness...wha? 23:55, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Generally either a structure exists or does not exist. I don't believe that we have been categorizing based on the country that they were in at the time of construction. We have been categorizing based on the year built. Why is it defining that buildings were built in the Soviet Union? Vegaswikian (talk) 22:20, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
From an architectural point of view they are likely to share a number of common features - across all of the countries which now exist which were formerly in the Soviet Union. As such it makes a certain amount of sense to have one encompassing category containing hotels of soviet architectural styles, irrespective of whether they are in Lithuania or Tajikistan. Take a more extreme example - we have categories for Ancient Roman structures, even though a large number of them are not in Italy. The category under discussion is a far lesser example, but is analogous. Grutness...wha? 01:00, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe a more descriptive name and in the architecture tree rather then the structures tree? If this is a line of architecture then that should be clear in the category name. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a reasonable idea to me. Grutness...wha? 23:51, 28 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Just because a country no longer exists, we don't have to drop the categories. Where the categories serve a purpose they are kept. If as pointed out by Grutness this actually represents an architectural style, then clearly they should be kept and renamed. Also please sign you posts, whoever you are. I could not find out who made this edit from a quick look in the history. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:34, 28 June 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. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete - we don't categorize people as "heroes" unless it is part of an official designation. Sole occupant is already multiply categorized as Thai. Otto4711 (talk) 04:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete if there is some highest order of heroics bestowed by the Thai government we can categorize recipients of that award (we have a whole structure for that), but not generic "heroes" which is otherwise subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 16:33, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Question is none of them an "official" hero then? If so "delete", but if not, we'll have to keep this. Debresser (talk) 21:40, 28 June 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. While there was some support for a rename, the discussion points out flaws for inclusion with the current and proposed renames. If anyone develops a name that addresses the concerns and possible POV or BLP issues with a new category they can create it. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:06, 4 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Rappers convicted of crimes Since incarceration is temporary, this is not an appropriate category, as it needs to be updated when they are released?Cosprings (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator but from another angle. We have "convicted" categories. That should be enough. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Rappers convicted of crimes to correspond to the recently discussed Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. The "convicted of crimes" categories should also have a parent on the lines of Category:People convicted of crimes by profession. Rappers and brushes with the law are frequent fodder in the media, and there is a strong notion that a rapper who has been shot or in prison has earned street cred that would only add to their popularity, as in this article where an "Aspiring rapper robs Fla. store for 'street credibility,' police say", one of many that describe the connection. As "incarcerated" means put into prison or jail, regardless of a conviction, we should use the word "convicted" and follow the agreed-upon standard used elsewhere. While it's hard to tell which career track has a greater connection to crime, politics or rap, the reliable and verifiable sources support the claim that this intersection is a defining characteristic, fo shizzle. Alansohn (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have grave doubts that there is a general encyclopedic relationship between "profession" and "convicted of crime (that may or may not be related to the profession)". A rapper convicted of littering is a "rapper convicted of crimes" (technically, s/he's a rapper convicted of a crime) but I find it hard to believe that a rapping litterbug would gain any significant street cred for dumping his Happy Meal trash out the window of his limo. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photographic evidence of Barack Obama playing basketballThere is a connection, cited widely in the media, that believes that this is a defining intersection. I agree that the name is not perfect, but the approach of trying to undermine the category by citing one relatively minor crime speaks nothing about the validity of the category as a whole. What about jaywalking or ripping the tag off of a mattress? For example, we have a rather well-defined structure for Category:American basketball players, despite the fact that there are people who play (or have played) basketball who are not included in this structure, such as Barack Obama, who played as a member of his high school's varsity team and seems to try to get in a game wherever he travels around the world. Obama is not included in any basketball-related category because it is not a defining characteristic for him, even if it is for many other people. We keep the basketball categories because there are people for whom their participation in the sport is defining, just as there are rappers whose criminal convictions are a defining characteristic, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. The most productive way to deal with the issue here is to propose a rename or the wording for the addition of a simple explanation to the category's description, rather than to toss a clearly defining category into the garbage because of a trivial issue with including only those entries with a defining connection between their career and their crime. We have enough collected common sense among the hundreds of thousands of editors to avoid including in this category those rappers whose only criminal conviction listed in their article or in reliable sources is as a litterbug, jaywalker or mattress-tag ripper. If you're angling for deletion, a more viable approach might be to argue that almost all rappers have been convicted of a crime so that the two overlap almost completely or that we should only have an opposite category of those never convicted of a crime. Alansohn (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted because of failure to post notice of CFD on category. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Postdlf (talk) 03:19, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If this is renamed to Category:Rappers convicted of crimes it leads to the unfortunate result of removing the fact that the rapper was at one time incarcerated, which is kind of the key point, IMO. As Otto points out, they don't have street cred for having been convicted of a crime, they have street cred for having been in prison. As it stands now it's a "currently" category. Better to have a list for stuff like this. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:17, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
If your issue is truly that "convicted" is worse than "incarcerated", you are advocating to keep the category as is, not delete it. As to agreeing with something Otto pointed out, he makes no mention whatsoever of having "street cred for having been in prison". I know that reliable and verifiable sources don't count for anything at CfD, but would you care to address the sources? Alansohn (talk) 19:57, 3 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Um, thanks for telling me what my position should be, but no, I'm in favour of deletion here. Believe it or not, I can walk and chew gum simultaneously, and can assess two different category names together. The proposed name would be "better" because it would eliminate the "currently" problem, but then it has the result of removing the information that the person was incarcerated. I would prefer to ditch the category altogether and have a list with information about length of jail time, period of jail time, crime convicted of, etc. Trust me on the idea that you don't have to agree. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:08, 4 July 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.
