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 per no objections and I believe there are several precedents of similar treatment. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:59, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. There is no article for Don-K to support this category. Richhoncho (talk) 23:26, 26 November 2011 (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The result of the discussion was:Withdrawn by nominator. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:07, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. This category is non-defining, because the only entry is also the sole entry in Category:GoonRock songs and therefore a duplication of another category. I would also draw you attention to the closing of the CfD Songs written by The Clash where the closing admin commented "I'm going to suggest a precedent here: that if a song is credited as written by a band, and is already in a category of the style "(band) songs", it does not need a category for songwriting." For these purposes the difference between songwriting and production can be ignored. Richhoncho (talk) 19:33, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose: GoonRock is not a band, but a producer. So the condition of your precedent 'if a song is credited as written by a band' doesn't apply here. If either category should be removed, it's "Songs by GoonRock" as his primary role is as producer. However, I don't agree with this precedent as the tasks of composition and production are different. This is most notable with a 'cover' song where the composition will be credited to the original songwriters but production to the cover artist. Although the current entries are both co-written and produced by him, this may not always be true. Perhaps 'Songs by GoonRock' should instead be 'Songs by David Listenbee' (his real name). As to how many entries there are, this will obviously vary over time and depends how many tracks have Wikipedia pages with this category added to them. I've just added two more that were missing (I don't think they had Wikipedia pages when I created this). Gnu andrew (talk) 02:30, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw Nomination With additional members added to the category, it is clear that Goonrock has produced songs on which he doesn't perform, therefore the nomination fails. Thanks for the information. --Richhoncho (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2011 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:08, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Unnecessary category. We don't have "Category:New Zealand cricketers in the County Championship", or for any other domestic league for that matter. AssociateAffiliate (talk) 17:15, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Overcategorisation. Jenks24 (talk) 23:52, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary. Harriastalk 19:29, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- IPL cricketers are split by team, not nationality. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:12, 30 November 2011 (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:Wikipedia good articles on historical figures[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Everybody's a historical figure. Let's say what these articles are about.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:38, 26 November 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale: I'm suggesting conforming this to the general pattern of Category:Mobsters by nationality, despite the close of this discussion. The tree is for mobsters, which m-w.com defines neutrally as "a member of a criminal gang." There could be a discussion about renaming the whole tree, but while the tree is named this way, this category should conform to it.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:36, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose.Mobster is a redirect to Gangster, which is presently under AfD. This suggests that "Organised crime" is preferable. I would also agree with Northernhenge, Mobster/Gangster is emotive. --Richhoncho (talk) 23:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I have never heard the term "mobster" used in reference to an Australian crime figure. This proposal promotes conformation over convention. A "mob" in Australia is more likely to refer to a family, an Aboriginal clan or a herd of sheep rather than a criminal gang. WWGB (talk) 01:13, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. "mobster" is not used in this context in Australia. --Bduke(Discussion) 01:27, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per WP:ENGVAR. Australia does not have "mobsters". Jenks24 (talk) 01:41, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I find the term "mobster" confusing. I always thought that a mobster was a member of "the mob", but the dictionary says it's just a "a member of a criminalgang". (Maybe it was defined by the same American who decided that a white person from Africa who becomes an American can't be "African-American" while a black person who has never been outside the U.S. can.) In Australia gangs include groups of youths who wander around at night looking to do something wrong, such as spreading graffiti, committing other forms of vandalism, smashing shop windows or indeed, any other criminal act. These is hardly "organised crime", something that has apparently been acknowledged by those who have created the Category:Mobsters tree, since they've found it necessary to include the disclaimer "This category includes articles on members of organized crime groups, not of criminal gangs" in each category becauise the term is so ambiguous. It would seem far more logical to rename the tree to reflect this rather than add one more ambiguously named category, along with the necessary disclaimer (Category:Australian organised crime figures doesn't currently need a disclaimer) to the tree. That said, I'm happy enough just to retain this category in its current form, as WP:ENGVAR definitely applies, as does plain common sense. --AussieLegend (talk) 12:26, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I think, regardless of the dictionary, that "mobster" as a synonym for somebody who would hate to see your nice shop messed up is WP:COMMONNAME, but if the term isn't used in Australia, it shoudn't be used in the Australian cat. :) - The BushrangerOne ping only 20:09, 27 November 2011 (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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 09:12, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Or delete, maybe. I don't think we categorize people by political leanings. I'm mostly interested in getting "figures" out of there, but this may not be a saveable category.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:27, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "far-right" is too vague a notion. Note that the de facto categorization scheme for these is to put everyone under the umbrella term of "fascism". That's not a perfect solution obviously but it's the one used throughout the project and consistency is important. Pichpich (talk) 23:11, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the category is vague and subjective. Checking a few of them appears to show that the term "far-right" is being applied to white supremacists and others of that ilk, whereas I would have thought "far-right" would be applied more to politicians who might be deemed ultra-conservative. As I said - vague, subjective = delete. PKT(alk) 17:07, 29 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- To subjective. Almost an attack category. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:13, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete subjective and BLP for anyone alive that may get categorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:12, 2 December 2011 (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. One issue here was the current name and the second was the need for the category. Consensus was to rename, but the points to merge may be worth discussing as a new nomination without the rename question. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:11, 21 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: "Figures" seems like a bad word to use in relation to art, where it has many related definitions.-- Mike Selinker (talk) 15:23, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. It's a bit wordy, but I can't think of any better way of phrasing it. Robofish (talk) 00:44, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge elsewhere as needed. This is a one-of-a-kind category and does not seem like a very useful one; there is no Irish art world or Category:Irish art world, so it seems like this was only created because someone had trouble finding more specific categories for people they thought were related to Category:Irish art or art in Ireland. The included articles are already in (or can be added to) more precise categories, such as Category:Irish art critics or Category:Irish art collectors. Of the three included categories, two are kinds of artist and so are already in Category:Irish artists, and Category:Irish curators can either go directly in Category:Irish art...or not in that structure at all, as not all curators are curators of art. A further strike against the category is that the phrase "Irish art world" obviously implies a geographically-based network of cultural institutions and individuals (again, undefined by a parent article or category), while in reality the categories such as Category:Irish painters are purely concerned with the nationality of the subject and not with whether they participated in an "art world." postdlf (talk) 06:59, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I see now this was created way back in 2005 before more specific categories such as Category:Irish art critics existed; it has since failed to be expanded into a system of "art world figures by nationality" for hopefully obvious reasons. The better option is just to integrate its contents as I've suggested. postdlf (talk) 07:04, 5 December 2011 (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 per nom. "People involved in ... " seems to be unnecessary wordy. Ruslik_Zero 14:53, 19 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: There's something squirrelly about the use of "figures" here. For example, the Watergate babies were not part of the scandal itself, but they were definitely related to it. The neutral "people" seems a lot smarter to use. I took the format from Category:People of the Suez Crisis. I'm not 100% sure about the "the" in the Jack Abramoff one, as it is multiple scandals, but I wanted to see if people thought it should be standardized to this format.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:16, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support - while "figures" is used to refer to people, in a number of cases here, it's ambigiuous - for instance, when hearing "Lockheed bribery scandal figures", one is likely to think of the cash involved with "figures" being used in its "numbers" sense. "People of" is unambiguous and clear. - The BushrangerOne ping only 01:44, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support. I agree that this is better, though I see that the categories in general are often applied a bit loosely. I'm OK with "the Jack Abramoff scandals", but it could go either way, I think. Good Ol’factory(talk) 21:53, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Why is that necessary? Every "scandal" or "controversy" has "victims" and "perpetrators". I don't see why this one needs to be singled out for this treatment. Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:51, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Standardization makes sense. "People of" seems better than "Figures" but it does exclude organizations and companies, etc. I also like the neutral formulation (contra Peterkingiron's concern) that will not cause us to figure out whether a person is a victim or perp. I also disagree with Good Ol’factory's comment immediately above mine; some scandals have no victims - certain public figures caught in lies victimizes whom? - and the implication that those are the only two categories, when we have media people, judiciary sorts, witnesses, etc. who seem not to be either perps or victims. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 02:20, 2 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
"... certain public figures caught in lies victimizes whom?" The public trust, dammit. Good Ol’factory(talk) 03:40, 2 December 2011 (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.
Nominator's rationale: There's no real need to have the two seperate categories here, I believe - the games themselves can be placed in the main cat without any issues, confusion or otherwise. The BushrangerOne ping only 09:59, 26 November 2011 (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 now to Category:Wikipedia images using freedom of panorama. The revised proposal to delete didn't get any comments, so if the nominator would like to immediately nominate the re-named category for deletion, that would be OK.Good Ol’factory(talk) 00:50, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Simply, a change from an abbreviation whose meaning may not be immediately recognizable to the fairly well-established phrase that the abbreviation stands for. ¶ But there's probably more to discuss here. It starts: The main article for this category is Panoramafreiheit. Wrongo, it's Freedom of panorama. Well, this is easily fixed, and anyway the former redirects to the latter. But the text in the category page reads, mysteriously: These images are covered under the German Panoramafreiheit exemptions to copyright law, generically known as freedom of panorama. This is both obscure and (if I understand it correctly) surprising. I think what's meant is This category is used for images where freedom of panorama may not exist but where the photographer anyway claims it as a moral right. I may well have got that wrong; but if I am right, well, personally, I sympathize: The first effect on me of a prohibition of photography in a public or quasi-public place is a desire to take the prohibited photographs and disseminate them. However, my solidarity with WP's photographers is by the way. IANAL, or an American, let alone an American lawyer or a WP lawyer, but my guess is that en:WP has to satisfy US laws only, and that if somebody has illicitly photographed, say, "copyright" Italian buildings and has uploaded the results, then there's no objection that the Italian legal service can make and none that the US system would make. However (IFF I'm right so far) the claim that the photographs have been taken illicitly is an irrelevance in en:WP, and nothing is much helped by tweaking the nose of the copyright holder. ¶ But no, no, the first example I look at, Arby's-Midland-MI.jpg, is close to the reverse of my interpretation. The page for this image tells us: It is believed that the publishing of this derivative work of this building or artwork is allowed under the copyright laws of the country this photograph was taken, possibly with some restrictions, because it is permanently located in a public space, under an exemption generically referred to as freedom of panorama. (Why an exemption? Exemption from what?) Let's assume that the photographer was indeed standing on the road or anyway not on Arby's land, and that the claim is correct. Well, so what? It's a claim that could be made about a vast number of images in en:WP, so why make it? ¶ Other stuff on the file's page suggests the worry that conspicuous inclusion in the photograph of design elements for which there could be IP rights, and therefore a motive of dissuading such criticism by bold assertion of FOP. But surely such motivation could apply to many images, and the category FOP (or its renamed successor) would be overworked. ¶ "Yes, yes, yes, so what's Hoary suggesting?" you may be impatiently wondering. I'm not. I'm asking. This is very much a category for discussion, I think. More lawyerly minds than mine may have good suggestions. -- Hoary (talk) 08:32, 26 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this category is not about "Freedom of panorama" it is about images using "freedom of panorama", so the current and proposed names are bad. Category:Wikipedia Images using freedom of panorama would be better, since this is an image/file category. (This also prevents confusion with articles that cover famous pictures that use freedom of panorama) 70.24.248.23 (talk) 11:01, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this makes sense, as far as it goes. But shouldn't such a category contain a huge number of the photographs that are already at WP? -- Hoary (talk) 12:05, 27 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Support whatever appropriate change that may be proposed, as long as "FOP" as a category name is changed. PKT(alk) 23:39, 30 November 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per the IP above. I'm not sure whether or not such a category is legally necessary, but if kept it should be renamed. Robofish (talk) 00:41, 3 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Revised proposal:delete. Yes, if a category for Wikipedia images using freedom of panorama were needed, then [[Category:Wikipedia images using freedom of panorama]] would be a good name for it. But I see no reason for such a category, nobody else has above given any reason for it, and I see negatives for it, viz: (i) It could be applied to many images: any photograph that was taken in a place where there is FoP and where there is some putatively copyright or copyrightable element to which FoP applies; (ii) it would be easy to misapply both (a) by people who don't know what they're doing perhaps because they don't or can't read whatever legalistic text should appear within the copyright page and (b) by people who assert that their own inherent (?) FoP (as a "human right" or whatever) trumps copyright law in the particular jurisdiction, and unlike most categories its misapplication would have legal implications. ¶ FoP-related confusions seem to abound in en:WP. Consider again the example of Arby's-Midland-MI.jpg. Again, the FoP-relevant template tells us: It is believed that the publishing of this derivative work of this building or artwork is allowed under the copyright laws of the country this photograph was taken, possibly with some restrictions, because it is permanently located in a public space, under an exemption generically referred to as freedom of panorama (my emphasis). Really? No. The template also points us to this at Commons about FoP in the US, which tells us that, most crucially, Anyone may take photographs of buildings [completed after December 1, 1990] from public places (my emphasis). (As for buildings completed before that date, there are no copyright restrictions.) A branch of Arby's is presumably located on land that's privately owned; as for the area around it (the area it's in), this is not an issue, as long as the spot on which the photographer stands or sits or holds their camera (or whatever, IANAL) is public. -- Hoary (talk) 08:15, 3 December 2011 (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:Japanese private colleges and Category:Private universities in Japan[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: These two categories are basically the same and some institutions are listed in both. GaiJin (talk) 07:51, 26 November 2011 (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:Sport at universities and colleges in Japan[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The 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.
