Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

Category:Essays by Richard Wagner

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 Category:Essays by Richard Wagner; delete Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner, created in mid-CfD; and merge Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner into Category:Works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographies. The creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner was justified as part of an established categorization scheme under Category:Works by artist. Jafeluv ( talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Essays by Richard Wagner to Category:Prose Works of Richard Wagner
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The existing category is too limiting, does not allow for Wagner's autobiographical and other writings. See discussion at WikiProject Richard Wagner which is in favour of such a change. Smerus ( talk) 21:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes you would need another category, but, no, you would not have to merge them; to do so would be to lose the place in the essay categories, a thought that does not seem to have occured to anyone at the RW project. Johnbod ( talk) 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Perhaps this can be squeezed into this nom? With one entry, Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner, also set up, is certainly "small and unlikely to expand", and should go too. Johnbod ( talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes. Upmerge Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner to Category:Works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographies. I dunno whether Wagner is planning to write any more autobiographical material, but since he has long since departed this life, we mortals are unlikely to hear about anything he does write. It's not a great idea for Smerus ( talk · contribs) to have created two non-standard categories relating to an open CFD which he initiated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with merges proposed by BrownHairedGirl re: these new articles. This is a bit high-handed, I must say. I would delete the new categories myself if I hadn't already expressed an opinion. For sure the closing admin should delete the categories if there is no consensus in this discussion to create them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Although this is a side-issue to the nom, I have some sympathy with Kleinzach's position here. Really people shouldn't have to go through an intermediate category to get to Wagner's compositions, which is what (rightly, heaven knows) the vast majority will be looking for. Category:Works by artist is a mess - firstly it should adhere to the convention of reserving "artist" for visual artists in categories, and secondly it is a mix of individual visual artist categories and "by type" parent categories for other media - these should be moved off to Category:Works by creator. Most artists' categories, typically for WP categories, are in the over-specific and restrictive Category:Paintings by artist. Johnbod ( talk) 12:02, 5 January 2010 (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:Misandrists

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) 04:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Misandrists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete We generally don't create categories that use subjective criteria to attack people. Thus there are no categories for Misogynists or Antisemites. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note Earlier today, there were five people in the category ( Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French, Michael Moore, Robin Morgan, and Valerie Solanas) whose biographies didn't mention misandry. (Solanas was an exception; in her case, User:Wwmargera had added a few unsourced quotes he attributed to her and cited as examples of her misandry, which was mentioned previously but not sourced.) I removed the five people from the category before nominating it for speedy deletion as an attack page. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and per the general precedent of deprecating people-by-opinion categories. Firstly, this title is far too simplistic to cover the range of opinions which might prompt someone to add it to an article. Secondly, using a pejorative term like this as a category title makes it usable as an attack category, which carries serious WP:BLP risks. Similar categories have been deleted in the past, most notably Category:Anti-Semites (see the deletion debate here).
    Note that we have also deleted apparently more benign opinion categories, such as Conservatives and Liberals). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another BLP minefield under the garb of a category. I also note this category is, as of this moment, empty? Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Earlier today I removed all the people from the category as unsourced and nominated it for CSD as an attack page. When the speedy was declined, I brought it here. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I don't criticse your action in depopulating an unsourced attack category (whilst generally very bad practive, I think it's it's actually a good thing to do with attack categories) but you really should have stated that fact clearly in your nomination rather than waiting until asked. Not doing so makes your actions appear sneaky. I assume good faith, but declaring something like this upfront avoids any appearance of underhandedness, and helps everybody. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Thanks for your note. I added a note up top with more information. I know that categories aren't supposed to be emptied when they're being discussed here, but I didn't think it was necessary to go into the history. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 23:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Difficult to apply without BLP issues, and too easy to apply with BLP issues. People rarely self-identify using pejorative terms, and using third-party assessments leaves the matter open to conflicting POV interpretations. Then there is the difficulty of tracking a person's changing opinions across their lifetime using a singular category. All of which goes to why "people-by-opinion" categories are commonly deleted, and why such categories using pejorative terms are even more deserving of deletion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the general precedent of deprecating people-by-opinion categories like Liberals and Conservatives. Wwmargera ( talk) 13:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:OCAT by shared opinion slash presumption of shared opinion. (Michael Moore, my ass.) The idea that we'd even need this, when we don't have a corresponding Category:Misogynists, is fascinating in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 05:12, 26 December 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:Settlements in Bergen

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Settlements in Bergen to Category:Neighbourhoods of Bergen
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I found this nomination incomplete. Have no opinion. Debresser ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 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:Albums live at the Olympia

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) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Albums live at the Olympia to Category:Albums recorded at the Paris Olympia
Nominator's rationale: More intelligible name, per main article, Paris Olympia. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:16, 24 December 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:Confederate states (1861-1865)

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:  Relisted at CfD 2010-01-19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Confederate states (1861-1865) to Category:Confederate states (1861–1865)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use an ndash in a year range. Rjwilmsi 18:44, 24 December 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:Blood Money

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: Speedy delete by BrownHairedGirl ( talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G10 (attack page). No reason to continue discussion here. Any objections to the deletion can be addressed to BrownHairedGirl or to Deletion Review. ( Non-admin close.) RL0919 ( talk) 18:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Blood Money ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category scope is unclear and subjective. Wuh Wuz Dat 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I would tend to agree that this seems iffy at best. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong and prompt delete. I have just removed from the category all three of the articles which were categorised in it, because in each case was there no mention of "blood money" in the article, let alone a reference to it. The category text says that it is a list of people popularly believed to have taken "blood money, and vague "popular belief" is a completely unacceptable basis for a category in wikipedia, whose fundamental principles include WP:V. This category is also a WP:BLP nightmare, since its attachment to any biography of a living person would raise serious legal problems.
    I suggest that any further additions to this category should also be promptly removed while the category is under discussion. (I know that this runs counter to our normal deprecation of any depopulation of categories under discussion, but this one is so problematic that per WP:IAR I think it's a valid exception).
    I nearly speedily deleted this category for the reasons raised above, but thought it better to see what others thought. However, I still think that an-out-process speedy deletion is justified, and I suggest that to prevent any further misuse, it should be deleted immediately without prejudice to restoring it if the discussion finds a consensus to keep it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Leave it be Call it original research, call it an attack, call it unsourced negative BLP information, I don't particularly mind which as long as it stays in the realm of the deleted. Other people's opinions about a subject has no place in categorizing people- especally living ones. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 22:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete was the proper action. I mean even if we did want to have something like this which for reasons described above is a bad idea, this isn't even the right naming, it should be Category:Blood money surely? Nil Einne ( talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support Speedy delete . You should have to get permission to create cats. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:24, 25 December 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:Weird News

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) 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Weird News ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. This is a category of "articles where the subject has appeared in News of the Weird", and however amusing that may be, an appearance in one obscure publication is not a defining characteristic of the people concerned; the event which caused them to be in News of the Weird may in some cases be defining, but the report is not. This category also raises WP:BLP concerns. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:27, 24 December 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:Wake Technical College faculty

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 to Category:Wake Technical Community College faculty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Wake Technical College faculty to Category:Wake Technical Community College
Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article at Wake Technical Community College, or alternatively Delete. If kept, it needs parents categories (I found it in the orphanage).
This is a large technical college near Raleigh, North Carolina, so although there appear to be only two possible article to include in the category, the size of the institution suggests that the category may have potential for expansion. However, since it's a local technical college and not a university, there may be not much else about it is sufficiently notable to justify more standalone articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:08, 24 December 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:Warner Archive releases

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) 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Warner Archive releases ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. I am sure that his category of films released on a particular DVD label was created with good intentions, and somebody has worked hard to populate it, but it seems to me to be a flawed idea to start categorising creative works of any form (books, films, songs) by every detail of their commercial publication. Many (most?) creative works are made commercially available more than once, many of them by more than one publisher, and this approach would rapidly lead to each article sprouting multiple categories which relate to relatively minor and non-defining commercial aspects of the work.
The category's intro says "The following is a partial list of Warner Archive official DVD-R releases available from Warner Home Video's website", and the inclusion of purchase info rather contradicts WP:NOTADVERTISING. More importantly, I can find few other examples of categorising films in this way. Category:Videos and DVDs and its subcats include very few films.
I suggest that it's sufficient to categorise films by the studio which created them (e.g. Category:Warner Bros. films), and not try to maintain categories for their distribution. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Concur with BHG here- every movie goes through multiple home video releases in the decades after release, VHS, laserdisc, DVD, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD, and soon, whatever comes next. The fact that half a century after their release a film was available for purchase on a certain website matters very, very little. We don't categorize things by how they can be purchased- a category of "Songs downloadable on iTunes would be deleted. If this distribution format is especially notable- and there's no indication it is, it could be as an article, not a category. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 10:36, 30 December 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:Thad Jones / Mel Lewis albums

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 to Category:The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra albums, since article was moved to The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Thad Jones / Mel Lewis albums to Category:The Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis Orchestra albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: The Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis Orchestra. It may be wise to move that to The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra (as used in the article itself and seemingly more standard English), or to remove the forward slash altogether, as it is preferable to not use it in titles. If that page gets renamed, then I change my nomination to Category:The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra albums. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I would agree with the idea of "fixing" the slash issue in the main article title as suggested. i.e. move to "The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra" instead of "The Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis Orchestra." Then the new category name proposal makes even more sense Pugetbill ( talk) 21:50, 24 December 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.

Politicians by party cont'd

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. — ξ xplicit 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename to standardize another gaggle of categories to Foo Party politicians, the emerging convention of Category:Politicians by party; some party names changed to match their main articles as well. The enterprise of categorizing by political party membership for non-political figures is questionable in itself, but not directly relevant here as after exhaustive checks of all listed articles, I am confident that all listed "members" are also in fact politicians. - choster ( talk) 03:17, 24 December 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:Illegal songs

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. — ξ xplicit 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Illegal songs to Category:Illegal (group) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Illegal (group) and to avoid obvious ambiguity in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 24 December 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:Deaths from leukemia in Arizona

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Deaths from leukemia and Category:Cancer deaths in Arizona. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Deaths from leukemia in Arizona ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small category; overcategorization. Reywas92 Talk 02:58, 24 December 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:Tennessee Titans stadiums

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:  Relisted at 2010 JAN 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Tennessee Titans Stadiums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small category (one article) that will not grow. Reywas92 Talk 02:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Seems like we have a bit of a mess here, as two former names of this team are in sub-categories. All told we have six stadia... I would be happier with upmerging everything so all this franchise's stadia are in a single category, and then doing the same to all the other NFL teams that have moved cities/names and are similarly organized. The only one we'd have to be careful on would be the Cleveland Browns (As the old Browns are now the Baltimore Ravens.) Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The Titans played in more than one stadium. LP Field is in Nashville. The Titans played their first season in Memphis, I believe at the Liberty Bowl. They may have played some games in Vanderbilt's stadium; I don't remember clearly. I know that is listed as "Tennessee Oilers"; is that fully and wholly accurate for the entire time any game was played in those two places? As mentioned above, in their prior incarnation as the Houston Oilers they played elsewhere, most notably in the Astrodome. LanternLight ( talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (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:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. per WP:OC#SMALL as small category with no prospect of expansion. I have just created {{ Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation}} to allow easier navigation between these articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
And the Benedictine global category? Johnbod ( talk) 05:38, 29 December 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:Musical groups from Davis, California

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 -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Musical groups from Davis, California to Category:Musical groups from California
Nominator's rationale: Merge There are only four pages in this category and it seems somewhat unlikely that there will be enough to justify its existence. Several larger cities in California (and elsewhere) do not have categories of their own as well. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The fact that a larger entity doesn't have a corresponding category of its own is never, in and of itself, a valid reason to delete the one at hand — anybody, at any time, can create the appropriate category for the larger entity. The only relevant question is whether this category has the numbers to justify it on its own terms. And the fact that I got it from four entries to seven with just a two-minute visit to Davis, California music scene suggests that it may, in fact, be justified — that article, in fact, doesn't even mention some of the bands that were already in the category, suggesting that there may yet be more valid entries. And there's no minimum size requirement for a category, either — a category might be deletable for size if it's both small and permanently unexpandable (e.g. a category for members of a broken-up rock group which can never expand beyond four articles), but a potentially open-ended category such as this one has no minimum size. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 05:23, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_24&oldid=1138392003"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< December 23 December 25 >

December 24

Category:Essays by Richard Wagner

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 Category:Essays by Richard Wagner; delete Category:Prose works by Richard Wagner, created in mid-CfD; and merge Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner into Category:Works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographies. The creation of Category:Works by Richard Wagner was justified as part of an established categorization scheme under Category:Works by artist. Jafeluv ( talk) 14:20, 7 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Essays by Richard Wagner to Category:Prose Works of Richard Wagner
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The existing category is too limiting, does not allow for Wagner's autobiographical and other writings. See discussion at WikiProject Richard Wagner which is in favour of such a change. Smerus ( talk) 21:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Yes you would need another category, but, no, you would not have to merge them; to do so would be to lose the place in the essay categories, a thought that does not seem to have occured to anyone at the RW project. Johnbod ( talk) 03:29, 26 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Agreed. Perhaps this can be squeezed into this nom? With one entry, Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner, also set up, is certainly "small and unlikely to expand", and should go too. Johnbod ( talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Yes. Upmerge Category:Autobiographical works by Richard Wagner to Category:Works by Richard Wagner and Category:Autobiographies. I dunno whether Wagner is planning to write any more autobiographical material, but since he has long since departed this life, we mortals are unlikely to hear about anything he does write. It's not a great idea for Smerus ( talk · contribs) to have created two non-standard categories relating to an open CFD which he initiated. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 22:56, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
  • Agree with merges proposed by BrownHairedGirl re: these new articles. This is a bit high-handed, I must say. I would delete the new categories myself if I hadn't already expressed an opinion. For sure the closing admin should delete the categories if there is no consensus in this discussion to create them. Good Ol’factory (talk) 06:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Although this is a side-issue to the nom, I have some sympathy with Kleinzach's position here. Really people shouldn't have to go through an intermediate category to get to Wagner's compositions, which is what (rightly, heaven knows) the vast majority will be looking for. Category:Works by artist is a mess - firstly it should adhere to the convention of reserving "artist" for visual artists in categories, and secondly it is a mix of individual visual artist categories and "by type" parent categories for other media - these should be moved off to Category:Works by creator. Most artists' categories, typically for WP categories, are in the over-specific and restrictive Category:Paintings by artist. Johnbod ( talk) 12:02, 5 January 2010 (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:Misandrists

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) 04:53, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Misandrists ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete We generally don't create categories that use subjective criteria to attack people. Thus there are no categories for Misogynists or Antisemites. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 20:36, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Note Earlier today, there were five people in the category ( Andrea Dworkin, Marilyn French, Michael Moore, Robin Morgan, and Valerie Solanas) whose biographies didn't mention misandry. (Solanas was an exception; in her case, User:Wwmargera had added a few unsourced quotes he attributed to her and cited as examples of her misandry, which was mentioned previously but not sourced.) I removed the five people from the category before nominating it for speedy deletion as an attack page. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 23:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom, and per the general precedent of deprecating people-by-opinion categories. Firstly, this title is far too simplistic to cover the range of opinions which might prompt someone to add it to an article. Secondly, using a pejorative term like this as a category title makes it usable as an attack category, which carries serious WP:BLP risks. Similar categories have been deleted in the past, most notably Category:Anti-Semites (see the deletion debate here).
    Note that we have also deleted apparently more benign opinion categories, such as Conservatives and Liberals). -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 21:41, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Another BLP minefield under the garb of a category. I also note this category is, as of this moment, empty? Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 22:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Earlier today I removed all the people from the category as unsourced and nominated it for CSD as an attack page. When the speedy was declined, I brought it here. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 22:53, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
      • I don't criticse your action in depopulating an unsourced attack category (whilst generally very bad practive, I think it's it's actually a good thing to do with attack categories) but you really should have stated that fact clearly in your nomination rather than waiting until asked. Not doing so makes your actions appear sneaky. I assume good faith, but declaring something like this upfront avoids any appearance of underhandedness, and helps everybody. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 23:26, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Thanks for your note. I added a note up top with more information. I know that categories aren't supposed to be emptied when they're being discussed here, but I didn't think it was necessary to go into the history. —  Malik Shabazz  Talk/ Stalk 23:46, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Difficult to apply without BLP issues, and too easy to apply with BLP issues. People rarely self-identify using pejorative terms, and using third-party assessments leaves the matter open to conflicting POV interpretations. Then there is the difficulty of tracking a person's changing opinions across their lifetime using a singular category. All of which goes to why "people-by-opinion" categories are commonly deleted, and why such categories using pejorative terms are even more deserving of deletion. -- RL0919 ( talk) 02:16, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per the general precedent of deprecating people-by-opinion categories like Liberals and Conservatives. Wwmargera ( talk) 13:05, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete as WP:OCAT by shared opinion slash presumption of shared opinion. (Michael Moore, my ass.) The idea that we'd even need this, when we don't have a corresponding Category:Misogynists, is fascinating in and of itself. Bearcat ( talk) 05:12, 26 December 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:Settlements in Bergen

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. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:12, 1 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Settlements in Bergen to Category:Neighbourhoods of Bergen
Nominator's rationale: Merge. I found this nomination incomplete. Have no opinion. Debresser ( talk) 20:34, 24 December 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:Albums live at the Olympia

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) 08:02, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Albums live at the Olympia to Category:Albums recorded at the Paris Olympia
Nominator's rationale: More intelligible name, per main article, Paris Olympia. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 20:16, 24 December 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:Confederate states (1861-1865)

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:  Relisted at CfD 2010-01-19. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 09:16, 19 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Confederate states (1861-1865) to Category:Confederate states (1861–1865)
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Use an ndash in a year range. Rjwilmsi 18:44, 24 December 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:Blood Money

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: Speedy delete by BrownHairedGirl ( talk · contribs) per WP:CSD#G10 (attack page). No reason to continue discussion here. Any objections to the deletion can be addressed to BrownHairedGirl or to Deletion Review. ( Non-admin close.) RL0919 ( talk) 18:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Blood Money ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: The category scope is unclear and subjective. Wuh Wuz Dat 16:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I would tend to agree that this seems iffy at best. Slatersteven ( talk) 17:15, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong and prompt delete. I have just removed from the category all three of the articles which were categorised in it, because in each case was there no mention of "blood money" in the article, let alone a reference to it. The category text says that it is a list of people popularly believed to have taken "blood money, and vague "popular belief" is a completely unacceptable basis for a category in wikipedia, whose fundamental principles include WP:V. This category is also a WP:BLP nightmare, since its attachment to any biography of a living person would raise serious legal problems.
    I suggest that any further additions to this category should also be promptly removed while the category is under discussion. (I know that this runs counter to our normal deprecation of any depopulation of categories under discussion, but this one is so problematic that per WP:IAR I think it's a valid exception).
    I nearly speedily deleted this category for the reasons raised above, but thought it better to see what others thought. However, I still think that an-out-process speedy deletion is justified, and I suggest that to prevent any further misuse, it should be deleted immediately without prejudice to restoring it if the discussion finds a consensus to keep it. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 17:20, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Leave it be Call it original research, call it an attack, call it unsourced negative BLP information, I don't particularly mind which as long as it stays in the realm of the deleted. Other people's opinions about a subject has no place in categorizing people- especally living ones. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 22:49, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Speedy delete was the proper action. I mean even if we did want to have something like this which for reasons described above is a bad idea, this isn't even the right naming, it should be Category:Blood money surely? Nil Einne ( talk) 11:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support Speedy delete . You should have to get permission to create cats. Off2riorob ( talk) 14:24, 25 December 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:Weird News

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) 08:01, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Weird News ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OCAT#Non-defining_or_trivial_characteristic. This is a category of "articles where the subject has appeared in News of the Weird", and however amusing that may be, an appearance in one obscure publication is not a defining characteristic of the people concerned; the event which caused them to be in News of the Weird may in some cases be defining, but the report is not. This category also raises WP:BLP concerns. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:27, 24 December 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:Wake Technical College faculty

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 to Category:Wake Technical Community College faculty. Good Ol’factory (talk) 08:00, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Wake Technical College faculty to Category:Wake Technical Community College
Nominator's rationale: Rename to conform with head article at Wake Technical Community College, or alternatively Delete. If kept, it needs parents categories (I found it in the orphanage).
This is a large technical college near Raleigh, North Carolina, so although there appear to be only two possible article to include in the category, the size of the institution suggests that the category may have potential for expansion. However, since it's a local technical college and not a university, there may be not much else about it is sufficiently notable to justify more standalone articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 16:08, 24 December 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:Warner Archive releases

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) 07:57, 2 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Warner Archive releases ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete as overcategorisation. I am sure that his category of films released on a particular DVD label was created with good intentions, and somebody has worked hard to populate it, but it seems to me to be a flawed idea to start categorising creative works of any form (books, films, songs) by every detail of their commercial publication. Many (most?) creative works are made commercially available more than once, many of them by more than one publisher, and this approach would rapidly lead to each article sprouting multiple categories which relate to relatively minor and non-defining commercial aspects of the work.
The category's intro says "The following is a partial list of Warner Archive official DVD-R releases available from Warner Home Video's website", and the inclusion of purchase info rather contradicts WP:NOTADVERTISING. More importantly, I can find few other examples of categorising films in this way. Category:Videos and DVDs and its subcats include very few films.
I suggest that it's sufficient to categorise films by the studio which created them (e.g. Category:Warner Bros. films), and not try to maintain categories for their distribution. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 15:33, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Concur with BHG here- every movie goes through multiple home video releases in the decades after release, VHS, laserdisc, DVD, Blue-Ray, HD-DVD, and soon, whatever comes next. The fact that half a century after their release a film was available for purchase on a certain website matters very, very little. We don't categorize things by how they can be purchased- a category of "Songs downloadable on iTunes would be deleted. If this distribution format is especially notable- and there's no indication it is, it could be as an article, not a category. Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 10:36, 30 December 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:Thad Jones / Mel Lewis albums

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 to Category:The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra albums, since article was moved to The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra. Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Thad Jones / Mel Lewis albums to Category:The Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis Orchestra albums
Nominator's rationale: Per main article: The Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis Orchestra. It may be wise to move that to The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra (as used in the article itself and seemingly more standard English), or to remove the forward slash altogether, as it is preferable to not use it in titles. If that page gets renamed, then I change my nomination to Category:The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra albums. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 15:31, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
I would agree with the idea of "fixing" the slash issue in the main article title as suggested. i.e. move to "The Thad Jones / Mel Lewis Orchestra" instead of "The Thad Jones/ Mel Lewis Orchestra." Then the new category name proposal makes even more sense Pugetbill ( talk) 21:50, 24 December 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.

Politicians by party cont'd

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. — ξ xplicit 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming
Nominator's rationale: Rename to standardize another gaggle of categories to Foo Party politicians, the emerging convention of Category:Politicians by party; some party names changed to match their main articles as well. The enterprise of categorizing by political party membership for non-political figures is questionable in itself, but not directly relevant here as after exhaustive checks of all listed articles, I am confident that all listed "members" are also in fact politicians. - choster ( talk) 03:17, 24 December 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:Illegal songs

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. — ξ xplicit 08:36, 3 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Illegal songs to Category:Illegal (group) songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Illegal (group) and to avoid obvious ambiguity in meaning. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 24 December 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:Deaths from leukemia in Arizona

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge to Category:Deaths from leukemia and Category:Cancer deaths in Arizona. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:57, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Deaths from leukemia in Arizona ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small category; overcategorization. Reywas92 Talk 02:58, 24 December 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:Tennessee Titans stadiums

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:  Relisted at 2010 JAN 12 CFD. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Tennessee Titans Stadiums ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Small category (one article) that will not grow. Reywas92 Talk 02:57, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Seems like we have a bit of a mess here, as two former names of this team are in sub-categories. All told we have six stadia... I would be happier with upmerging everything so all this franchise's stadia are in a single category, and then doing the same to all the other NFL teams that have moved cities/names and are similarly organized. The only one we'd have to be careful on would be the Cleveland Browns (As the old Browns are now the Baltimore Ravens.) Bradjamesbrown ( talk) 09:12, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The Titans played in more than one stadium. LP Field is in Nashville. The Titans played their first season in Memphis, I believe at the Liberty Bowl. They may have played some games in Vanderbilt's stadium; I don't remember clearly. I know that is listed as "Tennessee Oilers"; is that fully and wholly accurate for the entire time any game was played in those two places? As mentioned above, in their prior incarnation as the Houston Oilers they played elsewhere, most notably in the Astrodome. LanternLight ( talk) 05:01, 4 January 2010 (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:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation

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. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:42, 12 January 2010 (UTC) reply
Category:Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. per WP:OC#SMALL as small category with no prospect of expansion. I have just created {{ Schools of the English Benedictine Congregation}} to allow easier navigation between these articles. -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 00:43, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
And the Benedictine global category? Johnbod ( talk) 05:38, 29 December 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:Musical groups from Davis, California

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 -- BrownHairedGirl (talk) • ( contribs) 04:46, 31 December 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Musical groups from Davis, California to Category:Musical groups from California
Nominator's rationale: Merge There are only four pages in this category and it seems somewhat unlikely that there will be enough to justify its existence. Several larger cities in California (and elsewhere) do not have categories of their own as well. — Justin (koavf)❤ T☮ C☺ M☯ 00:01, 24 December 2009 (UTC) reply
The fact that a larger entity doesn't have a corresponding category of its own is never, in and of itself, a valid reason to delete the one at hand — anybody, at any time, can create the appropriate category for the larger entity. The only relevant question is whether this category has the numbers to justify it on its own terms. And the fact that I got it from four entries to seven with just a two-minute visit to Davis, California music scene suggests that it may, in fact, be justified — that article, in fact, doesn't even mention some of the bands that were already in the category, suggesting that there may yet be more valid entries. And there's no minimum size requirement for a category, either — a category might be deletable for size if it's both small and permanently unexpandable (e.g. a category for members of a broken-up rock group which can never expand beyond four articles), but a potentially open-ended category such as this one has no minimum size. Keep. Bearcat ( talk) 05:23, 26 December 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.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_December_24&oldid=1138392003"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE