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: It looks to be no more than an attempt to find yet another stick to beat a guy with. I have no desire to defend the individual for whose sole "benefit" this category has been initiated, but I would defend the Wikipedia project against such use.
Kevin McE (
talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)
Kevin McE (
talk)
23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. While I have no idea what the intentions of the creator were, I think this category is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. King is Jamaican and he's a convicted sex offender, everything can be sourced to reliable sources, meaning that this meets BLP. Even if being a sex offender is not his main claim to fame, his conviction has garnered attention throughout the world and it is therefore worth categorizing him as such.
94.212.31.237 (
talk)
01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep. The category is part of the
Category:Sex offenders by nationality scheme. Additionally, this is a defining characteristic for those in these types of categories. If the individual was a convicted sex offender and there are
reliable sources to back the claim up, I don't see the rationale to delete the one nominated, let alone the parent and other subcategories. These categories are in no way derogatory nor do they disparage the subject. —
ξxplicit07:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Again, I'm not disputing that others exist, or necessarily that they shouldn't. Even so
WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. This entire category was created solely for, and is populated solely by one offender, who also has English citizenship and is in the corresponding category. I don't see how this one is in any way beneficial.
WFCforLife (
talk)
13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I think this is indeed over personal--is there any chance of doing a larger category (Caribbean sex offenders?) that will have more than one person? DGG (
talk )
15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Where does it say that a category cannot consist of only one article?
WP:OC only tells us to "[a]void categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." This category won't by its definition have only a few members, it will contain as many notable Jamaican sex offenders as there are, and I'm sure there is more than one notable sex offender in a country of almost three million people, and the category is part of a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (
Category:Sex offenders by nationality).
94.212.31.237 (
talk)
16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see in the article
Marlon King where it establishes that he is Jamaican. He briefly played for a Jamaican team, but he was born in England and seems to have spent most of his life and nearly all of his professional career there. Further, the relevant conviction occurred in England for an incident that happened in London, so it is under English law that he was convicted and in England that he will have to register as a sex offender for seven years. That has no connection with Jamaica, so his inclusion in
Category:English sex offenders seems to be the only appropriate category for that fact. postdlf (talk)
16:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I feel obliged to say that I have had previous discussions about a similar topic with this editor at WP:FOOTY. Putting aside our differences on the relevance FIFA, your argument would suggest that you are opposed to King being categorised as both an English sex offender and a Jamaican sex offender. My argument for the deletion of this category is primarily that no-one in this category isn't covered by a closely related existing one.
WFCforLife (
talk)
18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I find our harmless difference of opinion at WP:FOOTY to be unrelated, I don't see why it would need to be brought up. I am not opposed to King being categorized with both citizenships. If he has two passports, I see no harm in categorizing him with two nationalities. In this case I merely explained to Postdlf where the article "establishes that he is Jamaican", that's all.
94.212.31.237 (
talk)
18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep This subcat is a valid addition to an established group, Sex offenders by nationality. As such, it cannot be broadened to Caribbean sex offenders. King is verifiably Jamaican by both citizenship and ancestry, as well as being a convicted sex offender. The category was not created solely for him, it is merely the case that he is the only person to have been placed in this new cat so far. More people fitting the cat description should be added.
Lkjhgfdsa 0 (
talk)
23:18, 5 November 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:Armada of the Argentine Republic ship names
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 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:Militias in Australasia
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:Rename. May as well expand the reach of this category.
Australasia is a subpart of
Oceania, and most categories that divide stuff by "region" do so essentially by continent, with Oceania being more commonly used than Australasia. Right now it only contains an article about a militia in Australia, but it can probably be added to, especially if we expand the scope.
Good Ol’factory(talk)21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Support. Also, Australasia's boundaries are somewhat vague and flexible. Some sources include Papua New Guinea but not New Zealand, others include both or neither. Oceania is more widely used on WP partly for this reason.
Grutness...wha?22:29, 29 October 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:Deserts of Yukon
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 all three. The provincial categories were empty at closing and the national category contained only the provincial subcategories.Good Ol’factory(talk)22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: I'm fairly certain that the one item in this category is the only thing that will ever be in it. While there is a dry, sandy area just outside of
Whitehorse, it's not considered a desert. Technically the Carcross Desert isn't a true desert either, as stated in its article.
Beeblebrox (
talk)
21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete all three, which are now empty now that the two so-called "deserts" have been removed:
Carcross Desert and
Okanagan Desert, which were each in the respective provincial categories as well as the country-level parent. Neither is actually a desert notwithstanding their common names, and obviously the mere fact that they are called "deserts" is not sufficient reason for categorizing them with real ones. Unless there are uncategorized articles on actual Canadian deserts, these categories are unneeded. postdlf (talk)
22:24, 29 October 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.
Communities in New York
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:Rename to clarify contents and match parent,
Category:Settlements in New York. Settlement is preferred to "community" as a generic term for populated places because it is less ambiguous, as a "community" can be cultural and non-geographic. postdlf (talk)
16:48, 29 October 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.
Rot-Weiss
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 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:Members of the National Academy of Engineering
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:Merge. Procedural nomination only, as category was manually emptied by
Encryptola (
talk·contribs) without discussion here, then tagged for speedy deletion by another user; since the speedy deletion criteria specifically exclude categories that have been emptied out of process, I am opening the move for discussion here.
R'n'B (
call me Russ)
13:00, 29 October 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 States Naval Submarine Bases
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.
Comment "Naval Submarine Base" is the U.S. Navy's formal designation for such facilities (Naval Submarine Base Kitsap, Naval Submarine Base New London, etc.).-
choster14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. Only two of the ten articles in the category are titled using the "Naval Submarine Base" prefix. The suggested name from the nom makes the best sense (and avoids the ugly construct of "…Navy Naval…"). —
Bellhalla (
talk)
16:25, 5 November 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:Tartarstan/Gepard class frigates
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 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:Grunge groups
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 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:Grunge music
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.
I'm thinking this might fall into the ambiguity exception to the rule that a category should follow the parent article title, as we need to be more sensitive to the need for clarity in category titling than in article titling. Certainly "grunge music" is more clear than "grunge". postdlf (talk)
22:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Opposefilth is not a genre of music, but you want to rename the category to filth so that it can categorize various sorts of filth in addition to music?
76.66.203.102 (
talk)
06:06, 1 November 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:Washington State Cougars basketball veues
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 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:Washington State Cougars basketball venues
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.
Comment. The same creator made
Category:College basketball venues by team, which should have been added to this one as a parent; there are at present two other such sports team venue categories from the same contributor, maybe more given that not all of them were included in that parent. The whole scheme should probably be discussed at once, maybe involving
WP:SPORT, as this type of categorization will only spread to other teams and sports. It seems overly narrow to me, but I always miss the sports questions in Trivial Pursuit, so what do I know. postdlf (talk)
22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I've seen this argument before, that new categorizing ideas are snuffed out at CfD before they have a chance to prove their utility in real use. People saying this have a point; on the other hand, WP is a
Monkey see, monkey do environment, and if the eventual decision is still to delete, there will be a hundred to get rid of instead of ten. I don't have a good answer for this.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
00:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
None of the other categories are currently listed for deletion; you'll have to add tag those, add them to this listing, or list them elsewhere. postdlf (talk)
16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Okay, my bad. I've struck my previous comment, since I see no purpose in deciding on this one category in isolation from the whole proposed categorizing scheme.
Wasted Time R (
talk)
22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
I think we should at least delete this one since it is already tagged here, and
Wasted Time R's rationale ("fail on
WP:OC#SMALL and
WP:OC#NARROW grounds...most articles on teams list in the infobox or the lead section the venues the teams have played in, so this information is already readily available in an easier-to-find form") is sound. There may be other editors willing to spend the time to tag the similar categories for deletion, and we shouldn't not delete this one just because Wasted Time R (and others such as I) don't want to spend the time marking the others for deletion.
hulmem (
talk)
22:05, 31 October 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:Music released on Blu-ray
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:Delete. The sub-type of media that a video album is released on is not a defining characteristic of the video album. This would also require continually monitoring and updating.
Good Ol’factory(talk)02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Keep - see the other categories for music available on SACD and DVD-A. Being in surround sound (which is only available on these formats) CAN be a defining characteristic of an album. Whether something is 5.1, stereo or mono can have a major impact. We either need to keep all three categories, or else provide a surround sound album category, and also a hi-def music category. Furthermore, no monitoring and updating would be required - once an album is available, it's available. And have you seen the double album category? That's a medium. What's the difference? —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
81.141.130.221 (
talk)
12:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Double album is not "a medium," nor is it specific to a particular medium. It's instead about the relationship of the musical content to whatever physical medium it was initially released on. postdlf (talk)
22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete for the same reasons not to mention
Category: Music released on laser disc. Wikipedia isn't a shopping guide, and the medium that a piece of music is recorded on isn't remotely a defining characteristic.
Voceditenore (
talk) 06:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum, it's also unverifiable unless each individual article specifically lists a blue-ray recording. This is certainly not the case for all the articles on individual operas to which it had been attached (and now removed), e.g. La bohème.
Voceditenore (
talk)
10:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Really? Someone added an article on a 100-year old opera that has undoubtedly been performed and recorded thousands of times, to a category for a specific media format? Really? postdlf (talk)
17:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete On the principle that notability is not temporary. Not that many items are on Blu-ray at present, but if it were to continue to grow, then this category would become ridiculously large. Even if the delete votes this cfd doesn't continue to snowball and there were a sudden wave of keep votes, it should be noted that a number of operas and ballets were categorised when it is only specific recordings of them that air on Blu-ray. It would be inappropriate to cagtegorise (or list)
(I Can't Get No) Satisfaction because it is one of the tracks on the Stones album on Blu-ray. Similarly for other compositions.--
Peter cohen (
talk)
15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Delete I saw this being added to articles yesterday and I was baffled as to its purpose. The format is not a defining characteristic of the music.
Alansohn (
talk)
17:08, 29 October 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:Doctors of Music
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.
Can we create a category for Musicians who have been awarded an honorary Dr.Mus? Some prominent names are listed on the wikipedia page
Doctor of Music but it looks really tacky because the volume of names on that page. It would look much better if there was a category for these names to appear in so they can be taken off the page in question and tags added to the respective artists' pages.
FruiChew (
talk)
01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
That sounds fair enough! Maybe the
Doctor of Music page should have a bit of a tidy up so as to reduce the list of musicians listed on it as it does look tacky and unecessary by volume. I was only thinking of notable musicians who have been awarded an honorary degree in music but put into perspective, you'd have to create sub categories for other notable people from various different fields who have been awarded various different honorary degrees that the list would become so extensive it would become ineffectual.
FruiChew (
talk)
02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Comment -- In UK, I would expect D.Mus. to be a higher doctorate, equivalent of D.Sc. and D.Litt., awarded in its full form for a lifetime of musicological research. As such it would be higher than a Ph.D. We have tended to steer away from categorising honorary degrees, since they are conferred as an honour to recognise achievement, rather than an achievement in its own right. Listify by all means.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
keep In the US it is not a higher doctorate, but an alternate to the PhD. I think it is mainly used here for people who are getting the degree for composition or performance, with the PhdD for musicologists--but I think universities will vary widely. Checking the people in Wikipedia with such a UK degrees, they are all either honorary or performance or composition. None of them actually seem to have it as well as a phd. Personally, I see no reason why we should not have categories for all higher degrees--yes, there will be many people in them, and what is the harm about that. We can handle very large categories. If we still have the overcategorization rule, I'd propose that degrees such as this be interpreted as an exception DGG (
talk )
18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Why, what do you believe such a category scheme would accomplish? In any event, I'd suggest discussing the merits, consequences, and details of such a scheme before anyone creates it, to head off a lot of unnecessary work and piecemeal CFDs. Not to mention the fact that it would potentially create a lot of new categories on just about every biography article. No one should decide to do that unilaterally. postdlf (talk)
19:18, 30 October 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:Feminist video games
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:Delete:The category is inherently biased and the classification of "feminist" is wrong, since feminism is a political viewpoint rather than a female protagonist. ZXCVBNM (
TALK)01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
There was already a list like that and it was deleted for being unnecessary due to the extremely large scope and current non-notability since games have gotten much more gender-varied. I don't see how it's any different, and you'd have to have a "male protagonist" and "alien protagonist" category as well, fitting pretty much every game.--ZXCVBNM (
TALK)02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)reply
Difficult, is there any article that explains video games that are "female-oriented"? Japan-wise, BL games maybe, but then you'd have to create "Male-oriented video games" and such. —
Blue。10:36, 29 October 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.