Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 October 29

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) 22:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Jamaican sex offenders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: It looks to be no more than an attempt to find yet another stick to beat a guy with. I have no desire to defend the individual for whose sole "benefit" this category has been initiated, but I would defend the Wikipedia project against such use. Kevin McE (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Kevin McE (talk) 23:11, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, I was also considering nominating it. I should also point out that I have started discussions at WT:CRIME and WT:FOOTY about the category. WFCforLife (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. While I have no idea what the intentions of the creator were, I think this category is suitable for inclusion on Wikipedia. King is Jamaican and he's a convicted sex offender, everything can be sourced to reliable sources, meaning that this meets BLP. Even if being a sex offender is not his main claim to fame, his conviction has garnered attention throughout the world and it is therefore worth categorizing him as such. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 01:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Twice? WFCforLife (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. The category is part of the Category:Sex offenders by nationality scheme. Additionally, this is a defining characteristic for those in these types of categories. If the individual was a convicted sex offender and there are reliable sources to back the claim up, I don't see the rationale to delete the one nominated, let alone the parent and other subcategories. These categories are in no way derogatory nor do they disparage the subject. — ξ^xplicit 07:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I'm not disputing that others exist, or necessarily that they shouldn't. Even so WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid argument. This entire category was created solely for, and is populated solely by one offender, who also has English citizenship and is in the corresponding category. I don't see how this one is in any way beneficial. WFCforLife (talk) 13:55, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I think this is indeed over personal--is there any chance of doing a larger category (Caribbean sex offenders?) that will have more than one person? DGG ( talk ) 15:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Where does it say that a category cannot consist of only one article? WP:OC only tells us to "[a]void categories that, by their very definition, will never have more than a few members, unless such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme, such as subdividing songs in Category:Songs by artist or flags in Category:Flags by country." This category won't by its definition have only a few members, it will contain as many notable Jamaican sex offenders as there are, and I'm sure there is more than one notable sex offender in a country of almost three million people, and the category is part of a "large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme" (Category:Sex offenders by nationality). 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • See WP:OC#OVERLAPPING. If it can be demonstrated that there are notable wikipedians other than King who fall into this category, I'd be less inclined to delete. WFCforLife (talk) 16:23, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • Kemar Jarrett is wanted on charges of rape, if he is convicted he could be added to this category as well. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 23:57, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • We don't predict the future. Although if he were, I agree that the category could be recreated. There's no rush though, so let's wait and see what we're told. WFCforLife (talk) 13:46, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't see in the article Marlon King where it establishes that he is Jamaican. He briefly played for a Jamaican team, but he was born in England and seems to have spent most of his life and nearly all of his professional career there. Further, the relevant conviction occurred in England for an incident that happened in London, so it is under English law that he was convicted and in England that he will have to register as a sex offender for seven years. That has no connection with Jamaica, so his inclusion in Category:English sex offenders seems to be the only appropriate category for that fact. postdlf (talk) 16:27, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Under FIFA rules, a footballer can only represent the national team of a country he or she is a citizen of. Marlon King represents Jamaica, which is only possible if he is a Jamaican citizen. It's true that he hasn't lived in Jamaica, but in that case someone like Mohammed Bouyeri should be removed from Category:Moroccan prisoners sentenced to life imprisonment and Category:Moroccan people imprisoned abroad, to give an analogy. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 16:38, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I feel obliged to say that I have had previous discussions about a similar topic with this editor at WP:FOOTY. Putting aside our differences on the relevance FIFA, your argument would suggest that you are opposed to King being categorised as both an English sex offender and a Jamaican sex offender. My argument for the deletion of this category is primarily that no-one in this category isn't covered by a closely related existing one. WFCforLife (talk) 18:06, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find our harmless difference of opinion at WP:FOOTY to be unrelated, I don't see why it would need to be brought up. I am not opposed to King being categorized with both citizenships. If he has two passports, I see no harm in categorizing him with two nationalities. In this case I merely explained to Postdlf where the article "establishes that he is Jamaican", that's all. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 18:28, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • And just to be clear, and this is all I want to say here about the discussion at WP:FOOTY: I have no problem with Category:Kosovar footballers. 94.212.31.237 (talk) 18:34, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • Just to be clear, I don't oppose his inclusion in Category:English sex offenders. I oppose this category existing solely as a stick to beat the man with for a second time. WFCforLife (talk) 16:21, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This subcat is a valid addition to an established group, Sex offenders by nationality. As such, it cannot be broadened to Caribbean sex offenders. King is verifiably Jamaican by both citizenship and ancestry, as well as being a convicted sex offender. The category was not created solely for him, it is merely the case that he is the only person to have been placed in this new cat so far. More people fitting the cat description should be added. Lkjhgfdsa 0 (talk) 23:18, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per DGG --Kleinzach 09:29, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Armada of the Argentine Republic ship names to Category:Argentine Navy ship names

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match article title for the navy of Argentina, Argentine Navy, and parent categories of Category:Argentine Navy and Category:Ships of the Argentine Navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 22:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• • Rename per nominator. Armada of the Argentine Republic redirects to Argentine navy. Debresser (talk) 23:15, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Militias in Australasia to Category:Militias in Oceania

Nominator's rationale: Rename. May as well expand the reach of this category. Australasia is a subpart of Oceania, and most categories that divide stuff by "region" do so essentially by continent, with Oceania being more commonly used than Australasia. Right now it only contains an article about a militia in Australia, but it can probably be added to, especially if we expand the scope. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Also, Australasia's boundaries are somewhat vague and flexible. Some sources include Papua New Guinea but not New Zealand, others include both or neither. Oceania is more widely used on WP partly for this reason. Grutness...wha? 22:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with a reasonable idea. Debresser (talk) 23:13, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: delete all three. The provincial categories were empty at closing and the national category contained only the provincial subcategories. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:32, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Deserts of Yukon (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I'm fairly certain that the one item in this category is the only thing that will ever be in it. While there is a dry, sandy area just outside of Whitehorse, it's not considered a desert. Technically the Carcross Desert isn't a true desert either, as stated in its article. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm adding the following to this listing:

Category:Deserts of British Columbia (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Deserts of Canada (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete all three, which are now empty now that the two so-called "deserts" have been removed: Carcross Desert and Okanagan Desert, which were each in the respective provincial categories as well as the country-level parent. Neither is actually a desert notwithstanding their common names, and obviously the mere fact that they are called "deserts" is not sufficient reason for categorizing them with real ones. Unless there are uncategorized articles on actual Canadian deserts, these categories are unneeded. postdlf (talk) 22:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Canada has several arctic deserts, in the archipelago, IIRC. 70.29.209.91 (talk) 05:54, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do they have articles? postdlf (talk) 12:11, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Apparently not. For the record I agree with Postdlf's suggestion to delete the other cats as well. Beeblebrox (talk) 03:04, 6 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:42, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Communities in New York to Category:Settlements in New York by county

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Broome County, New York to Category:Settlements in Broome County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Cattaraugus County, New York to Category:Settlements in Cattaraugus County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Chautauqua County, New York to Category:Settlements in Chautauqua County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Columbia County, New York to Category:Settlements in Columbia County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Greene County, New York to Category:Settlements in Greene County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Orange County, New York to Category:Settlements in Orange County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Otsego County, New York to Category:Settlements in Otsego County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Putnam County, New York to Category:Settlements in Putnam County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Rensselaer County, New York to Category:Settlements in Rensselaer County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Rockland County, New York to Category:Settlements in Rockland County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Sullivan County, New York to Category:Settlements in Sullivan County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Ulster County, New York to Category:Settlements in Ulster County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Warren County, New York to Category:Settlements in Warren County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Washington County, New York to Category:Settlements in Washington County, New York

Propose renaming Category:Communities in Westchester County, New York to Category:Settlements in Westchester County, New York

Nominator's rationale: Rename to clarify contents and match parent, Category:Settlements in New York. Settlement is preferred to "community" as a generic term for populated places because it is less ambiguous, as a "community" can be cultural and non-geographic. postdlf (talk) 16:48, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Kleinzach 00:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Rot-Weiß Ahlen to Category:Rot Weiss Ahlen

Propose renaming Category:Rot-Weiß Ahlen players to Category:Rot Weiss Ahlen players

Propose renaming Category:Rot-Weiß Essen players to Category:Rot-Weiss Essen players

Propose renaming Category:Rot-Weiß Essen matches to Category:Rot-Weiss Essen matches

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To matches articles Rot Weiss Ahlen and Rot-Weiss Essen. Tassedethe (talk) 13:30, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 (in direction set out below). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:35, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Members of the National Academy of Engineering to Category:Members of the United States National Academy of Engineering

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Procedural nomination only, as category was manually emptied by Encryptola (talk · contribs) without discussion here, then tagged for speedy deletion by another user; since the speedy deletion criteria specifically exclude categories that have been emptied out of process, I am opening the move for discussion here. R'n'B (call me Russ) 13:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• DElete target has the better name. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment The new category is the better name, but I hope the editor does not do any more such moves without checking first. DGG ( talk ) 15:53, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:12, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 November 10#Category:United States Naval Submarine Bases. postdlf (talk) 16:47, 10 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Naval Submarine Bases to Category:United States Navy submarine bases

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the parent cat Category:United States Navy bases and to fix the capitalization. Tassedethe (talk) 11:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment "Naval Submarine Base" is the U.S. Navy's formal designation for such facilities (Naval Submarine Base Kitsap, Naval Submarine Base New London, etc.).- choster 14:32, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per choster. Debresser (talk) 23:11, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:United States Navy Naval Submarine Bases per choster. 65.94.252.195 (talk) 04:59, 3 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Only two of the ten articles in the category are titled using the "Naval Submarine Base" prefix. The suggested name from the nom makes the best sense (and avoids the ugly construct of "…Navy Naval…"). — Bellhalla (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Tartarstan/Gepard class frigates to Category:Gepard class frigates

Nominator's rationale: Rename. To match the name of the main article, Gepard class frigate. — Bellhalla (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 23:10, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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) 22:36, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grunge groups to Category:Grunge musical groups

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per other "[Genre] musical groups" categories (e.g. Category:Heavy metal musical groups, not Category:Heavy metal groups.) —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. NW (Talk) 17:55, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Grunge music to Category:Grunge

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article: grunge. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:28, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm thinking this might fall into the ambiguity exception to the rule that a category should follow the parent article title, as we need to be more sensitive to the need for clarity in category titling than in article titling. Certainly "grunge music" is more clear than "grunge". postdlf (talk) 22:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Agreeing with Postdlf Johnbod (talk) 03:19, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose filth is not a genre of music, but you want to rename the category to filth so that it can categorize various sorts of filth in addition to music? 76.66.203.102 (talk) 06:06, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per postdlf --Kleinzach 09:22, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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 DELETED; misspelled name, already emptied and replaced by Category:Washington State Cougars basketball venues. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington State Cougars basketball veues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is misspelled. hulmem (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. --Xdamr^talk 21:37, 12 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Washington State Cougars basketball venues (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. It is small (two members) without potential for growth. hulmem (talk) 04:22, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. The same creator made Category:College basketball venues by team, which should have been added to this one as a parent; there are at present two other such sports team venue categories from the same contributor, maybe more given that not all of them were included in that parent. The whole scheme should probably be discussed at once, maybe involving WP:SPORT, as this type of categorization will only spread to other teams and sports. It seems overly narrow to me, but I always miss the sports questions in Trivial Pursuit, so what do I know. postdlf (talk) 22:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to make it easier to search by team, it's a work in progress kind of like Rome not being created in a day.--Levineps (talk) 23:19, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen this argument before, that new categorizing ideas are snuffed out at CfD before they have a chance to prove their utility in real use. People saying this have a point; on the other hand, WP is a Monkey see, monkey do environment, and if the eventual decision is still to delete, there will be a hundred to get rid of instead of ten. I don't have a good answer for this. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:10, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am trying to make it easier like there is Category:Major League Baseball stadiums by team, Category:National Football League stadiums by team, and Category:National Basketball Association arenas by team. In a lot of cases, the casual fan does not know some of the schools arenas but knows the schools name.--Levineps (talk) 02:05, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this, and also the other members of Category:College basketball venues by team, and also pro equivalents such as Category:Cleveland Cavaliers arenas and Category:Chicago Blackhawks arenas that have been recently created. These fail on WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#NARROW grounds. Furthermore, most articles on teams list in the infobox or the lead section the venues the teams have played in, so this information is already readily available in an easier-to-find form. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:00, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • None of the other categories are currently listed for deletion; you'll have to add tag those, add them to this listing, or list them elsewhere. postdlf (talk) 16:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Okay, my bad. I've struck my previous comment, since I see no purpose in deciding on this one category in isolation from the whole proposed categorizing scheme. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:29, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should at least delete this one since it is already tagged here, and Wasted Time R's rationale ("fail on WP:OC#SMALL and WP:OC#NARROW grounds...most articles on teams list in the infobox or the lead section the venues the teams have played in, so this information is already readily available in an easier-to-find form") is sound. There may be other editors willing to spend the time to tag the similar categories for deletion, and we shouldn't not delete this one just because Wasted Time R (and others such as I) don't want to spend the time marking the others for deletion. hulmem (talk) 22:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — ξ^xplicit 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Music released on Blu-ray (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. The sub-type of media that a video album is released on is not a defining characteristic of the video album. This would also require continually monitoring and updating. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - next thing you know, there will be Category:Music released on DVD, Category:Music released on VHS, and Category:Music released on BETA. We wouldn't want music to be sorted by their media rather than their genre. GVnayR (talk) 02:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - see the other categories for music available on SACD and DVD-A. Being in surround sound (which is only available on these formats) CAN be a defining characteristic of an album. Whether something is 5.1, stereo or mono can have a major impact. We either need to keep all three categories, or else provide a surround sound album category, and also a hi-def music category. Furthermore, no monitoring and updating would be required - once an album is available, it's available. And have you seen the double album category? That's a medium. What's the difference? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.130.221 (talk) 12:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Double album is not "a medium," nor is it specific to a particular medium. It's instead about the relationship of the musical content to whatever physical medium it was initially released on. postdlf (talk) 22:45, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the same reasons not to mention Category: Music released on laser disc. Wikipedia isn't a shopping guide, and the medium that a piece of music is recorded on isn't remotely a defining characteristic. Voceditenore (talk) 06:09, 29 October 2009 (UTC) Addendum, it's also unverifiable unless each individual article specifically lists a blue-ray recording. This is certainly not the case for all the articles on individual operas to which it had been attached (and now removed), e.g. La bohème. Voceditenore (talk) 10:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? Someone added an article on a 100-year old opera that has undoubtedly been performed and recorded thousands of times, to a category for a specific media format? Really? postdlf (talk) 17:14, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – Non-defining. Michael Bednarek (talk) 07:52, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – per Michael Bednarek --Kleinzach 09:23, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep defining? How about Category:Drama CDs, Category:Enhanced CDs, Category:DualDisc albums, Category:Picture discs, Category:Copy Control albums, Category:Laserdisc video games, Category:IMAX films, Category:Black and white documentaries, Category:Films shot in Super 16, Category:PlayStation 2 games, Category:Mac OS X software, Category:Linux e-mail clients, Category:Music video games, Category:Games on sixth-generation consoles, Category:Music midis or Category:Video albums? That's over a dozen categories right there that are all exactly the same as this one, with a hundred other examples. None of theses are defining categories, but all sit happily within the wiki audiovisual hierarchy, and are very useful as a research tool. Being in one category does not prevent an album from being in another. To use Bednarek's logic, each page would fit into only one category. The Blu-ray category should remain because it distinguishes music from other titles that establish the main use of this format (ie movies). Indeed, an album could be said to be notable because it appears on BD. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.72 (talk) 18:27, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete On the principle that notability is not temporary. Not that many items are on Blu-ray at present, but if it were to continue to grow, then this category would become ridiculously large. Even if the delete votes this cfd doesn't continue to snowball and there were a sudden wave of keep votes, it should be noted that a number of operas and ballets were categorised when it is only specific recordings of them that air on Blu-ray. It would be inappropriate to cagtegorise (or list) (I Can't Get No) Satisfaction because it is one of the tracks on the Stones album on Blu-ray. Similarly for other compositions.--Peter cohen (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I saw this being added to articles yesterday and I was baffled as to its purpose. The format is not a defining characteristic of the music. Alansohn (talk) 17:08, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, non-defining and useless. What's next, Category:Music released as mp3s? Over time, these would just recapitulate the history of recording technology since an album's release on every album article. postdlf (talk) 17:42, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Or Category:Internet albums?!? People using words like "useless" should stay away as they have no idea what they are talking about. Without Category:Albums released in Super Audio and Category:Albums released on DVD-Audio and this category, there would be no Grammy Award for Best Surround Sound Album! It thus serves quite a big purpose. It's not so much about technology or shopping, but being in this category allows an album to be eligible for this Grammy award, and is also an indication of superior recording quality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.141.22.48 (talk) 00:44, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't realized that winning a Grammy Award was dependent on how it was categorized in Wikipedia. :) --Wolfer68 (talk) 18:54, 2 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• note (nom): The 3 "keep" votes above were each registered by separate IP addresses, each of which begin with 81.141. Quite obviously it's the same person vote-stacking. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:49, 4 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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: do not create category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:38, 9 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can we create a category for Musicians who have been awarded an honorary Dr.Mus? Some prominent names are listed on the wikipedia page Doctor of Music but it looks really tacky because the volume of names on that page. It would look much better if there was a category for these names to appear in so they can be taken off the page in question and tags added to the respective artists' pages. FruiChew (talk) 01:55, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• We have no general scheme for Category:People by academic degree, as most such categories would be so broad as to be non-defining. While the D.Mus may be less common than the Ph.D., to me it does not stand out among Category:Doctoral degrees as distinctive enough to merit separate categorization.- choster 02:04, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That sounds fair enough! Maybe the Doctor of Music page should have a bit of a tidy up so as to reduce the list of musicians listed on it as it does look tacky and unecessary by volume. I was only thinking of notable musicians who have been awarded an honorary degree in music but put into perspective, you'd have to create sub categories for other notable people from various different fields who have been awarded various different honorary degrees that the list would become so extensive it would become ineffectual. FruiChew (talk) 02:16, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • We do have a handful of institutional lists such as List of University of Alberta honorary degree recipients and List of University of Florida honorary degree recipients, so a separate List of honorary Doctors of Music article may be justifiable. - choster 03:20, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment -- In UK, I would expect D.Mus. to be a higher doctorate, equivalent of D.Sc. and D.Litt., awarded in its full form for a lifetime of musicological research. As such it would be higher than a Ph.D. We have tended to steer away from categorising honorary degrees, since they are conferred as an honour to recognise achievement, rather than an achievement in its own right. Listify by all means. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:46, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so - for example at Cambridge it seems to be the musical version of a PhD. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep In the US it is not a higher doctorate, but an alternate to the PhD. I think it is mainly used here for people who are getting the degree for composition or performance, with the PhdD for musicologists--but I think universities will vary widely. Checking the people in Wikipedia with such a UK degrees, they are all either honorary or performance or composition. None of them actually seem to have it as well as a phd. Personally, I see no reason why we should not have categories for all higher degrees--yes, there will be many people in them, and what is the harm about that. We can handle very large categories. If we still have the overcategorization rule, I'd propose that degrees such as this be interpreted as an exception DGG ( talk ) 18:50, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why, what do you believe such a category scheme would accomplish? In any event, I'd suggest discussing the merits, consequences, and details of such a scheme before anyone creates it, to head off a lot of unnecessary work and piecemeal CFDs. Not to mention the fact that it would potentially create a lot of new categories on just about every biography article. No one should decide to do that unilaterally. postdlf (talk) 19:18, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed - I don't believe it is defining - for academics it is all but automatic anyway. Johnbod (talk) 19:35, 30 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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

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. — ξ^xplicit 21:20, 7 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Feminist video games (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete:The category is inherently biased and the classification of "feminist" is wrong, since feminism is a political viewpoint rather than a female protagonist. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:31, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete POV.- choster 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Ok, I get your point. How about this: I will vote to rename the category to Category:Video games with female protagonists. GVnayR (talk) 02:05, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was already a list like that and it was deleted for being unnecessary due to the extremely large scope and current non-notability since games have gotten much more gender-varied. I don't see how it's any different, and you'd have to have a "male protagonist" and "alien protagonist" category as well, fitting pretty much every game.--_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 02:27, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Incorrect use of term. — Blue��� 03:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about this? I will change my vote to rename the category to Category:Female-oriented video games because video games with strong female characters are pretty much female-oriented. GVnayR (talk) 03:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Difficult, is there any article that explains video games that are "female-oriented"? Japan-wise, BL games maybe, but then you'd have to create "Male-oriented video games" and such. — Blue。 10:36, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: per nom. --Kleinzach 09:25, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the games included could be analysed at Portrayal of women in video games, but the cat is badly named, "female-oriented" is vague and "female protagonists" is apparantly unworkable. Declan Clam (talk) 20:43, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Flawed under any name, per the other delete votes. Also, what about games such as the Resident Evil series that have both male and female protagonists in the same game? Beeblebrox (talk) 21:33, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per all the above. Covered more effectively elsewhere and heavily-flawed name. It would be easy to spend an entire day or more debating just how "feminist" Barbie Super Model is, to start with. Grutness...wha? 22:34, 29 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as original research. Megata Sanshiro (talk) 17:53, 1 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

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