Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2008 April 9

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. Kbdank71 19:25, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Featured dinosaurs (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: This category has been added to the article space for all Featured Articles on dinosaurs. As such, it seems to violate

Wikipedia:Self-references to avoid. I was going to simply move it to the articles' talk pages, but then I found that it is redundant with Category:FA-Class dinosaurs articles, which is already there. Suggest we delete. — Dulcem (talk) 23:56, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Wasn't aware of the FA-Class dinosaurs category when I created it, which would make sense since I created my category back in 2007 (when there wasn't any navigational tool for these articles), and this was only recently created a couple months ago. The "FA-Class dinosaurs articles" is more appropriately titled, regardless.  BIGNOLE  (Contact me) 00:08, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, agree with the rationale above. Dinoguy2 (talk) 01:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Sure, it's a superseded category. J. Spencer (talk) 01:43, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:15, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Author is okay about the proposal as well.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (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 for consistency, per consensus and extensive precedent. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Military in the Bahamas to Category:Military of the Bahamas

Nominator's rationale: Merge, "Military of" is the standard used in

subst:cfd-notify}} Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• rename I created the category incorrectly named; should be corrected. Hmains (talk) 04:28, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:10, 10 April 2008 (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 to Category:Galician-Portuguese language. the wub "?!" 13:24, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Portuguese-Galician to Category:Galician-Portuguese

Nominator's rationale: Rename.

Galician-Portuguese is the standard expression in English. Srnec (talk) 21:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:11, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Category:Galician-Portuguese language to avoid confusion and match the other categories (bar one) in the parent. Johnbod (talk) 16:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Johnbod. --Soman (talk) 09:04, 15 April 2008 (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 to Category:Shuttle-derived launch vehicles. Kbdank71 14:35, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicle to Category:Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles

Nominator's rationale: Categories contain multiple articles, therefore their names should be plural. GW_Simulations

Talk 19:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

I created the original category earlier today, and I fully support the name change. Hiberniantears (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - while it should clearly be pluralized, the name itself is opaque and the capitalization is wrong. Perhaps
  talk) 22:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • "Shuttle-Derived Launch Vehicles" - with that capitalisation, is the most commonly used term. --GW_Simulations
    Talk 23:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• The capitalization violates the MOS and there is more than one "shuttle" in the world. Assuming that readers are going to be familiar with the "most common" term is counter-intuitive to the function of an encyclopedia.
  talk) 03:46, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Rename to Category:Shuttle-derived launch vehicles per usage in this document and to match the capitalization in the rest of the launch vehicle series. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:37, 10 April 2008 (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. the wub "?!" 13:26, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:All Articles with sections needing rewrite to Category:Articles with sections needing rewrite

Nominator's rationale: This is not a standard "All articles" category (see e.g. Category:All non-free logos), since it includes monthly subcategories, rather than all articles within those subcategories. Black Falcon ^(Talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Support sounds better. Yahel Guhan 02:49, 10 April 2008 (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: no consensus. Kbdank71 13:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Nominating deletion of majority of subcategories in above category, but not the category itself.

With the exception of the Wales, Republic of Ireland, Scotland and Jamaica subcategories which actually have a decent amount of entries, the remaining subcategories should be deleted. Most have less then 6 articles and several only have one. Most of these are unlikely to be added to either. Djln--Djln (talk) 18:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I think you mean (say) upmerge
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 19:42, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Comment. Apologies for not having tagged every single subcategory but there are too many. That is part of my point. All the players in these subcategories should be merged into larger category, with the exception of subcategories mentioned above. Djln --Djln (talk) 23:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. So do you want to delete all the subcats or just keep the one you created which was Category:English-born footballers who played for the Republic of Ireland or which ones do you think should be kept? All seems a very POV position that you have taken with your cat being valid and other not being valid. I would be much happier if the sparsely populated sub cats where further populated rather than deleted.--Quack Quackery (talk) 20:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. In many cases, the only reasopn these categories are small is due to undercategorisation. The New Zealand category currently has three names, but give me a few minutes and I'll be able to get that up considerably further. Similar expansion is true of several, if not most, of the other categories. Grutness...wha? 00:30, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Took quarter of an hour to get it to 13 articles. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well done. You just drove a coach and horses through the argument to delete these categories which add additional information to readers.--Quack Quackery (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. New Zealand and possibly St.Kitts maybe other exceptions and I concede there maybe others too. But the likes of Poland, Singpore, Hong Kong only have one or two articles and are unlikely to expand. These should definitely go talk --Djln (talk) 00:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • • Comment. What absolute nonsense. The largest populated category are English born players who played for the Republic of Ireland, mainly because of mass immigration from Ireland to England and now we are in a time of large scale immigration from Poland so is would be obvious that that group will grow and recently we have just seen the first few English born players play for Pakistan - more are sure to follow. I await the creation of Hungary, Lithuania and Latvia within the next few years.--Quack Quackery (talk) 15:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't be too sure about Hong Kong or Singapore. Restricting it to commonwealth countries and any others where there's clear evidence of a reasolnable number of articles is possibly a reasonable idea, though. Grutness...wha? 00:49, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Well said if anything wit hthe way international immigration is going these categories to expand.--Quack Quackery (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete OCAT by intersection of where-born by for-whom-played. Not all people born in England (English-born) are English, so the purported "internationalism" or such exemplified by the cat are misleading at best, not present at worst. Category:Panamanian-born United States senators anyone? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I also note that many of the people in the category have some form of Category:Non-English footballer further demonstrating the attenuation of being born in England with the later career of the player - if they are not English why is it any surprise or defining that they play on someone else's (their) national team? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:Just because an English-born player opts to play for another country does not make them less English. Dual nationality is not exactly uncommon. The main category is perfectly legitimate but the number of subcategories has got silly. Djln
      • If it's not uncommon, it's less likely defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:33, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. These sub categories ADD to the ease of navigation around area of interest.--Quack Quackery (talk) 15:19, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I seriously doubt these categories are going to expand. Immigrants from Italy, Poland, Pakistan and various African countries having been coming to England for over a century. Yet these categories only have a handful of articles. I seriously doubt Hungary, Lithuania categories etc will have to be added. I challenge Quack Quackery to fill these categories but I suspect you are already struggling to. Do not be surprised if these subcategories are renominated for deletion by other editors at later dates. Djln--Djln (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Ludicrous nomination. Doesn't even merit discussion. If one subcategory is notable (as most of them manifestly are) it justifies all subcategories. DublinDilettante (talk) 19:45, 19 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 14:31, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Restricted law enforcement agencies to Category:Specialist law enforcement agencies

Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Specialist" is the usual name for these agencies; "restricted service" is sometimes used in the USA, but "restricted" alone implies other meanings. Necrothesp (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Agreed Rename to specialist. Good idea Necrothesp. I created it, and did not think of a better name for these agencies at the time. Peet Ern (talk) 13:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Notice please Please let me know on my talk page when finalised so that I can make the necesary changes in other places: templates, doco, etc. Peet Ern (talk) 12:46, 15 April 2008 (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. "Just because people get confused is surely not a reason to not do something." Incorrect. If by creating this category, we create confusion, we should either fix it, or get rid of it. Per the definition found here, Civilian police are non-military police. In viewing Category:Military police, there are 4 subcats and 37 articles. So by definition, one can assume that by creating what is essentially a non-military police category, it will encompass everything in Category:Law enforcement agencies by country less those 4 subcats and 37 articles. That would seem to lend credence to the argument that this is mainly duplicative of the law enforcement category. Kbdank71 19:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Civilian police agencies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Completely unnecessary category. The vast majority of police agencies are civilian and there is already a perfectly good categorisation scheme within Category:Law enforcement agencies by country. This is over-categorisation. Necrothesp (talk) 16:38, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and update the template. Category:Military police makes sense since it is pretty much everything that would not be in this category. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Category:Law enforcement agencies by country also includes military police, so it is not perfectly good. There is no other category or category tree which groups only civilian agencies. If there is I will be happy to go with that instead, but as far as I can see there is not one. Sure it will be big, but so are many other categories. Peet Ern (talk) 13:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Definitely keep - perhaps with sub categroies by country? I keep forgetting to state what is so obvious to me in this matter.
  Federal police. Peet Ern (talk) 20:48, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  I understand your reasoning, but I proposed it for deletion for two reasons: 1) most law enforcement agencies are civilian and 2) which agencies do and do not constitute "police" vary immensely by country and even cause confusion within countries (e.g. many people refer to the FBI as "police"; they are clearly not under their constitution, but they do have powers and functions that most people would associate with the police - the difference is one only appreciated by those who have a good knowledge of law enforcement around the world). Thus this category is going to be a) very large, b) mostly duplicating other categories, and c) not particularly well-defined. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:40, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Only about 50-60% of law enforcement agencies are civilian police agencies. I would agree to it being sub categorised, and with hindsight it needs to be.

Just because people get confused is surely not a reason to not do something. This is supposed to be an encyclopedia, which is to deconfuse people. There is an important distinction between police and other law enforcement agencies. See Law enforcement agency for example. At this stage I am not prepared to accept that civilian police agencies should not be a category structure in its own right.

Perhaps the best course of action is to keep it for the time being and formally pass the issue over to Wikipedia:WikiProject Law Enforcement. Peet Ern (talk) 12:31, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't actually think there is a clear distinction internationally between police agencies and other law enforcement agencies. It's very much down to national definitions. Also note that WikiProjects are informal groupings, and in no way final arbiters of policy or guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:54, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• • Note to closing admin. Peet Ern has indicated keep twice in this discussion. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:38, 14 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 19:29, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:River cities to Category:Riparian cities

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The correct name for "on a river" is riparian. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 15:52, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose - the average person is not going to know what "riparian" means. This name change is a bar to utility.
  talk) 17:22, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Oppose for clarity per Otto, but does every city get a coastal, river, or <fill in feature> category now? Maybe two? Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:14, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Alternate rename proposal - I believe the name we want is Category:Riverine cities, which easily conveys the intent of the category. (See definition of "riverine"). Cgingold (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Does anyone know what "riverine" means any more than "riparian"? I have to say I'm leaning toward saying chuck the whole category, unless we want to start classifying every city by every geological feature. My home city has a river, several lakes, an isthmus, a a copse, a glade or two and a host of other geological features. Do we want to clutter every city article with a half-dozen such categories?
  talk) 16:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I used it in the discussion of the coastal cities. I have only heard "riparian" in the context of water rights, but I gather it has more general application. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Cities by river, which is what the subcats are for:Category:Cities and towns along the Susquehanna River etc, which makes a valid category. The odd articles like Moscow, Paris etc should be removed as most large cities are on a river, in the Old World anyway, & this is not defining. Johnbod (talk) 16:55, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I added some of those - if commonness denies a defining quality, which is the crux of the last part of the argument, then surely you'll agree that removal of all race/religion, etc. cats where the numbers become large, hence the quality common, is perfectly in order as well. I also note that a huge number of major cities, including Old World capital cities are "coastal" - Jakarta, Hong Kong, Singapore, Mumbai, Tel Aviv, Istanbul, Athens, Algiers, Cape Town, Barcelona, Marseilles, Venice, Gdansk, St Petersburg, Copenhagen, Stockholm, Oslo, Tallinn, Helsinki, Dublin, Liverpool, Hamburg, Sydney, Melbourne, Perth, Brisbane, Boston (MA), New York City, Miami, Los Angeles, San Francisco, quickly come to mind, etc. but that cat was kept just a while ago. If coastal is definitional despite its multitude, so seems being on a river - and for good reason many cities were founded on rivers: fresh water, water power, ease of trade, and being inland away from marauding Vikings, being defensible - and for other good reasons why cities were founded on coasts: ease of trade, fishing industry, defensibility, etc. Either way it seems defining. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:04, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• But that is not what this category is for; it is for cities by river - despite its current name. I don't know I would support a new category for river cities; many large cities are certainly not coastal, whereas really rather few are not on a river (including of course nearly all the coastal ones). You can't drink seawater. Johnbod (talk) 03:16, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: After giving this subject further thought, I believe Johnbod has put his finger on a crucial point: given the requirement for a supply of fresh water, very few human settlements of any size are not located on rivers or streams. The major exceptions would be the minority that are located near lakes or springs. So the real raison d'être (oh no, another French term!) for this category would be, as Johnbod suggests, to serve as a container cat for the various sub-cats by river.

However, this immediately raises a very big question: Do we want to create sub-categories for every river that has its own category? For every river that has an article? Should we take this to WikiProject Geography and ask them to help develop some other criteria for which rivers should have categories? Cgingold (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've just posted notice of this CFD at the talk page for WikiProject Geography. Cgingold (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Many cities receive their drinking waters from wells, aquifers, lakes, etc., rather than their rivers. If being by the coast links Türkmenbaşy, Turkmenistan with Brighton, we can see how diverse the coastal category is. And that's not even taking into account the various municipalities in various countries that have no population center along the coast but just abut it somewhere in their territorial domain - like the Democratic Republic of Congo being a coastal country - technically yes, but of minimal meaning to most of its inhabitants who never see its <50 km of coastline. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nonetheless, adding Rome, Paris, Moscow and Sacramento to this category is not enough to turn it from being a misnamed category about the cities on particular rivers to a general one about all cities on rivers. Can we get back on topic please? Johnbod (talk) 22:21, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Category:Riparian cities, while correct, is not well-known. Category:Cities on rivers is acceptable. But Category:River cities sounds fine to me - it's obvious what it means. I think, however, that it's probably only a useful parent cat for subcats for cities on major rivers (it's useful, for instance, for those on the Danube or Rhine - cities which tend to be defined by the river they're on), not for every city that's on a river. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:48, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

But none of the names you mention make that at all clear, unlike Category:Cities by river! Johnbod (talk) 11:54, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities by river just sounds weird. At first I thought you meant Category:Cities by rivers. Categorising "cities by river" makes it sound like the cities are in a river, not on its banks! -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. None of the proposed renames really helps here. Also, the lack of a main article does not help, however, the dab page was reworded so that it makes this type of usage the primary usage, so that may help clear things up. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 19:24, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Books about Jesus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Category is too large in scope. It included books that have nothing in common besides the subject. There are recent works of fiction, mixed in with scholarly works of non-fiction, mixed with with ancient religious writings. On top of that, there is a significant overlap with the existing Category:Literary portrayals of Jesus (although that category and its subcat could be better populated).Andrew c ^[talk] 15:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete how much about the subject must a book be and what RS tells us that it's at least that much. Surprised not to see The DaVinci Code or Bible in there, but perhaps the cat isn't too visible. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:11, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for the reasons given by Carlossuarez46. The List of books about Jesus already exists and has the potential to be a lot more useful than a category. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 19:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Police officer biographies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Poorly named category which exactly duplicates the long existing Category:Police officers. Necrothesp (talk) 09:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom (empty). Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 10 April 2008 (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 to Category:Convicted American child molesters. Kbdank71 14:33, 16 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:American convicted child molesters to Category:Convicted American child molesters or Category:American child molesters

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Current name does not read right. Open to other suggestions including a possible delete as a triple intersection. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:08, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:American child molesters. If they weren't convicted they shouldn't be in the category in any case, since that's libel. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - First and foremost, the word "convicted" definitely needs to stay in the name of the category, in order to address
  WP:BLP issues. The recent CFD that resulted in Category:Sex offenders being renamed to Category:People convicted of sex crimes showed a strong concensus on that point. As to the best name for this category, I'm not entirely sure at the moment -- still thinking it over. It's odd, though, that there's no parent cat, i.e. Category:Convicted child molesters. Cgingold (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Btw, Category:People convicted of sex crimes was also taken to CFD, and that CFD has now been relisted for further discussion. Cgingold (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• In that case, how about Category:People convicted of child sex offences (which is the common modern term in the UK, although I don't know of its currency internationally)? Child molester is a bit of an old-fashioned term in any case. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:05, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• I think you're probably right about "child molester". I might be wrong, but I don't believe the term "child molestation" is widely used (if at all) as the official, legal term for a criminal offence. I'd like to hear from other editors on this point. Cgingold (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment There is
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 14:17, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Yeah, no sh*t -- one of all too many categories that could be so described. [sigh!] At least we're working on it -- starting with the part most urgently in need of attention. Cgingold (talk) 14:43, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep "convicted" in name. That's my bottom line. Problems will invariably arise if that caveat is not placed in the name, even if it's set out in a definition. See Category:Convicted bigamists for a parallel instance where it's necessary (otherwise virtually every 19th century Mormon leader and many early Muslim leaders are included). I like Category:People convicted of sex offences against children, not because it's succinct (it's not), but because it's clear and hard to misinterpret or misapply. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:08, 11 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Convicted American child molesters. I agree that the word "convicted" should stay in the title; otherwise, massive potential for libel. Treybien ^(talk) 21:40 11 April 2008 (UTC)

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. Kbdank71 19:22, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:What do Monks Eat for Breakfast? (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Inappropriate category. Jfire (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Not a category, not really a valid article, and inappropriately named in any case since monks are not restricted to Thai Buddhism. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is an attempt at an article, in the guise of a category. The creator is a fairly new editor, who evidently is not aware of the distinction betweeen an article and a category. I suppose it could be converted into an article, but it's nowhere near encyclopedic tone, style, etc. so I can't imagine it surviving at AFD either. Cgingold (talk) 11:02, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not even close to a category. swaq 15:21, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Necrothesp. When I saw the category's title, I was thinking Italy or the Sinai... Carlossuarez46 (talk) 19:13, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per
  Talk 20:29, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and
  WP:DAFT. That title is too good to waste! Grutness...wha? 00:51, 10 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 19:26, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Crush 40 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete - This category connects 11 articles, most of which don't really have much of a connection at all to the main article. I'm also the only active editor of the main article, and I don't think this category is really necessary. Red Phoenix (Talk) 03:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete but place the members in
  talk) 18:01, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I've got just one problem with that: None of the albums in there are actually their albums. They're soundtracks from video games of which they have contributed some songs. That doesn't make it "their albums". Red Phoenix (Talk) 23:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, just be sure they're in an appropriate soundtrack category then.
  talk) 03:41, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Okay, I've got the members category done. There's only two with their own articles for now, but I might create the articles for the others at a later date. I'll have to see if there's a blanket category for video game soundtracks. And to whoever sees the old category, DON'T move Tony Harnell into the Crush 40 members category! He's not a member of Crush 40, just a guest singer that they brought in for a couple of tracks. Red Phoenix (Talk) 18:37, 10 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as essential container category for subcats (members, albums, soundtracks) and for the above-mentioned Tony Harnell, who is related to the band but not in it.
  -- roundhouse0 (talk) 12:31, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• The category is in no way essential and, if you'd read the comments above a little more closely, you would have perhaps understood that there should be no soundtracks subcategory because these are not Crush 40 soundtracks. This material is extensively interlinked through the band's article and that article serves as an appropriate navigational hub.
  talk) 16:59, 14 April 2008 (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. Kbdank71 19:21, 15 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Gospel music radio stations in the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete redundant category created accidentally, articles belong in Gospel radio stations in the United States. Dravecky (talk) 02:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as redundant.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05

13, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

A duplicate of this type can be either speedy deleted or redirected to the properly-named parent without having to come to CFD first. It doesn't really need a whole week's worth of debate. Bearcat (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2008 (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 delete per author request below.

Bencherlite^Talk 22:00, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

Suggest merging Category:Online Social Networks to Category:Online social networking

Nominator's rationale: Merge, You could make an argument that this newly-created category should just be a subcategory of the target category, but really the vast majority of articles in the target category could be defined as "networks" of one type or another, so to me the category seems to be more a duplication than anything else. If kept, fix caps. Notified creator with {{

subst:cfd-notify}}Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:07, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge. I saw a red link in the categories part of a page and created it. Basketball110 _{pick away...} 01:12, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. Basketball100, feel free to add {{db-author}} to the category page for a speedy result. - Fayenatic (talk) 19:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've tagged it for speedy. Basketball110 _{pick away...} 21:44, 9 April 2008 (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 for consistency with main article, per consensus. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 19:24, 13 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Midwest to Category:Midwestern United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match main article: Midwestern United States. Sean Curtin (talk) 23:55, 8 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Agree Main article name and category name should (almost?) always match. -Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 04:46, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. sounds reasonable.--Lenticel ^(talk) 05:14, 10 April 2008 (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.