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:Natural cultivars
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.
Delete: the creator seems to be no longer active on Wikipedia, so his intent can't be interrogated. At best the category is misnamed, but in the absence of knowledge of intent it's not possible to rename the category and clean up membership.
Lavateraguy (
talk)
10:52, 4 June 2021 (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:Superhero television series
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: There really is no real distinction between the categories here and even if there was, as evident by the pages in the categories, no one either knows what it is, or cares about it.
Gonnym (
talk)
18:16, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Comment Wasn't "televison shows" supposed to replace "television programs"? Wasn't that a discussion had about a year ago? So Television shows should be a parent category to TV specials and movies as well.
★Trekker (
talk)
18:27, 3 June 2021 (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:LGBT gangsters
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.
Delete. We have a longstanding consensus that we do not want a "people who happen to be both X and Y" category for every possible combination of traits that happens to describe two or more people — to justify a category for this, it would have to be possible to demonstrate that the intersection of LGBTness with gangsterism is a
WP:DEFINING characteristic — namely, it would have to be possible to write an actual article about what would make "LGBT gangster" a thing. Absent that, it's
WP:OCTRIVIA.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:04, 8 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. And no, I don't consent with these peculiar musings of Bearcat ("LGBT gangster" a thing). Instead I refer to the good old tried and tested
Ockham's Razor: Wp readers/users are certainly curious if there have been historical gangsters that were known as LGBT. IMHO it's definitely not our job to blame curiosity. Please be aware that categories are not necessarily about causality! ---
Just N. (
talk)
14:10, 10 June 2021 (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:Sexual misconduct allegations involving Buddhist leaders
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: Attempt to bypass the recent decision to delete a similar category
[1]. Decision was that only convicted persons should be so categorized and this applies to none of the categorized persons.
Skyerise (
talk)
15:48, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep Wikipedia has at least two categories,
Category:Sexual misconduct allegations and
Category:Sex scandals, that include public figures who faced controversy over published allegations of sexual misconduct. This category simply sorts out those sex scandals and allegations of sexual misconduct that involved Buddhist leaders. In every instance, the allegations of sexual misconduct were published by media outlets, and they feature prominently in the person's Wikipedia entry. Why include the published allegations in the entry but not include them as a category? Finally, it doesn't make sense to limit the category to people who have been convicted, for a few reasons: (1) there is no such limit on the other two Wikipedia categories I mention above; (2) there is no such limit in the individual Buddhist leaders' Wikipedia entries; (3) in many cases, like
Sogyal Rinpoche and
Sakyong Mipham, at least some of the allegations were substantiated through internal investigations by the leaders' own organizations; and (4) not all sex scandals or allegations of sexual misconduct involve criminal offenses — it's not a crime, for example, for a Buddhist monastic to have sexual affairs with female students, but that type of behavior has caused many public scandals within Buddhist communities. I understand wanting to keep the category clear of allegations that have not been published by a reputable media outlet, that have not been a source of public controversy or that are not a part of the leader's main Wikipedia entry, but none of that is the case — at least, not so far — with this category.
Joshua Eaton (
talk)
16:38, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
It is when you quote yourself at length when that is not necessary to convey the facts. It is "not COI" only if it is "not excessive" and does "not place undue emphasis on yourself." Surely there was a second source you could have cited and the length of the addition was excessive for its purpose. Still is, even after the removal of the long blockquote.
One might also wonder whether the recreation of a category that had been definitively deleted with clear reasons had something to do with the fact that your work was quoted at length (by yourself) in one of the articles in that category.
Skyerise (
talk)
11:59, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
First, the block quote in
Surya Das was from his press release responding to the allegations. I quoted it in the interest of fairness — I was trying to avoid bias.
Finally, I'm new to editing on Wikipedia, and I'm happy to be wrong about how things work here. So I will gladly withdraw my objections to deleting this category. I am also going to stop contributing to Wikipedia. I'm not interested in discussions where people immediately assume the worst of my motives, and I don't want to risk even the appearance of skirting good professional ethics.
Joshua Eaton (
talk)
17:10, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
That's exactly why the policy exists, not only to protect Wikipedia, but to protect you. Using the loopholes can be problematic for the editor so doing.
Skyerise (
talk)
18:26, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
In all fairness,
User:Joshua Eaton's earlier keep vote has been stricken just now not by themselves but by
User:Skyerise. While the striking is line with Joshua Eaton's latest comment it is not very appropriate to edit someone else's contribution to a discussion.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
22:07, 7 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Articles can provide much more nuance and detail than categories so it is not a problem to have it mentioned in article text.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
17:17, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete -- We cannot have categories asserting criminal (or even just immoral) behaviour for BLP articles, unless they were convicted (or, possibly, died while under investigation). If there are parents that offend against this (BLP) principle they must also be nominated. Articles on the subject more generally (without names, or only those of convicted people) could be allowed.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:50, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. Reason:
slippery slope. OTOH I can imagine nevertheless that it might be unrealistic to expect high moral standards and well-working judiciary (-> reliable convictions) in traditional societies of buddhist majority countries, Categories with mere accusaations can't be a solution. --
Just N. (
talk)
14:22, 10 June 2021 (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:Books with cover art by Michael Koelsch
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:Record labels owned by women
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.
'Keep A lot of people/users do see it as defining and are certainly interested to get the info by easy navigation via category.
Independent labels (BTW a favorite topic for me personally) are based on a personal athmosphere cooperation as well as the business aspect. I'd even suppose someone could base an empiric academic study or even a popular book on the topic if seeing enough categoried examples to be worthwhile. --
Just N. (
talk)
16:06, 1 June 2021 (UTC)reply
For clarification:
WP:DEFINING is not about whether people see it as defining but whether it is defining in sources. It is a small difference, but needed to avoid subjectivity.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
03:37, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Hey, it's based on objectivity: is the owner of the independent label female or male. No way any breach for subjectivity. I'm astonished that an experienced guy talks such illogical groundless suspicions. If something is defining in reality for generating business it is DEFINING! Your error in reasoning is that you search for causality. Nonsensically! Please be aware that DEFINING is not about causality! At least in all social, cultural and economic matters the type of actor/protagonist/entrepeneur and male/female is important and DEFINING! Objectively! --
Just N. (
talk)
14:58, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
I was talking about objectivity as being covered by sources. If sources objectively discuss record label ownership by gender then it is objectively defining. So far I haven't seen any evidence about that, so this looks like a
WP:OR intersection.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:59, 12 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete This is a clear violation of ERGS rules. Especially since record labels change ownership from time to time, and some have a large number of owners.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
14:04, 2 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Obviously you are not seeing the field we are really talking about. It's definitely not about the big players, i.e. the group corporations' imprints which indeed have a (large) number of (stock) owners. It's about independent labels only which are owned by single personalities we're talking about. It's not a huge number but nevertheless it's essential which of them are founded/led by women. The musicians as their customers see it so; otherwise they could't exist. To find and navigate those we need to keep this category. If an entrepreneur retires/dies and the label gets sold (mostly to become another imprint) it stops to belong to Category:Record labels owned by women(
|
talk |
history |
links |
watch |
logs) that's clear as day. --
Just N. (
talk)
15:37, 10 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete per
WP:OCEGRS, dedicated group-subject subcategories should only be created where that combination is itself recognized as a distinct and unique cultural topic in its own right..
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:59, 12 June 2021 (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:Western writers about Russia
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 entire
Category:Writers by geographical subject area category tree has a bit of ambiguity about whether it it includes outsiders writing about an area or locals clearly setting their works in their own area. Only these two subcats add "Western" which adds it's own ambiguity: I don't think it means "Western Europe" since there are many American authors and I don't think it means "Western Civilization" since that would include Russian authors. There might be an alternative rename here based on
List of foreign observers of Russia but this nomination favors the most common format in this tree which will expand the scope. -
RevelationDirect (
talk)
00:41, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Rename per nom. It is likely that only non-Russians are known as writers about Russia, because for Russian writers writing about Russia is the default.
Marcocapelle (
talk)
06:51, 7 May 2021 (UTC)reply
Oppose You can't rely on logical chin-ips lile Marco's "likely that only non-Russians are". So a renaming would't do/fulfil the job. Better stay with the explicit and therefor reliable notation of the category. --
Just N. (
talk)
12:25, 9 May 2021 (UTC)reply
General support "Soviet Russia" is an undesirable category, we should talk of USSR or Soviet Union. The fact that this is for foreign writers can be covered in a headnote.
Peterkingiron (
talk)
14:54, 6 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Writers about the Soviet Union is the correct name for the second category, and it should be promoted out of the first, since it temporarily contained Russia and fourteen other countries. “Soviet Russia” as a state existed only 1917–22, and as a polity is less ambiguously known as the “Russian SFSR” or “Russian Soviet Republic.” But the first category includes all of these. —MichaelZ.13:56, 1 July 2021 (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:People associated with the Boy Scouts of America
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 having gone through about half this category way too many of these people have a low level link. An inordinately high number are Louisiana (yes, specifically Lousiana) politicians who served on the board of a local boyu scout council, as well as maybe 3 to 5 other local community boards, this being the only such service they are categorized by. Others have almost as ephermeal links, and we are not going to get into a few I removed like
David Archuleta, whose article mention no connection with scouting at all.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:08, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete/Dual Upmerge Subcats The official biographies of politicians often cynically list many organizations with which they have a passing association to try and gain votes (examples:
1,
2,
3). Still others in this category appear to have been sincere volunteers whose involvement in their children's activities was likely important to them but this doesn't seem any more defining than being a Little League official for an encyclopedia. (The 3 subcats should remain well categorized though.)-
RevelationDirect (
talk)
21:32, 4 June 2021 (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 nightingales
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: One entry, unlikely to be expanded, and the song really isn't about nightingales, it's a love song, "I may be right, I may be wrong/But I'm perfectly willing to swear/That when you turn'd and smiled at me/A Nightingale Sang In Berkley Square
Richhoncho (
talk)
10:14, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete just because "nightingale" is used as a word in the song it does not mean the song describes these birds at all. In this case it does not, the reference is poetic, not literal.
John Pack Lambert (
talk)
12:09, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Delete. Just because a song has a word in its lyrics or title does not automatically mean the song is about that for the purposes of a "Songs about X" category.
Bearcat (
talk)
17:39, 5 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep! Song lyrics are rarely ever about birds as a biological species. They are mostly about the idea of nightingales, a metaphor for immersion into exceptional musical artistry or falling into love. It's ivory tower or even quixotic to search for biological birds in this context. A love song fits perfectly for the metaphor! --
Just N. (
talk)
15:57, 10 June 2021 (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:Bisexual rappers
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: Per longstanding consensus, we do not want every "LGBT" category to be comprehensively chopped up into separate "lesbian", "gay", "bisexual" and "transgender" subcategories -- this is permitted only when a single common "LGBT" category has become extremely large and needs the subcategories for size control purposes, and not as an automatic feature of every LGBT category that exists. But the parent category isn't large enough to need diffusion, and upmerging the contents of these three categories won't make it all that much larger as most of the articles were left in the parent category alongside these, so subcategorizing it isn't necessary.
Bearcat (
talk)
04:55, 3 June 2021 (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:Album awards
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: Indiscriminate and effectively unmaintainable category for a characteristic that isn't a particularly useful point of categorization. As constituted, this sweeps across every category presented by 11 different awards programs that is presented for albums in any genre, all the way through pop, R&B, hip hop, jazz, world music, new age, indigenous music, country, gospel, classical, norteno, salsa, merengue, bluegrass, musical theatre and polka -- but that's not a useful grouping, because nobody needs a category that places the
Billboard Latin Music Award for Reggaeton Album of the Year directly alongside the
Juno Award for Children's Album of the Year and the
Grammy Award for Best Classical Crossover Album just because they're presented for whole albums rather than individual songs. Categories by genre would be useful; this is not.
Bearcat (
talk)
02:32, 3 June 2021 (UTC)reply
Keep. If this was diffused by genre, this category could still serve as a parent to those subcats. StarcheerspeaksnewslostwarsTalk to me23:25, 11 June 2021 (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.
Brooklyn Bulldogs football
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: Brooklyn College's fight name was "Kingsmen" when the football team was disbanded after the 1990 season. "Bulldogs" was not adopted until 2010. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Jweiss11 (
talk •
contribs)
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:Jain phrases
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.