The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Band changed their name, category should reflect that. — ξxplicit 20:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Question. OK, the band changed the name. That does not change the fact that the albums were recorded under their old name, right? So should Category:...And Oceans albums be a subcategory of Category:Havoc Unit albums? Vegaswikian (talk) 21:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What about a softredirect with an explanation in the intro of the category that it is for albums by the band Havoc Unit, formerly known as ...And Oceans. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Vegaswikian, as far as I'm aware, a subcategory has never been created when a recording artist or band change their name. If we did, I can only image the terror we'd have categorizing Sean Combs' articles, who's gone from Puff Daddy, Puffy, P. Diddy and Diddy. I think Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars's suggestion seems to be more than adequate. — ξxplicit 21:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Convicted bigamists
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:Don't rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 17:36, 28 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Convicted bigamist" is a clumsy term as one could be a bigamist and convicted only of crime(s) other than bigamy, making him or her a convicted bigamist. -- Karppinen (talk) 20:50, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Nominator misunderstands the specificity of the adjective, which qualifies the noun immediately following it. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:33, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think it's likely people will misread the meaning of the category name because "Convicted fooist" is the common way to refer to an individual as having been convicted of the crime foo. Convicted murderer, convicted rapist... These are not ambiguous labels. No one (except, I guess, Karppinen) will think that these terms and category names are the coincidence of two unrelated facts, that someone was convicted of something and committed a crime that may or may not be of what they were convicted. postdlf (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The category is grammatically correct without the unnecessary word "People". Bigamists is a noun qulaifeid by two successive adjectives. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom to match the pattern found in Category:People by criminal conviction, their parent. There is no stated reason why these three categories should be exceptions. Hmains (talk) 02:51, 13 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
American criminals
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. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:58, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The first three on the list are self-explanatory. The others should be renamed because the categories exclude all but American people who have been convicted of any of those crimes. -- Karppinen (talk) 20:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename all to the 'American people ... ' pattern. This provides for clarity to readers in regards to what is in the category and to editors as to what should be placed in the category. Parents can be changed later as more expansion occurs. Hmains (talk) 03:33, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose some' "American people" is a horrid term, provides ambiguity, since the term "American peoples" is one of the terms used to describe American Indians (aboriginals, not ones from India). I suggest instead of "American people", "People of the United States of America" like the Constitution says. 65.94.253.16 (talk) 05:04, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
comment. Smith Act convictions were unique to the US, so there should no misunderstanding. Others (assault, obscenity) are unique to British legacy countries, including the US, and again there's little potential for misunderstanding. All these categories, in fact, have double geographical intersection - nationality of the convict, and nationality of the court system which issued the ruling. NVO (talk) 15:26, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Current version is generally more concise. Maurreen (talk) 16:12, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. 'Fooian people' has become the standard term in WP catting to indicate people by nationality Mayumashu (talk) 02:35, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. "FOOian people" is standard, not "FOOs". And it's a good idea to have the broad category before we break it down by nationality. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Convicted child molesters
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. Follows the pattern in the nomination above. Vegaswikian (talk) 00:02, 12 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Rename. The term "convicted child molester" is rather clumsy, if not inaccurate term to describe someone who has a conviction (or more than one convictions) of child sexual abuse. That's why we don't have categories such as Category:Convicted American kidnappers. A person who has convictions of child sexual abuse is indeed a convicted child molester, but saying that someone is a "convicted child molester" implies two things. That the person in question is convicted. And that he or she abuses children sexually. For example, one could be a child molester convicted only of crime(s) other than child sexual abuse, making him or her a convicted child molester. There are known child actors and child singers, too. Thus, child molester could also be interpreted as a child that molests. I'd say that the new names that I propose are precise enough. -- Karppinen (talk) 19:37, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is Category:American kidnappers. Could you explain the difference between this, apparently legitimate category, and the inaccurate (as your message implies) Category:Convicted American kidnappers ? NVO (talk) 15:13, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, I don't think it's likely people will misread the meaning of the category name because "Convicted fooist" is the common way to refer to an individual as having been convicted of the crime foo. Convicted murderer, convicted rapist... These are not ambiguous labels. No one (except, I guess, Karppinen) will think that these terms and category names are the coincidence of two unrelated facts, that someone was convicted of something and committed a crime that may or may not be of what they were convicted. postdlf (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support but it may need to be split -- "molester" is unfortunately a euphemism for sexual abuse, but it could be applied to a parent who is excessively cruel in punishing his children such people would be Category:People convicted of child cruelty. Those who fall into this category will need to be purged before the rename can be completed. This may need a temporary keep, until a user can split the categories accordingly. It is probably too much to enable the closing admin to do this. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:17, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Americans convicted of child pornography
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is irrelevant and poorly named. Even if this category wasn't for Americans only, this seems to be a case of overcategorizing. Category:American sex offenders can surely be added to those (American) subjects of Wikipedia articles who indeed have convictions related to child pornography. Also, the category is poorly named, because nobody is, literally, convicted of child porn. There are, however, people with convictions of possession, production of child porn, etc. Karppinen (talk) 18:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename. Sex offender is a uselessly broad category; the included crimes vary from state to state, and can include everything from child rape to public urination. So where we can be more precise, we should. This category might be a proper subcategory of Category:American sex offenders, but it's certainly not made irrelevant by it, and child porn-related offenses are so notorious that it is always going to be a significant fact about an individual. You make a good point, however, about how the child porn convictions are for possessing and/or producing child porn, so a rename might be in order. postdlf (talk) 20:07, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge to Category:American sex offenders and Category:People convicted of child pornography offenses or Category:People convicted of child-pornography-related offenses, with no objection to splitting out by-nationality categories if the latter becomes overpopulated. I think postdlf makes a good point about the defining-ness of the category, but it seems premature at this time to start creating categories by nationality. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:26, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Really a rename proposal, not strictly an upmerge; I have no objection to taking the nationality out of the category name as it's the only one at present. Either of your proposed renames are probably acceptable. postdlf (talk) 23:00, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's true, I guess, since one can't technically merge (or upmerge) to a category that doesn't exist. -- Black Falcon(talk) 23:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until better defined. I am not familiar with the Amnerican criminal system, but producing and distributing child porn is much more serious than mere possession. "Sex offenders" normally refers to those having sexual contact with children, which a person who takes an indecent photo will not necesarily be guilty of, even though even taking the photos may be abusive. This is an unpleasant subject; hence riddled with euphemisms, designed to hide the horror of offences. WP needs to be explicit in its category scheme and avoid euphemism, particularly where it is liable to blur the level of abomination appropriate. I comment, because I ssupect there will be parallel nominations needed for other countries. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:25, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do what Black Falcon suggested. Nominator is correct that you can't be convicted "of child porn". I'm not sure on the keep vs. delete issues, but it's probably sufficiently defining. There's no need to subdivide by nationality at this point. I think Category:People convicted of child pornography offenses is probably simpler than the other suggestion. Good Ol’factory(talk) 01:17, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:London Racers
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, as the category in question is unlikely to grow beyond its current point. — ξxplicit 19:59, 16 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Defunct ice hockey team. Not likely to have more articles added to it. Only has parent article and one sub cat that is already in it. Most ice hockey teams do not have their own category unless there is a great number of articles to go in them. DJSasso (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There are plenty of similar cats across all sports, why pick on this one ? Djln--Djln (talk) 17:40, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Because a category of one article is not much of a category. I am not picking on this one, I just happened to notice this one when cleaning up some things. This is over categorization plain and simple.-DJSasso (talk) 17:58, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would agree with this. I should have looked for other categories for teams from GB that were in the same situation. I assume you mean the articles in the categories should be moved. Not the categories. -DJSasso (talk) 19:04, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looks as though some one has gone ahead and made a Category:Defunct ice hockey teams in the United Kingdom, nice work. However, it raises some questions after looking at some other sub-categories inthe defunct ice hockey teams section. If the proposal is to delete the Category:London Racers than how many of the defunct ice hockey team sub-categories get deleted? Just the one who contain 1 article (about the team the category is named for) and 1 category (usually players who played for said team) or more? Some only have the players the team article and an arena, I'm not sure where the line should be. Maybe all of these player sub-categorizes should be moved into something like Category:Ice hockey players by defunct teams similar to the Category:Ice hockey players by defunct league or just move them under an appropriate league provided there are enough players to warrant a sub-category since i think that Category:Johnstown Blue Birds players is kind of rediculas having only two players for a team I doubt any new player articles will come from. Just some thoughts, I still say Delete but it looks there could be a lot of clean up and further discussion on some kind of standard size --Mo Rock...Monstrous (talk) 21:36, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The player categories don't need to be moved to any other categorization. Generally for most hockey teams on the wiki they simply fall under the league players category. If you look at Category:Ice hockey players by defunct league and go in one of the categories we then have the individual team category below that. No need to create a by team category. That would be over categorizing. In most cases the only hockey teams that have team categories like this one are teams at the pinnacle of the sport which is the NHL and to a lesser extent the KHL. It is pretty rare (for hockey atleast) to have individual team categories. Generally most people don't like categories below I think its 3 articles. For player cats we usually just have the players in the "Sample Hockey League players" category until there is enough for their own by team sub category, but some people jump the gun and create the team category before we have the 3 players. -DJSasso (talk) 23:29, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have added the main article to the category. If a club was notable enough to have a players category, it is notable. Alternatively, redirect to the players category, sicne that is the only likely content apart from the main article. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:32, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This isn't about notability, its about usefulness of the category. -DJSasso (talk) 22:04, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete next to useless eponymous category; contents are already categorized adequately and there is no pressing need for this one. Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:48, 22 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Leningrad school of painting
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, colleagues. Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:52, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. The "School", created by User:Leningradartist, did not exist. The category is an amorphous collection of artists from Saint Petersburg, including those who matured well before the city was renamed Leningrad, those who trained in Germany etc. (cf. Dmitry Kardovsky). These people may be grouped as People from Saint Petersburg, or Painters from Saint Petersburg, or even Art community of Saint Petersburg but equating a professional community to a school is a far stretch.
The category was deleted twice in Russian wikipedia [1]. User:Leningradartist has created an article of the same name in Russian wikipedia [2] which has been deleted and userified after a lenghty discussion (AFD in Russian) as original research that does not meet notability criteria for theories and abstract concepts. NVO (talk)
Dear colleague, I thank you for your attention to a new Category:Leningrad school of painting. But you repeat the mistakes of some colleagues from the Russian Wikipedia, which are not widely known history of the Russian Soviet Art of the ХХ Сentury. I did not create the "Leningrad School", it created by Isaac Brodsky, Alexander Savinov, Dmitry Kardovsky and other famous Russian artists and educators in the early 1930's. After their affair continued their students and pupils of their pupils. I just wrote a book about it (Sergei V. Ivanov. Unknown Socialist Realism. The Leningrad School.- Saint Petersburg: NP-Print Edition, 2007. – p. 450. ISBN5901724216, ISBN9785901724217), and was the first to detail the history of the Leningrad School. Obviously, as has happened to other well-known European "Schools" of painting, belonging to the XIX and earlier centuries. Therefore, your assertion that such “School” does not exist, to say the wrong address. Did you know that Kardovsky some time studying in Germany. That's all you know about him? He, like Brodsky, Petrov-Vodkin, Osmerkin, Savinov were not pupils, but creators and educators of "Leningrad School”. And if more precise, it was her recreation of the ruins left by the beginning of 1930 from the once famed Academy. The only drawback is its category, while the lack of content in articles about artists - pupil of “Leningrad School”, but this quickly changed. The first such article about artist Alexander Seminov appeared two days ago. With regard to the category in the Russian Wikipedia, it will be restored, as has been restored to refine and article with the same title. Sincerely,Leningradartist (talk) 19:46, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Google gives negligable returns for "Leningrad School of Painting"[3] apart from one book, Unknown Socialist Realism: The Leningrad School, by Sergei V. Ivanov, details here[4] and here.[5] Who is the publisher and is it self-published? The only two returns in Google Books[6] are for what appears to be an art academy known as The Leningrad School of Painting, rather than an art movement. Ty 11:46, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The definition he gives does not explain why Ilya Repin, who died in 1930 & was in Finland after 1917, was added to the category by User:Leningradartist. Other inclusions seem equally inappropriate. Johnbod (talk) 12:07, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
About Repin, Brodsky, Leningrad School, and "other inclusions seem equally inappropriate" please see [11]Leningradartist (talk) 00:43, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My knowledge of Russian art is simply not very deep. Initially I accepted this as a somewhat obscure but bonafide movement, the more I learn however the more skeptical I am becoming, I deleted an edit the other day from Art school[12] that clearly was misrepresention of the Leningrad School, or a misunderstanding of what an art school is, I asked him to create an english version of this article - Leningrad School without realizing that it has been deleted from the Russian wikipedia, although I should have known better...Modernist (talk) 13:45, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This appears to be a promotional category created by the author of a book in which zie has proposed grouping artists by their involvement in a hitherto-obscure school, and per WP:COI, the author should refrain from using wikipedia to promote hir own theories. If and when the claimed significance of the Leningrad School gains wide currency, we can consider using it as the basis for a category ... but for now there not even a head article on this school, and it seems that any such article would have difficulty meeting WP:GNG. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 14:30, 10 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Great, colleague! Offer specialist can not be accepted because it refers to his own book. But simple user sentence can be party to take, since for him this book will have an authoritative source. May be should not bring the case to an absurdity? Kind Regard, Leningradartist (talk) 22:36, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Since this is an article about a Russian subject, the English WP should follow the lead of the Russian WP as to whehter this is OR or NN. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:38, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Television series episodes by season
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. (There was a suggestion that certain of these schemes should be upmerged due to a lack of contents. If desired, this can be pursued in a separate nomination and this close is without prejudice to future considerations of upmerging any of these categories. In other words, this discussion has merely decided that the proposed names are preferable; it hasn't made a decision as to the appropriateness of the existence of the categories as such.)Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:48, 16 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you...can you provide some of the categories with the "standard way" of wording them? I've looked up random ones that pop into my head, House, CSI Miami, Glee, Law and Order, and The Office, and none have categories linked to a specific season on individual episode pages CTJF83chat 18:34, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that there are any categories for individual seasons (e.g., Category:The Simpsons (season 1)), and all categories for episodes by season (at least those which I could find) are included in this nomination. However, there is Category:Television seasons, which contains a few hundred articles that follow the "Television series (season #)" format. -- Black Falcon(talk) 20:14, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is "episodes" even necessary? We could just stick with Category:The Simpsons (season 21) CTJF83chat 21:32, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support all except for the Homicide: Life on the Street by season categories. As there are so few individual episode articles overall, these should all be upmerged to Category:Homicide: Life on the Street episodes. --Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars (talk) 21:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the proposed naming scheme is better than the current system. Another option I'll throw out there is renaming the scheme to Category:South Park episodes (season 1), but either way is fine. VegaDark (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not so sure -- comment do we really consider that our readers cant recognise that a category:foo (season 3) includes episodes from season 3, by the same extraction South Park (season 3) is about the season as a whole and is not an episode of the season, the same applies to The Simpsons (season 2) is a WP:FL about the season not an episode of the season. While I'm not go to trawl through every article about these series to find further examples both have events/controversies during a season that arent an episode of the season, will this only cause the need to create a new version of the season categories, with subcat of the episodes or will we be here with suggested upmerges. Gnangarra 14:23, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since these categories are currently defined as set categories, the seasons articles technically should be removed from them and placed in categories for seasons (e.g., Category:The Simpsons seasons, which is also a set category) or in a main category for a TV series (a topic category). It is definitely possible to convert all of these categories to topic categories for individual seasons, but it would require removing all of these categories from the Television episodes by series category tree (and, indeed, the Television episodes tree as a whole). -- Black Falcon(talk) 19:18, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who use XChat
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:Upmerge into Category:Wikipedians who use IRC. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 05:16, 15 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Merge to Category:Wikipedians who use IRC - We've previously upmerged "wikipedians by IRC client" categories to the main IRC category (see here), and the rationale to merge this category should be no different. It doesn't help wikipedia to group users into different categories based on which IRC client they use. Knowing who uses a particular IRC client vs. another IRC client has no added benefit to Wikipedia than knowing who uses IRC in general. Do different IRC clients have different features? Absolutely, but that fact does not help the argument for keeping this type of category. The only argument that can be made from pointing out this observation is that users can contact eachother through this category if they need help with a particular IRC client. However, Wikipedia categories should not be used for tech support purposes for software unrelated to the project. Allowing categories for this purpose sets a dangerous precedent I wouldn't want to see, as we could have hundreds of categories pop up for every piece of random software out there with users looking through the categories for tech support help. This isn't a good use of a user category, which are supposed to be used for Wikipedia collaboration, not for outside tech support. Do we currently have other "Wikipedians who use..." categories? Yes, but the logic behind keeping these is different. They are not kept for tech support related purposes, but for other various Wikipedia-related purposes. For instance, there are several subcategories of Category:Wikipedians by graphics editor. The logic of keeping these is to seek out users with a particular program in the hopes that they could create an image or a graphic for a Wikipedia page- a legitimate use for a user category. No such Wikipedia-helping rationale can be concocted in reference to IRC client categories without severe attenuation. In sum, keeping this category would establish a double standard, would open the door for creating/keeping other tech support categories, and would go against the user category goals of maintaining such categories for Wikipedia collaboration. VegaDark (talk) 00:06, 8 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Wikipedians who use IRC per nominator. Wikipedian categories are permitted only insofar as they assist collaboration, and this one doesn't do that. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 10:29, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.