Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 April 16

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

April 16

[edit]

Category:College admissions

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:College admissions to Category:University and college admissions. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:01, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:College admissions to Category:University and college admissions
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, this is in line with both the parent Category:Universities and colleges and the main article which is now at University and college admissions. Timrollpickering 22:38, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Religion navigational boxes into Category:Religion and belief-related navigation templates. Angus McLellan (Talk) 19:58, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Religion and belief-related navigation templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

This category was only created less than 2 months ago. It is completely redundant with Category:Religion navigational boxes. It contains no articles, and only 3 subcats. The two other subcats (Christian and Jewish) could easily fit in the aforementioned Category:Religion navigational boxes. In fact, they should go in there, because that is where the Islam and Hindu subcats are located. Once we move those two subcats, it leaves this category empty, and just an extra unnecessary step in the tree.Andrew c 22:29, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

My first reaction was "but there are no belief-related navigation" templates. (I also thought the phrasing "belief-related" was a little awkward.) But then I went and found Template:Belief systems which is currently uncategorized. -Andrew c 06:25, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Natives of Martinique

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Natives of Martinique to Category:People from Martinique. Seems to be the simpler of the two options. Angus McLellan (Talk) 12:49, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Natives of Martinique to Category:Martiniquais people
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, per the convention of Category:People by nationality and the list of adjectival forms of place names. An alternative name might be Category:People from Martinique. jwillburtalk 22:20, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Music from Nottingham, England

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:02, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music from Nottingham, England (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Empty cat superseded by Category:Music in NottinghamshireJack · talk · 22:05, Monday, 16 April 2007

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:School shootings in the US perpetrated by students

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Merge to Category:School killings in the United States. --Xdamrtalk 23:42, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:School shootings in the US perpetrated by students to Category:School killings in the United States perpetrated by students
Nominator's Rationale: Rename, US>>United States; shootings>>killings to match mother category. jengod 19:08, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Johnbod 20:44, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this one is a sub-category of the other. I think the distinction is useful, but on a quick look round many of the main category belong in this sub-category. Johnbod 20:57, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agree Johnbod 02:53, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:WikiProject Television Stations

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedy keep. Angus McLellan (Talk) 15:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Television Stations (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Advertising, Spam, Redirection To Outside Pages. Firstlensman 14:31, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Greek Mayors

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge Category:Greek Mayors into Category:Mayors of places in Greece. Angus McLellan (Talk) 23:06, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Greek Mayors to Category:Mayors of places in Greece
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Tropical cyclone strength categories

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Hurricanes of unknown strength to Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones (rather than to Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown strength) and for the rest, Category:Category 5 hurricanes to Category:Category 5 tropical cyclones, et cetera. The points raised by Tony, Vegaswikian, and PMAnderson seem like they can be dealt with by further categorisation as several editors explained below. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:04, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Category 1 hurricanes to Category:Category 1 tropical cyclones
Propose renaming Category:Category 2 hurricanes to Category:Category 2 tropical cyclones
Propose renaming Category:Category 3 hurricanes to Category:Category 3 tropical cyclones
Propose renaming Category:Category 4 hurricanes to Category:Category 4 tropical cyclones
Propose renaming Category:Category 5 hurricanes to Category:Category 5 tropical cyclones
Propose renaming Category:Hurricanes of unknown strength to Category:Tropical cyclones of unknown strength
Nominator's Rationale: All the categories above are used for cyclones worldwide, not just hurricanes. Tropical cyclones is the appropriate global term. Not so sure about the most appropriate rename for the last category listed Category:Unknown strength tropical cyclones may be more suitable.--Nilfanion (talk) 11:42, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Just so that I understand better, could you please, give an external reference to support the claim that "tropical cyclone" is used worldwide?--— Preceding unsigned comment added by Dr. Submillimeter (talkcontribs) 12:07, 16 April 2007
Umm, this should do. Note for example, the content of the Category 5 category - there are "hurricanes", "typhoons" and "cyclones"; Typhoon Saomai was emphatically not a hurricane.--Nilfanion (talk) 16:30, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Former supermarkets

[edit]

Category:Historical cycling teams

[edit]

Category:Former Norwegian athletics clubs

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete Category:Former cooperatives and Category:Former mutual insurance companies; rename others to Category:Defunct clubs and societies, etc. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:02, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per standard, should rename to "defunct foo" rather than "former foo". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

NO, Former cooperatives and Former mutual insurance companies are not defunct! They have just been demutualized! -- Petri Krohn 12:46, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 23:24, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

As above, should rename to "defunct foo". Additionally the two seem to substantially cover the same area, so I could see a point in merging the two. >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Former art museums and galleries to Category:Defunct art museums and galleries, matching the parent Category:Art museums and galleries. No consensus for merging from or to Category:Defunct museums. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:25, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Has substantial overlap with parent cat "defunct museums", so would suggest upmerge. Failing that, per standard, should rename to "defunct". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 23:47, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match parent cat, "Defunct financial companies by country". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Defunct financial companies by country per nom. TonyTheTiger (talk/cont/bio) 17:53, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Category:British railway lines (disused) to Category:Closed British railway lines, no consensus on the remainder. Angus McLellan (Talk) 13:28, 22 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Per standard, should rename to "defunct foo" rather than "former foo". >Radiant< 11:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neutral. Not sure here, because I am in favor of standardized namings of categories, but at the same time I feel that the term "defunct" is more common when we talk about companies, but not structures like stations or lines. I have almost never heard about "defunct railway lines", but the terms "former railway lines" or "closed railway lines" are pretty common. Sjakkalle (Check!) 13:36, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I don't think a building can be defunct; it's like all those paintings "residing" in museums (except when they go on vacation). Many disused railway lines are used for other things, and this is the normal & I think official term in the UK - on Ordnance Survey maps etc. Closed railway stations are similar. Johnbod 21:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As mentioned prior to this, the terms former and closed are much more common than defunct when referring to railway lines and stations. Simmo676 16:23, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Cypriot filmmakers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 23:35, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cypriot filmmakers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete All three articles have been diffused into the relevant subcategories for film directors, film producers, screenwriters, and experimental filmmakers, in line with the treatment for such people from all other countries. Oliver Han 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zionist political parties in Israel

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus and not WP:CSD#G5 material. Angus McLellan (Talk) 22:04, 23 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Zionist political parties in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, This tendentious category was created by User:Hashomer a sockpuppet of banned User:Homey on 6 Feb 2007. This category is redundant because Category:Political parties in Israel already exists with these parties in it so this category was not needed. But in any case, by definition, a political party in Israel is "Zionist" in the sense that in order for it and its members to eventually take their place/s in the Knesset, Israel's democratically elected parliament, they must accept and take an oath of allegiance to the Zionist State of Israel. User:Homey, through his sockpuppet User:Hashomer is displaying his consistent anti-Israel POV, trying to insinuate by tainting parties "Zionist" in this category, that somehow or other there can be another layer or category of parties. IZAK 10:17, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Breast cancer patients

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 23:36, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Breast cancer patients (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete as non-defining. There is also a category for Category:breast cancer activists (though it is overused for celebrities who have devoted maybe 0.1% of their time to the issue). Brandon97 09:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Jewish musicians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus to delete or rename. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:21, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jewish musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish American musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish classical musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Jewish hip hop musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
I'm not opposed to treating Category:Jewish hip hop groups as a separate thing. I might go so far as to say I'm not voting on that one, but I'm not certain.--T. Anthony 10:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Jewish music refers to traditional Jewish music. Just because an article like Mayan dance might exist, doesn't mean it is reasonable to categorize all people of Mayan descent into Category:Mayan musicians indifferent to what type of music they perform. Bulldog123 03:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Judaism is important in music; even composers such as Mendelssohn and Mahler, who converted, maintained strong links that affected their work.--Newport 22:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I strongly oppose deleting these.

1. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) Categorization of people (3.3 Heritage), which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish musicians" is clearly contemplated by Wiki policy. It says: Heritage

People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).

Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."

2. Nationality. Also, if the Jews are (as appears to be the case) a nation (and not just a religion), it would clearly not be appropriate to delete.

The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)."

The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)."

Thus, in the (unusual) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.

Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.

3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability."

To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."

Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. In addition, these already exist for Black Jews and Jewish athletes and Jewish fencers and the like see Category:Jewish sportspeople.

And, importantly, there are a number of lists and articles relating to Jewish musicians. It is mentions such as these that demonstrate the importance of this classification ... which is what Wiki policy focuses on.

A number of people have failed to respect that the test for notability on Wiki is this, not their personal POV. --Epeefleche 22:05, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sure they are see Category:American musicians by ethnicity, Category:Arab musicians, Category:Basque musicians, Category:Kurdish musicians, Category:Roma musicians, and Category:Tamil musicians.--T. Anthony 17:53, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian rappers

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 23:38, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Christian rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Roman Catholic rappers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Christian musicians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 23:29, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Christian musicians to Category:Performers of Christian music
Propose renaming Category:Canadian Christian musicians to Category:Canadian performers of Christian music
Propose renaming Category:Christian hip hop musicians to Category:Performers of Christian hip hop music
Propose renaming Category:Christian rock musicicans to Category:Performers of Christian rock music
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - Christian music is a well-known genre, and (hopefully) this category is being used for musicians who perform Christian music and not just any musician who is Christian. To avoid problems in the future, I suggest the rename above. Dr. Submillimeter 08:56, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Sikh musicians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "performers of Sikh music". >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Sikh musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Muslim musicians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "Performers of Islamic music". >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Muslim musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Buddhist musicians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Buddhist musicians to Category:Performers of Buddhist music
Nominator's Rationale: Rename - All the articles in this category are about people who are Buddhist monks or who appear to perform Buddhist music. I suggest renaming the category so that Buddhists who perform non-Buddhist music (e.g. Alanis Morissette) do not end up in this category. Dr. Submillimeter 08:47, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, I think you should propose the series of Religion musicians categories (Christian, Muslim, Buddhist...) at the same time instead of dividing into so many discussions. I think the matters are the same and we should go to discuss whether should we keep the type of "Religion + musicians" or not. AW 16:39, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In this case I created this category and pretty much all it has is Buddhist monks. However musicians who do some Buddhist music, like Yungchen Lhamo, yet are known beyond that contect can be in. The idea is that they performed Buddhist music, they don't have to exclusively perform Buddhist music and nothing else. Still, even with the original, I think it's best it not include say Belinda Carlisle or others whose Buddhism has not, or not yet, effected their music much.--T. Anthony 02:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Does this mean Category:Buddhist music is also overcategorization? Because we have Category:Gospel music and Category:Gospel musicians; Category:Latter Day Saint music and Category:Latter-day Saint musicians; or Category:First Nations music and Category:First Nations musicians. So if we can write an article about Buddhist music and have a category on it why would a Category:Performers of Buddhist music be inappropriate?--T. Anthony 07:48, 17 April 2007 (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:Hindu musicians

[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename to "Performers of Hindu music". >Radiant< 09:18, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Hindu musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Please anup Jalota, Haridas? Their music was explicitly Hindu. Your argument is impotent and not germane to the issue at hand.Bakaman 22:15, 19 April 2007 (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:Roman Catholic musicians

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Delete. --Xdamrtalk 23:40, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Roman Catholic musicians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
  • Speedy delete - This is the recreation of deleted content; the category was deleted on 7 Feb 2007. We already decided that this category would be used to categorize people whose religion has nothing to do with their music (as was true with the last version of the category), despite the intentions of the category creators. Dr. Submillimeter 08:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - An alternative would be to rename these categories if the categories are intended for performers of music that is Roman Catholic in nature (e.g. Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music). Dr. Submillimeter 09:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • How would you define performers in this case? My suspicion is that anyone who performs Roman Catholic music will be tagged for this category. In fact I could see every Roman Catholic who is a musician being listed here since almost all perform at church. It would not be hard to add a line to their article to indicate this so the inclusion of the category would be valid. In many cases, there would at least be a local news paper cite to support this. Vegaswikian 18:07, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's not that complicated. In the case of modern (post-1900) musicians I think it would be necessary that they had an album or CD of Catholic music. For earlier musicians I think it'd be necessary that they performed or composed masses or church music. Someone who merely sang in church choir as a kid would not apply. Well unless they were some kind of prodigy who composed long-lasting songs he/she sang at choir. (I don't think that'll happen very often)--T. Anthony 09:19, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I support the suggested rename as that was my intent. I'm not intending to recreate a category that could allow in any musician who happens to be Catholic. I wanted this to be a subset of the Catholic music or Category:Christian musicians deal. A category for people who do Catholic music. Granted names like Aaron Neville could seem to go against that, but he did win an award for Catholic music. (Note I intended to be gone so apologies for being here at all)--T. Anthony 09:43, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, but support creation of Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music. However, see my comments above on Christian musicians for some wider concerns about musicians whose music includes some religious themes, but might not strictly be called "religious music". --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 16:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete recreation. Doczilla 16:45, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we don't have Roman Catholic music as an article, but I'm not convinced one couldn't be written. We do have Catholic music (possibly misnamed for Roman Catholic) which points to a couple of contemporary Catholic (should be Roman Catholic) music articles, nothing about pre-Vatican II liturgical music but I would not foreswear that there is no valid article that could be written on the entire subject. Given that an article could probably be written (and several partial ones already have) this intersection is valid and the category falls within the exception spelled out in the policy. If you don't like that policy, let's change it rather than just flaunt it. Carlossuarez46 22:14, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • (possibly misnamed for Roman Catholic) Uhh no. Although it causes confusion with other religions that use the word "Catholic", the term "Catholic" is in several respects better than "Roman Catholic." I know of Catholics who pretty much never use the term "Roman Catholic." It's become policy, sort of, to prefer "Roman Catholic" because of the Old Catholic Church and Anglo-Catholicism. Still "Roman Catholic" has the difficulty in that it doesn't encompass Eastern rites in communion with Rome. I've had to explain that "Roman Catholic" really doesn't mean only "Roman rite Catholic" on several lists so sometimes I just used "Catholic" on that disambig. We don't have any article on Old Catholic Church music or Anglo-Catholic music so I didn't need to worry about that.--T. Anthony 01:13, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category isn't about Catholic music. Doczilla 01:10, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yes it is. The original was not, but I brought it back and placed it as a subcategory of Category:Catholic music. I did that so I could ask it be placed here so we could give an appropriate rename. A rename that would limit it to Catholic music performers. All names currently in it did, sometimes exclusively so, Catholic music. Yet in many cases they had nothing to denote they even were Catholic. Take the case of Zingarelli who worked at the Vatican for a time and whose article was taken from the Catholic Encyclopedia. Before today he was in no Catholic category at all even though someone interested in him could plausibly want to see musicians with a similar history.--T. Anthony 02:37, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
        • A category name should clearly indicate its purpose. In this case, it does not. So if your intent was to not include every Roman Catholic musician, then the category is misnamed and needs a new name if kept. Vegaswikian 18:12, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
      • I also wouldn't mind if this were renamed per Dr. Submillimeter's suggestion above. Carlossuarez46 07:33, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Religion is irrelevant in too many cases for the category to be legitimate. Haddiscoe 12:45, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If it is deleted can I at least create a Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music and fill it with relevant names?--T. Anthony 12:55, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and maybe rename. This is a valid subgenre of music, and Wikipedia needs some way to categorize musicians who fall in that subgenre. ~ ONUnicorn(Talk|Contribs)problem solving 19:30, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sacred music crossover between Roman Catholics and various mainline Protestants is constant. Is Richard Proulx in this category or the corresponding (putative) Anglican category? After all, his Community Mass is one of the most commonly used in the Episcopal Hymnal 1982. And in the USA it appears one would be far more likely to hear musci written for the Rennaisance Roman Catholic Church in an Episcopal church than in a Catholic church. Mangoe 17:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • If so that's sad and we should work on that. However I think there are occasions and churches in the Catholic Church that still perform or record the older music. The Vatican still does and so do several monasteries. I would think that several of the Hymns to Mary and Marian devotions are specifically Catholic enough to not work in other context. I remember some that sang about the Immaculate Conception, which seems unlikely to be appropriate in an Episcopalian service. (Granted most of those would be from after 1854, although the Feast of the Immaculate Conception predates that)--T. Anthony 03:31, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG KEEP I sense strong bigotry in this. I think everyone who votes to delete this is anti-Catholic, otherwise they would see no problem with it. If this gets deleted, I'll nominate Category:Jewish musicians, and Category:Muslim musicians as well. I pray that one day you will stop your bigotry. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tom Danson (talkcontribs) 21:37, 18 April 2007
  • Delete It does not follow that just because a musician is a Catholic, his or her religion is a major part of his or her work. Jamie Mercer 14:33, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, but it is a part of some musicians work. That's why I'd like it to be switched to Category:Performers of Roman Catholic music. All the names currently in it would apply. It's current, misleading, name was just because it was what was available.--T. Anthony 17:56, 19 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Video games articles requiring images

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Rename. --Xdamrtalk 23:27, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: Bringing in line with the parent categories. We are requesting images, not requiring them (how would we enforce requirement? ;) ). Also changing "box art" to "identifying art" as not all games come in boxes. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 03:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Vice Lords

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 10:09, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Vice Lords (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categories; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gangster Disciples

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus (would seem odd to delete just this one and keep the others for want of consensus). Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:15, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gangster Disciples (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categories; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:13, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Crips

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:13, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crips (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categories; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:11, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable rapper feuds etc are built on these affiliations.Bakaman 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Bloods

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Angus McLellan (Talk) 21:11, 24 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Bloods (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categorization; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:09, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable rapper feuds etc are built on these affiliations.Bakaman 02:23, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Gang members by affiliation

[edit]
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was Keep. This category plays notable role in sorting criminology-related articles and solving the backlog of its parent Category:Gang members. However, the information about all of these affiliations should be backed with reliable sources. AW 15:46, 21 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gang members by affiliation (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Delete, Trivial and non-defining like membership in the freemasons or fraternities, which have and are being regularly deleted as categorization; there may also be WP:BLP issues. Carlossuarez46 03:07, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep All. The category itself, as well as its sub categories, was originally created to sort the backlog of Category:Gang members. I believe WP:BLP, as its very name implies, is in regards to biographies of living persons not subsequent categories. This argument has been made numerous times on past deletion debates regarding organized crime figures and other criminals. Membership, weither it be a crime family or a major street gang such as the Bloods or the Crips, can be verified through police records, newspaper articles, books, etc. I believe this applies to all areas of criminology, not just organized crime. MadMax 04:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Sorry, exactly how do we have access to confidential police records? The vast majority of gang members, some of them notable, may only be listed in confidential police files not available to the general public. Some may not even get past the contact card stage. Also, how many of the people in these categories are notable for their gang activity? In other words would their being in the gang be sufficient for them to merit an article? Yes, some members are notable for being a member, but the vast majority are not making this a non defining characteristic. If the information is needed for sorting, then listify. Vegaswikian 18:19, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Both federal and police records, particularly mugshots, are available though online sources (as is quite apparent by existing articles on organized crime figures and other criminals). Again the nominator's concerns are related to individual articles not its subsequent categories. I'm not sure I understand how creating a list would clear up the previous backlog of articles on Category Gang members. MadMax 06:58, 18 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep very important to identify and to organize organized crime articles. WooyiTalk, Editor review 03:58, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All per Mad Max, Wooyi & myself above. Johnbod 21:12, 16 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Can all of these affiliations be supported with reliable sources and are they verifiable?
Keep - Notable rapper feuds etc are built on these affiliations.Bakaman 02:24, 17 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the page's talk page, if any, or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.