The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:delete all. — ξxplicit 08:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: 1. This structure of ambox templates is non-developed, with only 3 tempates in 4 categories, of which 2 templates in 1 category have been nominated here where it seems consensus is to delete (in other words, 2 of these categories are empty already). 2. There is no point in separating templates by their technical components as that is non-essential and prone to change (especially now that we have {{Mbox}}). 3. The few members of these categories are all already categorised perfectly well in the parent categories without the word "ambox". Debresser (talk) 21:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete following nom. It is an under-used (and poorly used) corner with empty or nearly empty categories (3 articles within 4 sub-categories!!) and it looks like it can all be better categorised elsewhere. The comics ones can be re-categorised and it is worth checking the radio one (the only other category to have anything in it) to make sure it can be properly and consistently recategorised (or at least not lost if anyone were looking for it). (Emperor (talk) 02:33, 18 December 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. While I am proposing deletion for these categories, I'm more interested in putting it out there for discussion to see if there is a better way to organize these by time frame, if at all. For the most part, every artist's discography page is categorized under every decade from the artist's first release. For example, Frank Sinatra discography is categorized under Category:1940s discographies and Category:2000s discographies and each decade in between. That practice would put nearly every artist with a discography page into the 2000s discography category (an exaggeration but it is the general trend of this method of "by decade" categorization). I'm just not sure how that is particularly useful, but I'd like to hear what others think. Thanks. --Wolfer68 (talk) 20:04, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Undecided. Like the nominator, I'm not sure that this the best way of organising discographies, because in theory it seemed likely to generate category clutter. However, I looked at Johnny Cash discography, Cliff Richard discography, as well as Frank Sinatra discography, and the result does not seem to be a lot of clutter — it's actually quite manageable. A this point, I was leaning towards a keep. However, Bing Crosby discography reveals a serious problem in how the categories are being used, which I think is the nominator's concerns. In the case of Bing, he died in the 1970s, but is in the categories for the 1980s, 1990s, and 2000s. The same applies to Jim Reeves discography (although he died in 1964), and the endless cycle of re-mastering and releases of yet-another-alltime-absolutely-the-very-greatest-ever-super-hits-compilation means that like Sinatra and Crosby and Cash he will also end up in a by-decade category from now until the end of time ... and that makes the recent categories utterly useless, because they each become an accumulative category of "this decade plus everything before". So at this point I'm leaning towards "delete", unless someone can persuade me that it would be workable to restrict these categories to decades in which the artist actually released new material. There are two problems with this: a) how easy would it be to persuade editors to accept this approach? and b) where does it leave a group like ABBA, whose ABBA Gold was released a decade after they broke up, and has way outsold anything released while they were still together. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 21:26, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
In general, I dislike these per decade and per century categories, because most artists aren't productive within the strict boundaries of a decade, and most people don't live within the strict boundaries of a century. I suppose that amounts to 'delete, but I'd be happy if other categories like it were also to be deleted. Debresser (talk) 21:02, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems a bad way to categorize, as musicians' careers simply do not pigeon hole into arbitrary time divisions. I'd say categorizing by musical style would be preferable. Resolute 23:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – looking at say Category:2000s discographies, this is just a cumbersome way of saying 'X released material in the 2000s'; as BHG observes, all the major artists will have 'new' material released every decade in perpetuity. (Category:Discographies is already arranged by genre, country etc as well as by decade.) Occuli (talk) 01:19, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (obviously) I created this modeled after categories such as Category:Albums by decade. Obviously, the "problem" here is that an album has only one release 99% of the time, so it is easier to define what constitutes an album's release date. If you wanted to refine the inclusion criteria, that would be appropriate, but I have to admit that I'm at a bit of a loss as to the exact right formula: only the decades in which the band/artist was active? When new material was released? You are correct that this leaves a problem of newer decades being populated by re-releases, but that is also true of (e.g.) Category:2009 albums and consequently Category:2000s albums. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 03:07, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a perfectly logical and functional way to organize the subcategories. Sure, there will be some oddballs, but the structure works well as organized. Alansohn (talk) 03:10, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Reply. So far as I can see, the problem of discographies of long-dead artists ending up in Category:2000s discographies and (from next year) in Category:2010s discographies is not a matter of "some oddballs" (which makes it sound like a problem affecting a few rare exceptions), but of nearly every recording artist so long as they retain even the lingering popularity of having just one of their works re-released in any given decade, even by inclusion in one of those bargain-bin cheap compilations on sale in supermarkets. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 11:04, 18 December 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 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. — ξxplicit 08:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. 'Redirects' alone may confuse users into believing that this category is used to categorize redirects while it's for pages about redirects, see recent discussion on this. It's also standard to append 'Wikipedia' for internal categories like this (for example Category:Wikipedia templates). Cenarium (talk) 16:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree, but with the note that it is standard to prepend "Wikipedia" only where it is needed to avoid confusion, as specified in the guideline of naming conventions for categories. Debresser (talk) 20:58, 17 December 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:no consensus; essentially the same as the first discussion. Personally, I think those arguing for deletion have presented a stronger argument on the merits, but I can't really see a consensus that those views apply here. There is also no consensus that it's an appropriate category, so it remains only by default. Maybe if some of the neutrals consistently settle their minds one way or the other, we may be able to get some sort of consensus in a future discussion.Good Ol’factory(talk) 07:58, 31 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Delete This was part of the filmed death nominated, that resulted as a no concensus, I asked the closing admin about this decision, he suggest that I am free to nominate this again. I am nominating this as this part of the argument was ignored in the original nomination... that live deaths during a sporting event where lives at risk are high is as common. Also what is the difference between a death in a sporting event that was covered on TV or on the news and one that is not, nothing at all. Plus categories for deaths in sports already exists. Donnie Park (talk) 15:07, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
When making deletions nominations, please don't leave other editors to guess or search around for related material, particularly when it is referred to in the nomination: just provide the links, to allow a more informed discussion. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 17:57, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nominator's claim that "the central argument that was ignored" was that live deaths are common is demonstrably untrue. The basis of the previous nomination was the Donnie Park's assertion that "this category does nothing but to benefit the morbid", which was rejected because Wikipedia is not censored. It would also help if the nominator had made this try-again nomination in something resembling normal English grammar. As to the substance of this second-bite nomination, the nominator offers no evidence for the assertion that filmed deaths are common in sport. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 18:08, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well that first nomination was the past and I hope I don't have to bring this up again and I won't otherwise why am I nominating this again. Going back to your queston, why do people call sports where risks of injury is high such as motorsport and boxing dangerous, there is plenty of news sources for these fatal injuries, I'm sure I don't have to provide links for you. I am under this assumption that this person do not follow sports at all, also many of those who voted keep as well.
Also, what is the difference between a filmed deaths and a non-filmed deaths, chances of the former is that it is highly likely to be a high profile sporting event which is likely to attract TV audiences.
Before the advent of cable and satellite TV, TV coverages of sporting events wasn't as common as it is now, therefore filmed deaths in sporting events are now likely to happen. As for non-filmed deaths, it will likely to be a less than high-profile sporting event, which will be shown on TV as highlights, if somebody in there get killed, chances are that it will not be screened, hence my rationale that there are no difference between a filmed deaths and a non-filmed deaths, does that answer your question? Donnie Park (talk) 13:46, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Your argument about everything being filmed in the modern era is well-made, but please refrain from making unwarranted assumptions that only serve to challenge the source of the argument for keeping but not the argument itself. Thank you, –BLACK FALCON(TALK) 17:29, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per my arguments in the first CfD. The category is redundant, and there is no indication that dying on the television screen is any more notable than just dying. Resolute 18:15, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A strong defining characteristic that allows navigation across common articles. Alansohn (talk) 03:11, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nom claims that dying in sport is common, which is a false-hood. The category is a defining characteristic pertaining to that indivdual. Lugnuts (talk) 09:20, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Dying during a sporting event is notable, and there are categories pertaining to that. However, is dying on camera specially notable such that yet another category is warranted? Resolute 14:34, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- that fact that it happens in front of 1000s of TV viewers makes it all the more horrible. That is notable. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:40, 19 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Why would it be notable, what is the difference between one if some guy camcordered a footballer getting hit by a lightning and put in on Youtube and the same if it was live on TV. Just like what I stated, specialist TV channels make sports coverage more accessable than it was decades ago, plus dangerous sports is highly likely to multiply that probability, plus I think a category for deaths in each sport is enough. Donnie Park (talk) 20:40, 23 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - opens a huge can of "X deaths in Y" - "publicly witnessed deaths in politics", "unsolved deaths among actors", whatever. Run away, fast. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 07:49, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral (changing my !vote). I was a strong advocate for keeping this category, but I fear that SMcCandlish may be right that this could set a dangerous precedent for very specific death categories. Not quite sure now whether to recommend upmerger or what, hence neutrality. --BrownHairedGirl(talk) • (contribs) 15:22, 22 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a triple intersection and may in fact not be defining for the individuals. Quick, name someone who is notable for having been filmed while participating in sports? Some of the articles that are included don't even mention the fact so that would seem to support the position that this is not defining for the individuals. And as SMcCandlish argues, how far down the slop do we slide in adding these categories? Do we differentiate between film, video, cell phone footage, broadcast TV or other forms of recording? If someone is injured and transported to a hospital where they die, does the footage qualify for inclusion here? If you see a car crash that kills someone and the person is not visible during the footage does that qualify for an entry here? In the end, this becomes an ambiguous, subjective quagmire. Vegaswikian (talk) 04:00, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Whatif X, whatif Y? Your basis for not having a category is soley based on crystal ball gazing. If these categories pop-up in the future, they can be judged then. Lugnuts (talk) 09:39, 25 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral - as a cat tagger for the new death project - it is indeed an education to read the above comments - we have a number of category titles that might enthuse similar comment - that will need perusal in the future - the project is named 'Death' at the moment - if I had started the project it would have been called 'Death and Dying' - and indeed statistics and anomalies do bring out the best in some editors - specific death categories - and related and associated subjects - will be up for review over the next few months - I remain unconvinced of arguments of either for or against here SatuSuro 02:09, 28 December 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. Empty- created without any valid reason or prospect of populating Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:56, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not showing notability sources and now following the Wikipedia Guidelines for submitting an article. Daviderudit (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete – it has never had any content and is over 4 days old. Occuli (talk) 11:39, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - it appears to have been created in error, probably meant to be an article rather than a category. There is already Category:Luxembourgian composers. Cjc13 (talk) 15:11, 17 December 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. Empty -created without valid reason Crusoe8181 (talk) 05:53, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Content Empty. Should be removed ASAP. Daviderudit (talk) 08:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - another speedy. Occuli (talk) 11:40, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - it appears to have been created in error, probably meant to be an article rather than a category. There is already Category:Bulgarian composers. Cjc13 (talk) 15:13, 17 December 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. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 08:29, 24 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: Putting aside the vague nature of the name, as it does not make clear this refers to NHL prospects (or hell, even which code of hockey it refers to), this category has POV inclusion criteria, is temporal, and at its heart, unmaintainable. Currently included are players who are full-time NHLers now (Paciorety, Van Riemsdyk, Varlamov), Players who are full-time in top level European Leagues (Filatov, Froshaug), players who were never drafted and are in European Lower leagues (Forsberg), players who are not yet draft eligible (Hall), players who have made brief stints in the NHL and who's career is (arguably) failing (Pogge), and who knows how many players could be added but aren't, depending on your criteria. There are just too many angles, directions, considerations involved that make this an inherently biased category. Resolute 03:20, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A good faith attempt, but unsustainable for the same reason we deleted most categories for candidates for public office. Not to mention hockey itself is ambiguous, but membership criteria such as the POV "expected to become an impact player in the NHL" or the arbitrary "enters his third year of AHL hockey without making the NHL" coupled with temporality and a high maintenance requirement make it unsuitable.- choster 04:30, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just saw it on Michael Frolik, now in his second full season with the Panthers. Title sucks, and I agree with the rest. RandySavageFTW (talk) 11:14, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A valiant attempt, but like has already been said, it is far to arbitrary. Everyone has their own definition of a "hockey prospect" and this is just one persons views. Kaiser matias (talk) 04:54, 22 December 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.
