Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 August 9

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 8 August 10 >

August 9[edit]

Category:Spanish freemasonry[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 (it is empty). Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:17, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Spanish freemasonry (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Redundant (and misformatted) category. There was only one article in the cat, and it was only a one-line dicdef that didn't assert notability. No real potential for growth. If for some reason this is kept, it needs to be renamed to Category:Freemasonry in Spain anyway. MSJapan (talk) 23:09, 9 August 2008 (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:Grand Lodge of Spain[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:18, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grand Lodge of Spain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The GL itself already has an article, and there's very little chance for growth as a cat. The only other article is literally one line and shows no assertion of notability. MSJapan (talk) 22:57, 9 August 2008 (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.

Subcategories of Category:Major League Baseball players by position[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 all. Kbdank71 13:48, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Makes sense based on naming conventions, and aligns itself with the parent category. Rename all. Wizardman 22:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support renaming all. I've long wondered why the word baseball wasn't included in these categories.--Fabrictramp | talk to me 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - what about a categoty for utility players. Some of the ones I've seen have played almost every position at some point in their careers. Would it be better to have a category or categories for them instead of linking them to a half dozen or more of these categories? Hardnfast (talk) 01:38, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Right now I believe they are just linked to the infielders and outfielders categories. I see what you're saying, though that's probably a discussion for a different time. Wizardman 16:05, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • At worst, a true utility player should only be in three categories; infielder, outfielder, and possibly pitcher. While some people have been putting players into every possible category they could fit into, most players are getting put into the category where they spend a significant amount of time. If a guy splits his time between 2nd & short, he gets put into the infielder category, not second and short, unless he's racked up quite a number of games at each position. My personal standard is 162, the equivalent of a full season. By that standard, a player like Mark DeRosa would be put in second and third, since he has 200+ games at each position, but not first, short, right, left or DH, also positions he has played. --Fabrictramp | talk to me 16:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eh, god help us if somebody plays multiple positions for major and minor league teams. This strikes me as over-categorization. Categories for the position(s) the subject has played are adequate e.g. upmerge to Category:Shortstops. Level of "league" play can be deduced from the often numerous other categories indicating which teams they have played for. — CharlotteWebb 18:45, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Since there are no requirements about what makes a player a, say shortstop, lets see how this plays out. Greg, the shortstop is replaced by Paul as a pinch runner which means that Paul is listed as the shortstop on the roster right? Or lets take a really long game and a team runs out of pitchers or catchers or whatever and someone who normally does not play that position fills in. Are they listed in the category? Clearly this type of action is notable for some positions. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:07, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't care what standard is applied as long as it is even-handed. — CharlotteWebb 03:52, 12 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed José Canseco shouldn't be in the Major League Baseball pitchers category based on one relief appearance in 1993, but a clear standard for number of game appearances at a position should be set to avoid confusion and arguments. A full season, 162 games seems a logical point. Hardnfast (talk) 10:49, 12 August 2008 (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:Grand Orient of Belgium[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: no consensus. Kbdank71 14:24, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Grand Orient of Belgium (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Incorrect use of cat - it is being used to categorize members of lodges under the Grand Orient. They were not necessarily members of the Gtrand Orient directly, and many of them were "footnote Freemasons", meaning it's a trivial aside rather than a focal point of their lives. MSJapan (talk) 22:29, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A useful category that could be expanded when the systematic bias towards Anglo-Saxon freemasonry is overcome. JASpencer (talk) 15:35, 17 August 2008 (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:Zagreb Crisis mayor nominees[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. Kbdank71 14:25, 18 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Zagreb Crisis mayor nominees (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Very limited category tied to a particular event - overcategorization per WP:OC#SMALL. GregorB (talk) 22:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These people have been elected as mayors, but not formally confirmed due to this event. It is also incorrect to say that the category cannot be expanded. More such mayors, like Ivo Škrabalo, have been elected during the crisis, but they don't have their respective articles (not due to notability, though). Admiral Norton (talk) 22:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot be expanded in the future, since Zagreb Crisis is finished. How many nominees were there in total? Five? That's less than husbands of Elizabeth Taylor. Even if Category:Zagreb Crisis existed (and it doesn't), the mayor nominees category would be an overcategorization per WP:OC#SMALL. GregorB (talk) 12:28, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Upmerge to parent mayors category. They are all mentioned in the Zagreb Crisis article and there will be no more such mayors beyond those already included there. Otto4711 (talk) 23:57, 12 August 2008 (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:2008 Terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka[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: upmerge x 3 (manually). Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:44, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge Category:2008 Terrorist incidents in Sri Lanka to Category:2008 in Sri Lanka and Category:Terrorist incidents in 2008 (this will have to be done manually, since the bots at WP:CFD/W don't seem to do double-upmerging)
Nominator's rationale: This seems to be an unnecessarily narrow intersection of location, event type, and year. There is not so much material in either parent category as to require subcategorisation; also, this is the only category of its type I was able to find. If kept, it needs to be renamed to a more standard name. –Black Falcon (Talk) 21:28, 9 August 2008 (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:Buildings in films[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. Kbdank71 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Buildings in films (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Category attempting to create something from nothing, as all the articles are either just about the building itself (and at some time it appeared in a film), or are broad "in popular culture" articles. Ford MF (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any building could end up in a film, in either a significant or insignificant manner, and the category does not establish notability. ie Empire State Building is a large part of King Kong but it's been shown in hundreds, maybe thousands of films as part of the backdrop of the city. Eiffel Tower is often used for film or scene set in France simply to establish location. Would these uses all qualify? Too broad. Rossrs (talk) 00:02, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Inherently ill-defined. If necessary, it's better to make it into a list. GregorB (talk) 16:26, 10 August 2008 (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:Collectables Records artists[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, partly informed by consensus to delete other similar categories below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:06, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Collectables Records artists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: According to the article Collectables Records, this is a reissue/repackager label and not an actual recording label. All of the artists in this category are also listed in the article of the label. This category is redundant and tends to imply notability connected to a presumed relationship between the artist and the label which does not exist. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:48, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for the reasons given in the nomination. Ford MF (talk) 21:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Other record labels have this same category and none have been deleted. They too may be redundant but pertinent to the fact that they can direct an artist to the particular label and vice versa. This is a great asset in doing thorough research. It should not be considered for deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.184.146.76 (talk) 20:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reponse - This is not a record label in the traditional sense of a label or as defined as a record label. No artist signs recording contracts to this label, they do not produce original music and in all cases are not the original producers of the music included. This is a put-together label for purposes of repackaging already recorded products. This is a trivial categorization based on the marketing of some of the musicians' performances for the secondary market. This category follows the same rationales as are in the Category:The Signature Collection deletion discussion below. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:33, 10 August 2008 (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:Fictional child murderers[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:40, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional child murderers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete: Vague category, and no criteria for inclusion (is it for children who kill, or people who kill children? both are included); no explanation of why the very few articles here need to be subcatted out of Category:Fictional murderers. Ford MF (talk) 20:30, 9 August 2008 (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:The Signature Collection[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:37, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:The Signature Collection (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Trivial categorization based on the marketing of some of the actors' performances on DVD. Note: another one of this user's recent creations, Category:Comic Icons is listed for deletion below. Ford MF (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Also: Category:Best Of British
  • Beat me to it - I was just about to tag the whole series when I saw you'd gotten this one in ahead of me. I have tagged the Best of British category for speedy deletion for having no meaningful content. Otto4711 (talk) 20:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - merchandising category, no real cinematic purpose to it. Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I was considering this as well. No independent notability beyond a marketing strategy. Wildhartlivie (talk) 20:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Ed F. We have been through this before with the other DVD companies like the Criterion Collection and they really are only merchandising categories. This editor does seem to love creating these kinds of cats. MarnetteD | Talk 23:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - this would open the door to a whole lot of commercial endorsements. Not appropriate at all, and conveys nothing useful about any of the performers so categorised. Rossrs (talk) 23:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There's nothing particularly notable about the collection; James Cagney's for example doesn't even have his Oscar winning film in. Ged UK (talk) 12:44, 10 August 2008 (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:Comic Icons[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:33, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Comic Icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - being included in a particular product line of DVD box sets is not defining and adds clutter to already lengthy category lists. Listify if desired. Otto4711 (talk) 20:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete if merchandising only; if cat is open to any "comic icons", then Weak keep Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 20:34, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment even so, I'd say that pretty much all "icons" categories are too subjective to be encyclopedic. Ford MF (talk) 20:43, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I dunno, if it could be limited to people who have actaully been referred to as "icons" or "iconic" it might work, but I agree it's pretty problematic and not particularly helpful Ed Fitzgerald (unfutz) (talk / cont) 02:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment. Referred to by whom? Ought we have an "Icons of homosexuality" category that includes Judy Garland and James Dean, because I can guarantee you can find academic sources that call them that. Ford MF (talk) 14:25, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial, ephemeral merchandising. Ford MF (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • 'Delete - if it's a merchandising category per the intro on the cat page - completely unacceptable. If it's a comment on the performer, it's POV and impossible to define, same as other "icon" cats which have been deleted in the past. Rossrs (talk) 23:57, 9 August 2008 (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:Box set[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:29, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging deleting Category:Box set to Category:Box sets
Nominator's rationale: Merge - obvious duplicate. Otto4711 (talk) 20:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete actually, that category is for box sets of music, not films. I recommend deleting this along with the other recent unhelpful category creations of User:Cooksi. Unlike the album box sets listed there (which is intrinsic to the album itself, e.g. Bitches Brew), these movie box sets are just arbitrary conglomerations of films by whomever has the rights to sell them this week, under arbitrary, meaningless set titles. Ford MF (talk) 20:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletion is fine with me. Additionally, I didn't realize that the suggested merge target is a redirect. Otto4711 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2008 (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:G Funk[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:30, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:G Funk to Category:G-funk
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per G-funk. Reverend X (talk) 19:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename for consistency with the article. Ford MF (talk) 21:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to match parent article.--Lenticel (talk) 23:36, 10 August 2008 (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: Organised crime in Australia[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: no rename, obviously. — CharlotteWebb 17:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename. We should create uniformity in the spelling. For Wikipedia that is American spelling. Stefanomione (talk) 18:26, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - we use local spelling. Otto4711 (talk) 20:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - US spelling is not a standard within Wikipedia; per WP:MOS policy is to use US English for US articles and Commonwealth English ("British English") for Commonwealth articles, or to retain the existing spelling where the article doesn't fall neatly into either US or non-US.
This nomination violates (1) Consistency within articles, (2) Strong national ties to a topic, and (3) Retaining the existing variety.
I further note that Category talk:Films about organized crime in Australia and Category talk:Organized crime in Australia were deleted in back in June. Cheers,  This flag once was red  21:59, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose, or should that be Oppoze - it's Oz spelling. Kaiwhakahaere (talk) 22:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose mate, per WP:ENGVAR. viz "The English Wikipedia has no general preference for a major national variety of the language. No variety is more correct than the others."; and "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation uses the appropriate variety of English for that nation." Moondyne 23:46, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Agree with User:This flag once was red and User:Moondyne. Bidgee (talk) 01:26, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. We use Oz spelling as others have indicated. --Bduke (talk) 01:27, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Bro' - I'm using Kiwi spelling! ;-)
Cheers,  This flag once was red  01:41, 10 August 2008 (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:Utah Valley State College[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 all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:54, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: Rename. UVSC changed its name to Utah Valley University effective July 1 2008, and the main article for the category is now located at the school's new name. Normal naming procedure for US college athletic programs is to omit "College", "University", and the like. Dale Arnett (talk) 16:45, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Refactored to keep intimately related nominations in the same section. — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree, surely, that the main category should be renamed. However, is it appropriate to categorize the alumni and basketball coaches under a name which wasn't in use at the time of their involvement? Or are the names similar enough that we ought not worry about this? — CharlotteWebb 18:33, 10 August 2008 (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:Head coaches of Team Norway[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:01, 16 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Head coaches of Team Norway to Category:Norway national men's ice hockey team coaches
Nominator's rationale: Although "Team Norway" might be common usage for hockey fans, or perhaps even for Norwegians in general, the name is highly ambiguous — is it their ice hockey team? their ski team? their swimming team? their basketball team? The proposed format complies with standards from Category:Ice hockey coaches. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 16:23, 9 August 2008 (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:Sri Lankan terrorists[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: procedural close per nominator's request at my talk page. While there has been additional support for deletion, which would normally preclude an early closure, a speedy close is justified by the particular circumstances of this case. The category was discussed at CFD only a few days ago as part of a bulk nomination of all "terrorist" and "terrorism" categories, where it was kept. The validity of including specific articles in the category is currently under discussion at the relevant WikiProject. –Black Falcon (Talk) 16:20, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sri Lankan terrorists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Terrorist is a strictly POV word that is one of the words to avoid in wikipedia. As this is a POV cat and has been used to categorize WP:BLP and violating WP:BLP, this cat should be deleted. Noting that even if it is acceptable to say "x calls Y a terrorist", it is a different scenario to categorize someone (specially a living person) as a terrorist - as is the case with this category. Since this category can be misused, and currently being misused, to violate WP:BLP it should be deleted. Watchdogb (talk) 14:05, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete, Keep. Terrorist is NOT a strictly POV word. International organizations such as Interpol list persons as terrorist, due to their actives, this is not POV. Therefore I see no reason to delete this cat as similar cats for other countries exists ([by nationality]). If what the editor above says is true then we'll have to delete all these the above mentioned cats. Since naming a particular person a terrorist can be POV, I believe that, as stated in the cat itself "If there are no reliable sources which call the individual a terrorist, then this category is not appropriate." only persons identified as Terrorists by RSs should have this cat added with others not having it. Nitraven (talk) 14:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The fact of the matter is that here in wikipedia Terrorist, Extremist, Freedom fighters are considered POV words and specifically listed in the words to avoid list. It is acceptable for the use of the word "Terrorist" provided we establish "x says y is a terrorist". In this case, however, it is a cat that is used to categorize someone a terrorist without properly establishing who is calling whom. Furthermore, categorizing a living person a terrorist violates WP:BLP as it is only one POV that the person is a terrorist and there is, in reality, other opinions like "hero" "freedom fighters" and such exist and to categorize someone a terrorist and not a "hero" "freedom fighter" violates WP:NPOV. Also this is a high risk category that can even be used to degrade any BLP article. Watchdogb (talk) 18:18, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The existence of other categories of "Terrorists" is not a valid argument as it maybe the case that no one was willing to put these articles for deletion. Also the category specifically asks that someone should be explicitly called a terrorist by WP:RS but this category lists fugitives wanted on terrorism charges as Terrorists. Since most of the persons categorized by category have not been convicted in a court of law, it is evident that the category is currently being misused. Watchdogb (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why dont you go list those articles for deletion too as you did here? If there are any Nobel Peace prize winners like Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat let us remove them but then again are there any like that in this article. Nitraven (talk) 10:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
People, read the comments below. They all were just nominated for deletion, discussed at length, and no consensus to delete was reached. That boat's been missed, and the next one won't sail for a little bit of time. See here. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:19, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete Terrorist is a POV word. Who is to define who is a terrorist? For example most freedom movement leaders have been called terrorists including Nelson Mandela and Yasser Arafat both went on to win the Nobel Peace prize.It is a political term used against Rebels fighting the government.For one country's terrorist is another country's freedom fighter Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 19:06, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: It's strangely puzzling that not one of the participants in this CFD seems to be aware of the fact that this very category -- along with ALL of the other categories in the Category:Terrorism tree -- were just debated at great length and KEPT en masse hardly a week ago. (I myself did not take part in that CFD.) It really makes no sense whatsoever to pick out one particular sub-cat for deletion, as though it is somehow uniquely problematic. And in light of the fact that the last CFD for this category was so recent, this new CFD should never have been opened in the first place. Cgingold (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. per Cgingold. Yes, consensus can change, but this is way too soon. I would have given second thought to this nomination if it were older. Admiral Norton (talk) 22:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Procedural Keep: As Cgingold has already commented, this entire category of terrorism was debated and decided to be kept according to wikipedia procedure hardly more than a week ago making this whole exercise redundant and a waste of everyones time.Kerr avon (talk) 01:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As the nominator indicated "Terrorist is a strictly POV word that is one of the words to avoid in wikipedia."
International organizations such as Interpol is not a law enforcement authority to list persons as terrorists, due to their activities. Again Interpol is a inter-governmental organization, its declarations or statement can't be used on wikiproject as "Categories". It should be noted most of the freedom movement leaders branded as terrorists and later they were accepted legendary leaders of the world. A good example is Nelson Mandela. Nelson Mandela had to fight against the illegal European invaders who occupied his country for a long time and discriminated his own community and the natives as slaves branding him and his colleagues as "Terrorists". The same mistake can't be repeated in the real world once more as well as on wikipedia.Teasereds (talk) 02:21, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
To all of my foreign friends the real reason for the nomination is that our victorious Sri Lankan troops have almost anhilated the LTTE terrorists, with the final battle for the vanni jungles being fought now. Thus disruptive elements among the tamil diASSpora who support the LTTE realise that if international involvement is not bought soon, their dreams of a non existant seperate state will not materialise for the next thousand years. Thus they are attempting to remove evidence of the LTTE's atrocities from this esteemed wiki. Let us not be mistaken, this is the only terrorist organisation which has killed two world leaders and taught bin Laden about suicide bombing.Kerr avon (talk) 07:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
There was a Jaffna kingdom just 400 years ago, so no need to wait for another 1000 years. Sri Lankan Civil War shows more than 70, 000 people died, mostly Tamils by the Sri Lankan Forces and the Indian Forces, so the just two leaders deaths don't make any sense. The claim, LTTE taught bin Laden about suicide bombing, is a "frog in a well" state of the world revolutions.Teasereds (talk) 13:55, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on procedural reasons and merits, which I set out in previous CfD. These terrorism cats were just discussed en masse. We shouldn't pick off just one of them when the others are kept. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep nominators and supporters do not seem to understand what articles are in WP and what categories are. Articles are to provide facts; categories are the means to organize articles based on the facts contained in the articles. The articles (until and if changed) say these people are terrorists; therefore, for WP purposes, they are terrorists and are organized into this terrorist category--just as is true of hundreds of such articles and categories. In other words, the nomination serves no valid WP purpose. Hmains (talk) 04:17, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • While agreeing that deleting this category alone may be not posible without deleting the category called Terrorist do we keep categories that dont have any articlse that factually support that such people are terrorists. I.E my question is do we keep empty categories for the sake of categorization of some future potential articles ? Empty categories are usually deleted without any questions perr policy. Taprobanus (talk) 11:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
      • This category was not empty yesterday when I wrote my comments Hmains (talk) 19:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since it is empty. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 11:35, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only applies to categories that have remained empty for at least four days. Cgingold (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Whoever emptied out this category in the midst of this CFD needs to restore ASAP all of the articles that he removed, or else be sanctioned for Disruptive Editing. All editors should take note of the admonition on the CFD notice NOT to remove articles while the CFD discussion is taking place. Cgingold (talk) 12:25, 10 August 2008 (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:Genocides during World War I[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. Kbdank71 13:46, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Genocides during World War I (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete and upmerge as needed and appropriate to Category:World War I crimes. This is an unnecessary and unhelpful intermediate level category which impedes navigation between its limited contents and its sparsely populated parent, Category:World War I crimes. The articles and sub-cats are clearly named as genocides, so it doesn't serve any useful purpose in that regard either. (Note: This category was renamed in a very brief CFD in April which did not consider whether it was actually useful.) Cgingold (talk) 12:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and upmerge per nom. The number of articles/categories isn't going to be expanding, anyway. The solution in the previous CfD was an imperfect one which I proposed. I think this is probably a better solution, on condition, of course, that the articles/categories are also upmerged to Category:Genocide. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:42, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mais oui -- they're all there already, I should've mentioned that. Cgingold (talk) 07:16, 10 August 2008 (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:Female life peers who are also wives of peers[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. Kbdank71 13:45, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Female life peers who are also wives of peers to Category:Female life peers also wives of peers
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category name is currently not tense-neutral. Some of the people on the list are deceased, so present tense is not appropriate. It is also inappropriate for widows. Please feel free to suggest a better alternative, though. JRawle (Talk) 11:49, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, actually. There's only seven articles in the cat, and "people who are X and are also related to X" seems to be overcatting to me.MSJapan (talk) 16:54, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - interesting trivia, perhaps, but trivia nonetheless. Otto4711 (talk) 20:13, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- A rare category, but it is nevertheless notable that both spouses are peers. Suggest Category:Female life peers married to peers. Furthermore the word "life" might be omitted -- Category:Female peers married to peers -- to include peeresses in their own right married to peers. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Listify & Delete I suppose useful to avoid confusion, but does not need a cat. Johnbod (talk) 02:34, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete in the footsteps of Category:Wives of younger sons of dukes. Categorization by marriage and other ephemeral relationships is a slippery slope. — CharlotteWebb 17:54, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If you keep this it could lead to Female life peers who are also wives of peers who were sons of peers, and so on and so forth ad nauseum. 209.247.22.166 (talk) 19:16, 10 August 2008 (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:Boston musical groups[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 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Boston musical groups to Category:Boston, Massachusetts musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper disambiguation. Tim! (talk) 09:09, 9 August 2008 (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:Worcester musical groups[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 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Worcester musical groups to Category:Worcester, Massachusetts musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Proper disambiguation. Tim! (talk) 09:07, 9 August 2008 (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:Leicester musical groups[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: Withdrawn in favour of more general naming convention. Tim! (talk) 08:44, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Leicester musical groups to Category:Musical groups from Leicester
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Consistency with Birmingham, Brighton, Bristol and Manchester in Category:English musical groups. Tim! (talk) 08:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. OK, which is it? Foo musical groups or Musical groups from Foo? We have nominations going both ways and that is rather odd. Also to raise an old issue, Birmingham, Bristol and Manchester are clearly ambiguous in a category name unless it is clear to everyone we are talking about Alabama, Connecticut and New Hampshire. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:44, 9 August 2008 (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:Hereford Music Scene[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 13:43, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Hereford Music Scene to Category:English musical groups
Nominator's rationale: Merge, Hereford is probably too small to make it a worthwile subdivision along the lines of Category:Musical groups from Birmingham, England. Tim! (talk) 08:54, 9 August 2008 (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:Fictional wombats[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: keep. Kbdank71 13:42, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Fictional wombats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: This is an absurd and useless category, far too specialized and narrow. 24.29.109.139 (talk) 04:12, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: LOL. I can well understand your reaction. But you see, this is just one of seven sub-cats of Category:Fictional marsupials -- which itself is one of some 54 sub-cats of Category:Fictional mammals. So I would suggest that you take a good look at Category:Fictional marsupials and think about whether or not it would make sense to merge most or all of its sub-cats into their parent category. I don't really think it makes much sense to pick off this one particular category -- in other words, Keep. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 05:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Outright keep per Cgingold's points. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:09, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is an absurd and useless nomination. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:57, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorization. Seriously, how many fictional wombats are there? How many are ever likely to exist? Too small a field for categorization. Blueboar (talk) 15:51, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5. At least 5. This is enough per precedent, even without invoking the "wider scheme" from WP:OCAT. Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am imagining 40 trillion fictional wombats. So at least 40,000,000,000,005 are likely to exist.
  • Delete - Two articles doesn't make a useful cat (the Clive article was a redirect with a cat, which it shouldn't have). Out of the two, one is about a character in a series of books, and says nothing about the character itself. The other is a spoof of the 2000 Sydney Summer Olympics mascot, which is art, not fiction. So the utility of the category is questionable, which means this is overcatting. MSJapan (talk) 17:03, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • It depends on your definition of "useful". Maybe it's not useful for you in the way you use categories, but people use them in different ways. I can see this category as entirely useful for people who want a quick way of navigating through Category:Fictional animals. Also, if it's approached through Category:Vombatiforms, having a separate fictional category is useful as it sets off the fictional examples of the animal from "real life" examples and issues. If the category were deleted, there would be no real way to have this set-off if approached through Category:Vombatiforms. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:24, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't think there is a stated minimum of articles for a category, but "more than two" seems fine to me. Ford MF (talk) 21:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or upmerge to Category:Fictional marsupials. Occuli (talk) 21:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 5 is enough, & all the other main marsupial types have their own sub-cats, why discriminate against trhe wombat? Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep — it may seem strange outside of Australia, but I would bet fictional marsupials are quite popular in Australian children's media. Otherwise, upmerge all subcategories of Category:Fictional marsupials, except Category:Fictional kangaroos and wallabies and Category:Fictional koalas. − Twas Now ( talk • contribs • e-mail ) 02:58, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - don't upmerge to fictional marsupials, as this is also a sub-cat of category:Vombatiforms. Now that's a word I didn't know until today. Ergo, this category is educational! - Fayenatic (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2008 (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:Horror films actors[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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:25, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Horror films actors (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overcatting and vague. It's overcatting because many of the actors in the cat right now (like Abbott and Costello, Basil Rathbone, Nigel Bruce, and Patrick Troughton) are much more well-known for things other than horror films. There are the obvious entries like Bela Lugosi and Robert Englund, but some very notable misses (Kane Hodder and Doug Bradley). It's vague because conceivably, every actor who was ever in any role from any horror film should be in this cat, which doesn't make for a useful categorization. We don't have anything like this cat on WP for other film genres, either, so it seems that we simply don't categorize like this. MSJapan (talk) 02:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Performer by genre seems rather too close to WP:OC#Performer by performance (both role and venue). The only other genre cat I see so far is Category:Western film actors, which probably should be nominated as well, for the same reasons. In reading the introduction to that cat, it seems to indicate that a list would be a better idea, in that references to note why being in a western is "notable" for the actor in question. And since categories can't provide individual references (per WP:CLN)... - jc37 06:32, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as performer by performance OCAT. Otto4711 (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Either Delete or Clarify with a better defined criteria for inclusion. Blueboar (talk) 15:55, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ford MF (talk) 20:24, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Otto. —Erik (talk • contrib) - 03:56, 11 August 2008 (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:Songs about masturbation[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!!!1!eleven!!(and I'm spent). Kbdank71 13:41, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Songs about masturbation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Overly narrow category, possibly OR and POV issues ("Explicitly or not"). Ten Pound Hammer and his otters • (Broken clamshells • Otter chirps • HELP) 01:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This really is awfully narrow for a category. Did someone say there used to be a list of these songs that got deleted? If that's the case, perhaps they could be added to the article? Cgingold (talk) 03:27, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective inclusion criteria. Who decides whether the song refers to the topic? (Especially in the case of presumed innuendo.) Why, a secondary source! (Or even if unambiguously clearly stated in the primary source.) And since a limitation of categories is that each member can't be referenced (per WP:CLN)... - jc37 06:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Commment No Turning Japanese?! Lugnuts (talk) 08:23, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. All of these "songs about foo" categories are problematic, because it is difficult to know with certainty what exactly is being referred to in a song. Especially with masturbation, where it's probably not going to be referred to explicitly. And does it just have to be mentioned, or does it have to be a "theme" of the song. Or the theme? ("Captain Jack" does mention masturbation explicitly, and it's not in the category, so probably just a mention isn't qualifying?) By the way, this category was nominated about a year ago with a "no consensus" result. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Plenty of entries and scope for expansion so obviously not too narrow. Colonel Warden (talk) 13:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I said it was "awfully narrow for a category" I wasn't commenting on how many articles it would hold. What I meant was that masturbation is a very narrow facet of the wide range of sexual activities and behaviors that might be selected as the basis for categories like this. Should we therefore create a whole array of such categories, so as to cover all of the sexual items that might be mentioned in various songs? [Addendum: Obviously, we would need to start with Category:Songs about seduction, continuing with Category:Songs about foreplay, and eventually, um, climaxing with Category:Songs about orgasm.] And surely many songs would need to have multiple such sex-related categories. As far as I can see, it's just not a workable approach, even if it was restricted to those songs with explicit mentions of masturbation. Cgingold (talk) 14:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom. Garion96 (talk) 22:33, 10 August 2008 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2008_August_9&oldid=1138389879"