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:IMPROPER LISTING. No CFD notice posted on category, no rationale given, no response to request for explanation. Postdlf (talk) 03:22, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Inappropriate use of categories.Cosprings (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please explain in more detail what you mean by this? Otto4711 (talk) 23:00, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:RELISTED on June 24 2009 because of failure to post CFD notice on category. Postdlf (talk) 03:11, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Rappers convicted of crimes Since incarceration is temporary, this is not an appropriate category, as it needs to be updated when they are released?Cosprings (talk) 16:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator but from another angle. We have "convicted" categories. That should be enough. Debresser (talk) 20:56, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Rename to Category:Rappers convicted of crimes to correspond to the recently discussed Category:Politicians convicted of crimes. The "convicted of crimes" categories should also have a parent on the lines of Category:People convicted of crimes by profession. Rappers and brushes with the law are frequent fodder in the media, and there is a strong notion that a rapper who has been shot or in prison has earned street cred that would only add to their popularity, as in this article where an "Aspiring rapper robs Fla. store for 'street credibility,' police say", one of many that describe the connection. As "incarcerated" means put into prison or jail, regardless of a conviction, we should use the word "convicted" and follow the agreed-upon standard used elsewhere. While it's hard to tell which career track has a greater connection to crime, politics or rap, the reliable and verifiable sources support the claim that this intersection is a defining characteristic, fo shizzle. Alansohn (talk) 14:13, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I have grave doubts that there is a general encyclopedic relationship between "profession" and "convicted of crime (that may or may not be related to the profession)". A rapper convicted of littering is a "rapper convicted of crimes" (technically, s/he's a rapper convicted of a crime) but I find it hard to believe that a rapping litterbug would gain any significant street cred for dumping his Happy Meal trash out the window of his limo. Otto4711 (talk) 23:04, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Photographic evidence of Barack Obama playing basketballThere is a connection, cited widely in the media, that believes that this is a defining intersection. I agree that the name is not perfect, but the approach of trying to undermine the category by citing one relatively minor crime speaks nothing about the validity of the category as a whole. What about jaywalking or ripping the tag off of a mattress? For example, we have a rather well-defined structure for Category:American basketball players, despite the fact that there are people who play (or have played) basketball who are not included in this structure, such as Barack Obama, who played as a member of his high school's varsity team and seems to try to get in a game wherever he travels around the world. Obama is not included in any basketball-related category because it is not a defining characteristic for him, even if it is for many other people. We keep the basketball categories because there are people for whom their participation in the sport is defining, just as there are rappers whose criminal convictions are a defining characteristic, backed by reliable and verifiable sources. The most productive way to deal with the issue here is to propose a rename or the wording for the addition of a simple explanation to the category's description, rather than to toss a clearly defining category into the garbage because of a trivial issue with including only those entries with a defining connection between their career and their crime. We have enough collected common sense among the hundreds of thousands of editors to avoid including in this category those rappers whose only criminal conviction listed in their article or in reliable sources is as a litterbug, jaywalker or mattress-tag ripper. If you're angling for deletion, a more viable approach might be to argue that almost all rappers have been convicted of a crime so that the two overlap almost completely or that we should only have an opposite category of those never convicted of a crime. Alansohn (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:DELETE. Postdlf (talk) 03:02, 24 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Categorizing NBA Championships by one player on the winning team is overcategorization. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sets a terrible precedent. How many people are on each championship team? We don't want dozens of such categories on every championship article. Otto4711 (talk) 23:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as inaccurate - these are Lakers championships, not Kobe Bryant championships. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 00:00, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While there are two "i"'s in championship, there's no "i" in team (that is how the saying goes, right?). We would need to include every player and coach on the team in this category which would make this a poor tool for navigation purposes. Alansohn (talk) 14:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Imagine doing the same for Phil Jackson - the man would have 500 categories for each player in a championship he was involved in. And, as koavf said, Kobe didn't win, the Lakers did; he just helped. Excessive overcategorization. ~ Amory (user • talk • contribs) 03:59, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. As well as the subcategories Category:Double albums and Category:Triple albums. This is not a defining characteristic of an album. What is this category even supposed to be? It only represents an accident of music technology and market preferences. E.g. is How the West Was Won was released on three Compact Discs and two DVD-Audios. Is it a double album? Triple album? Both? If I buy it from the iTunes Store, it's just a set of files, so is it now a "single album?" If it's pressed to vinyl, it would probably be a quadruple album (no such category, yet.) Take Magical Mystery Tour; it was a double EP (is this a double album?) and then pressed as a single vinyl album and a single CD. Or Dunedin Double EP - it was pressed as two vinyl EPs, but could have been a single LP. R.E.M.'s next album will probably be long enough to constitute two tapes, but it likely won't be sold in that format. Conversely, their 2004 album Around the Sun was sold as a two-tape set, but only in Malaysia - is it a double album? If I buy it from the iTunes Store and burn it to a disc Accelerate could take up two CDs; is this a double album? I didn't included the other subcategory Category:Box set albums, as they are often deliberately arranged as box sets, often including several individual releases together (but not always; is the three-vinyl version of R.E.M. Live a box set? Or a triple album? Is the two-CD/one-DVD combo a box set, triple album, or double album? The second CD contains less than 20 minutes of music, so is it a Compact Disc/DVD LP/EP double/triple-disc box set album?) Ugh. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 22:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's a well-thought out argument, for sure. I note that the double and triple album cats have been around since 2004 & 2005, respectively. At one time, obviously, in the age of vinyl (which I remember, at any rate) being a double or triple album was a Big Deal. My instinct is to retain the category for vinyl records only. I don't think it should apply to compact discs, dvds and certainly not to discs we've burned ourselves. As for the double EP question, I suppose we could specify that this is a category for double LPs only. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:41, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I just realized that what I've stated above is an argument for renaming, rather than retaining, since the main article Album is expressly about all formats, analog and digital, as opposed to the more specific LP album. Which makes me wonder if retained categories shouldn't be renamed Category:Double LP albums and Category:Triple LP albums...? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 00:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the double albums I think double albums are defining in both the vinyl and CD age. The Wall is often mentioned as one of the biggest selling double-albums of all time. The Fragile had a lot of press, not just because it was the new NIN album (at the time), but the fact it was a double album. Swans bowed out with their swansong (hehe) via Soundtracks for the Blind. Lugnuts (talk) 07:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Double vinyl albums have been released on single CDs, I think. I have a CD of Tommy on a single disc. I saw that as potentially confusing: perhaps not.... Shawn in Montreal (talk) 16:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
UpmergeCategory:Albums by length to Category:Albums. As to the sub categories, I'm not convinced at this point about the need to delete these. While to some extent boxed sets are a collection, they also are a special type of release that compiles the entire history of some groups. They also include the guides (The Parrot Head Handbook) that are more then a song list. As to a double album or a CD? Well it was a double album since that is how it was first released. Later releases don't change history. Vegaswikian (talk) 17:51, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Upmerge per Vegaswikian; the category did give me a laugh when I first saw it. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:35, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename to Category:Canterbury scene. Grutness's examples are persuasive here. If we want to disambiguate all of these "musical style" categories, then let's have someone propose that, but no need to single this one out for special treatment.Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:31, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category names sometimes have to be clearer than article titles. "Sound" does at least suggest music, rather than leather bars. Johnbod (talk) 00:58, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Johnbod, the musical style is primarily known as the "Canterbury scene" - as such the rename is appropriate. (See, for instance, here, here, here, and here. Grutness...wha? 02:26, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest "Canterbury music scene" as a less ambiguous term. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Rename. To match parent article. — Σxplicit 23:16, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:DELETE. Postdlf (talk) 03:04, 24 June 2009 (UTC) (note: already speedy deleted because empty prior to close)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Arbitrary, no content, not added to any pages. SpikeJones (talk) 16:59, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If it has been empty for 4 days, it may be speedily deleted. Debresser (talk) 19:05, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This category was created only 5 days ago by an editor who did not know how to add categories to articles. He did leave two names on the category pages in the form of text.
Comment Should be "Museum movies" without the capital in any case. Debresser (talk) 19:07, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence that this is a defining characteristic or that films are categorized in this manner outside of Wikipedia. Alansohn (talk) 05:54, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Listify. On one hand there is a case made that the intersection of Jewish and inventor is not notable. On the other a case is made that ethnicity can be notable. The problem here is what it has been in many of the previous discussions. That being that no case is made that this is a defining characteristic and not merely a dumping place for people who have this intersection. Debresser's point about keeping only to hear the case again, while an interesting offer did not have support and I'm not sure that this addresses the problem. The bigger problem is that some groupings are not a good category and really need a list. However in the case here, the list was deleted and we keep trying to establish a category. I don't know what to make of the censorship charge. By removing the category, we are not removing any data or facts from articles. When I started to close this I was clear that this would be a delete. However after rereading this several times I think that the consensus really is to remove the category but keep the information so a listify of this with proper references so that it is clear that the intersection is in fact notable for each individual. It is not acceptable to bounce between CfD and Afd so this discussion and close should be referenced in the creation of the list. I also think that if anyone wants to nominate the list for deletion, the discussion really needs to be here to end the ping pong decisions which only hurts the encyclopedia. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The subject publicly self-identifies with the belief or orientation in question;
The subject's beliefs or sexual orientation are relevant to the subject's notable activities or public life, according to reliable published sources.
There is no valid connection between being Jewish and inventing something, just as there is not being Christian, red-haired, left-handed, or aborigine and inventing something. It should also be noted that the majority of entries in this category are not inventors by definition, but rather scientists, discoverers, or businesspeople. It should also be mentioned that this category has been long maintained by POV-minded individuals, one of whom has been banned as disruptive and seems to have instigated the category's rebirth via email contacts. [1]Bulldog123 04:56, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the previous keep helpfully linked within the nom. And could we have an embargo for a few weeks on Jewish cfds? There may be no conspiracy but we have had a new one every day for some time (just as if there were a conspiracy). Occuli (talk) 12:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
While an informal and voluntary cessation of Judaism-related CFDs might be a good idea, I oppose any suggestion that such a moratorium be imposed through sanction. Otto4711 (talk) 22:58, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your previous CfD only said ""If in doubt, don't delete" sounds OK to me." Where is your policy/guideline reasoning for keeping this category? Furthermore, blame the people who created endless Jewish categories if you're concerned with how many CfDs have come up recently. If they didn't exist, as their counterparts don't, they wouldn't be nominated. If there were Category:Caucasian inventors, or Category:Christian inventors, or Category:Aboriginal inventors - those would all be nominated too. Bulldog123 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
English, Scottish, Welsh, and Irish are all nationalities and have been designated as nationalities, were historically once nationalities, and continue to be sub-nationalities. In fact, Welsh people states explicitly....
The Welsh (Welsh: Cymry) are an ethnic group and nation
Your examples are further flawed because a half-Scottish American doesn't get categorized into Category:Scottish inventors but a half-Jewish American can easily be (and is) categorized into Category:Jewish inventors. Furthermore, there is no "Scottish religion" and people who may not be of Jewish ethnicity but are religiously Jewish also get categorized into Category:Jewish inventors. Triple standards for one category. Sorry, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Either make the category distinctly specific to the ethnicity, religion, or nation (Israel) or don't have it at all. But you can't have a three-way inclusion. Also, this sort of comment is completely true and has nothing offensive or derogatory in it. It is a simple fact that there have been dozens of users whose sole purpose on wikipedia is to promote their identity. Have you ever been to Scientology? In fact, the now-banned user who maintained this category is one perfect example. And I did not say that African-American astronauts is not a valid category, I said that it is not one so inclusive as Jewish astronauts. I'll gladly repost the comment here if you wish. I am also starting to suspect that since you do not have a policy-related excuse for keeping the category, you make up for it by pretending to find "offense" in the nomination. Just because its a touchy issue, doesn't mean it shouldn't be addressed. Bulldog123 21:37, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I do not see any inherent notability between ethnicity (or religion) and occupation (i.e.: inventor). Trivial intersection. Resolute 17:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure First of all, I agree that there is reason to suspect pointy behavior behind these nominations. On the other hand, the argument does make the impression of being logical (if we strip it from irrelevant comments). As a compromise I'd say keep for now, and if it needs to be tagged, somebody else will surely do so in the future. Debresser (talk) 19:04, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
So what is your reason for "keep"? Policy deems this category non-notable. What is your reasoning? "Keep because it seems WP:POINTy?" Bulldog123 20:00, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- religion not essential to the occupation.
If these are claimed to be "Jewish ethnicity", then the form would replace the nationality; for example, Category:Jewish-American inventors. But it's not ethnicity form, so that argument is moot.
Looking at the 4 I've met personally (2 living in Israel, so their heritage isn't a surprise to anybody), and 1 that was a old friend of my grandfather (I'm not sure I actually remember him, other than occasional mentions at family gatherings as I grew up), none of them (not even the Israelis) have a reference citing them as Jewish! Certainly the others never mentioned they are Jewish in my memory, and AFAICT didn't marry Jewish women. Therefore, many of these should be deleted for failing to meet the self-identification requirement.
Looks to me like many are in this category because of possibly Jewish surnames. --William Allen Simpson (talk) 14:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
You always want ethnic and national categories deleted. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't recognize the policy requirements needed in keeping them. Bulldog123 05:13, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Jewish is ultimately an ethnicity, though intermarriage with other communities has tended to blur this. It is necessary that those categorised should self-identify as being Jewish or be known to be practising the religion. Peterkingiron (talk) 22:09, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
1. Nationality. The Jews are a nation, not just a religion. Just as there doesn't have to be a "French" way to do anything, there need not be a "Jewish" way to do anything for there to be a category. The Wikipedia entry for "Jew" indicates, inter alia, that Jews are "members of the Jewish people (also known as the Jewish nation ...)." The Wiki definition of "nationality" states, inter alia: "Generally, nationality is established at birth by a child's place of birth (jus soli) and/or bloodline (jus sanguinis)." In the (abnormal) case of Jews, who consist of a nation that has largely been dispersed from its homeland, it would not be appropriate to delete.
Other religions are in the "normal case" distinct from the nation. In other words, there was not a Protestant, or Buddhist, or Christian, or Hindu, or Aethiest nation per se. They are not a "people." They are not a "nation." Jews, peculiarly, are not just a religion. They are also a nation. Dispersed (largely) for a couple of thousand years.
2. Heritage. See also Wiki Naming Convention Policy 3.3, which demonstrates that something such as "Jewish Inventors" is clearly contemplated, saying ...
Heritage People are sometimes categorized by notable ancestry, culture, or ethnicity, depending upon the common conventions of speech for each nationality. A hyphen is used to distinguish the word order: ....The heritage should be combined with the occupation, replacing the nationality alone (for example, Category:African-American actors).
Concurrent citizenship may be reflected by duplicating the occupation (for example, Category:Jewish American actors and Category:Israeli actors)."
Subcategories by country are permitted, although terminology must be appropriate to the person's cultural context....
Inclusion must be justifiable by external references. (For example: regardless of whether you have personal knowledge of a notable individual's sexual orientation, they should only be filed in a LGBT-related category after verifiable, reliable sources have been provided in the article that support the assertion.) People who occupy the grey areas are not a valid argument against the existence of the category at all; if they don't fit, they just shouldn't be added to it.
3. Notability. Wiki policy calls for a sensitivity towards "notability." To determine what notability means here, one must go to Wikipedia:Notability (people), the notability criteria guideline for Wikipedia. That guideline states, inter alia, that "Notability on Wikipedia for people is based on the following criterion: The person has been a primary subject of multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person. This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, scholarly papers, and television documentaries ...."
Thus, where one is noted as being a Jew in multiple non-trivial published works whose source is independent of the person, such as newspaper articles, magazine articles, books, and the like, they meet the notability requirement. And thus it would be appropriate to have a distinct category. These already exist for various types of Jewish athletes. And, importantly, there are a number of Halls of Fame and lists and articles relating to Jews.
Clearly, this category is just the sort contemplated by Wikipedia guidelines.--Epeefleche (talk) 05:39, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - there does not appear to be an encyclopedic relationship between "Jewish" and "inventor". Being an inventor is not limited to any particular race, religion, nationality or ethnicity. Otto4711 (talk) 22:56, 20 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - censorship of valid/factual data and rabid deletionism must be stringently opposed on Wikipedia, especially in relation to all of these Jewish categories which are currently under censorious assault. This is also a well-populated category...to delete it would mean to pointlessly negate years worth of data gathering and leave a gaping hole in the categorical backbone of this encyclopedia which purports to be a gathering place for all human knowledge. I also continue to wonder why so many Jewish related categories continue to be singled out from among the many other identical categories for deletion/censorship? --Wassermann (talk) 11:08, 22 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename per revised nomination. (Perhaps Ryanbstevens could wait until discussions are closed before going ahead with renaming?)Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:35, 25 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This category has one subcategory, Category:Country singles with RIAA gold certification. Parent and subcat should match in naming scheme and I prefer "with RIAA gold ceritification". Either way, one of the two should be renamed so that they match. and should have RIAA spelled out fully. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:25, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I agree with that. Not a bad idea. Ryanbstevens (talk) 04:49, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of that. Actually, "…certified gold by the Recording Industry Association of America" would be more sensible than either. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 20:48, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename as modified. It is a tad long, but it exlpains what it does clearly. Alansohn (talk) 05:55, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: I created this category (on little sleep) before realizing there was a perfectly good template. Delete? Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:23, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems fine to me, template and category can overlap. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:26, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Okay. I think I misunderstood the gist of our discussions on the Johnny Bravo/Murder she wrote template/category issue. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 04:29, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Films by director has plenty of "Films directed by foo" subcategories, so this is an acceptable part of a wider "works by artist" scheme. Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 04:32, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know, thanks. I was frankly surprised that a major documentarian like Morris did not yet have a category. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 23:19, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The templates and categories for directors go hand-in-hand. There are dozens of directors who have a template, and have their full filmography on WP (Lynch, Kubrick, Bergman are three names that spring to mind). Lugnuts (talk) 07:12, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:CLN, templates / navboxes do not compete with categories, even when the template is perfectly good. Alansohn (talk) 03:40, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Tentative oppose, because "dEUS" is how the band writes its name. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 05:38, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
KeepRename. The blurb at the beginning of the category is clear enough - the band is called dEUS. Twiceuponatime (talk) 13:06, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comments - the category name does show (under some circumstances) as Category:dEUS albums. The article however is at Deus (band). Occuli (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. The parent article, as Occuli pointed out above, is capitalized to comply with WP:CAPS. The category should follow this format. — Σxplicit 23:21, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per WP:TRADEMARK which (although I disagree with it in a number of instances) indicates that normal rules of capitalization should apply. Otto4711 (talk) 23:33, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my fault, I did not follow through to the article. Changing Keep to Rename. Twiceuponatime (talk) 08:24, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Politicians with criminal convictions[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:Merge. I can't see the difference between what these two categories cover, so I figure they should be merged. Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 03:31, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, merge. I don't think you need to bring this one to CfD. Bulldog123 05:01, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Occuli (talk) 13:10, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nominator. But I do think this has to be brought to Cfd. Debresser (talk) 18:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Yep, per nom.--Blargh29 (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
