Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 5

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

October 5[edit]

Category:Millennial Wikipedians to Category:Generation Y Wikipedians[edit]


Continent-related lists[edit]

Category:Villages of the Czech Republic to Category:Villages in the Czech Republic[edit]

Category:UNV television network, Category:UNV network affiliates, and Category:UNV network shows to Category:Univisión television network Category:Univisión network affiliates, and Category:Univisión network shows[edit]

Category:Liberal related stubs to Category:Liberalism stubs[edit]

Category:3-letter acronym disambiguations to Category:Three-letter acronym disambiguations[edit]

Category:Japanese prefectures to Category:Prefectures of Japan[edit]

Category:Cities in Finland to Category:Cities and towns in Finland[edit]

Category:Millennial Wikipedians to Category:Generation Y Wikipedians (or vice-versa)[edit]

There's no need to have two such categories. Let's use only the one which is uncontroversial, there are no users who "do not accept to be described" as Generation Y AFAIK, and the title is also clearer. Army1987 14:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

  • Delete both Imprecise and slangy. This whole scheme is a bad idea imo. But if we must have it, the categories should be named by decade, ie. Wiikipedians born in the 1980s etc. CalJW 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • DELETE BOTH. Same old stuff - vanity pages for a clique within a clique. Juvenile, egotistical, unencyclopedic, worthless. Grow up, grow up grow up, or you will continue to be not taken seriously. 12.73.198.38 17:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
    • "Grow up, grow up, grow up.." Why 12.73.198.38, what maturity you show in arguement. -JCarriker 02:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Again Merge both categories into Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians These are user categories and both terms are controversial. Gen Y plays to the stereotype that this generation is nothing more than GenX II, and I find that offensive. Neither term is accepted and both are controversial. This has already been debated, and no concensus was reached. Frankly, I find the nomination of a user category for deletion needlessly confrontational. It also worth noting that there are more people in the millenial category than in Gen Y, in other words this merge proposal is backward in size and is mistaken in in the neutrality of the term Gen Y. -JCarriker 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
    • What a pile of pompous poop, Carriker [Note, altho JCarriker feels free to chide my comment, above, he is utterly censorious when it comes to my responding in kind. And he sic's someone named "France2000" on me with a threat of banishment if I don't quit twitting him for twitting me. All of which goes to prove my original comment - as 12.73.198.38 - is quite apt. Those who dish it out but cannot take it are full of it, and not to be taken seriously. As for a site that supports them... 12.73.194.10 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
      • Just for the record: no-one "sic"d me onto you, I noticed you editing other people's comments in this discussion and reverted what you did. I stand by the vandalism warning I gave you on your talk page, I notice you've now received another and I have no qualms about blocking you from editing this site if your behaviour deems it necessary. -- Francs2000 02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Then you will also have to banish Carriker, for vandalizing *my* post at the outset. Or are you too much of a Wikicliquer to dispense Wikijustice fairly? (PS - you can threaten banishment all you want; since I'm not registered, you have no way to find me; and, be careful, I might be Prince Charles in disguise). Charlie Flagpole 14:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
          • Can you point out the edit where JCarriker altered a comment to this discussion that you or anyone else had made? I have looked in the history and see no evidence of this. -- Francs2000 15:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • The reason why I prefer the term "Generation Y" is because it is clearer. If one reads "Millennial Wikipedian" without knowing what that means, they cannot understand the label until they read the description of the category. Instead someone reading "Generation Y Wikipedians" can immediately understand that it refers to the generation after Generation X, or at least that it refers to a generation. See also: [6]. In addition, it is consistent with cat. Generation X Wikipedians whose title is Generation X Wikipedians and not 13th Generation Wikipedians. However, if the name "Millennial Generation" is agreed to be more suitable that "Generation Y", the title "Millennial Generation Wikipedians" will more intuitive than just "Millennial Wikipedians". --Army1987 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I have no problem with changing the title to Millennial Generation Wikipedians if you insist on it. However that search provided is not particularly conclusive: Do a search for the proper plural nouns Gen Yers +generation[7] and Millennials +generation [8]. Then compare both searches to Baby Boomers +generation [9] and Gen Xers +generation [10]. Gen Yers does not stand up it alternative nor to the other generations. Millennial is not a perfect name, but it is given the fervor over the changing of the millennium that has and is still occurring during this generations birth and formative years its not a bad one. Gen Y is comparable to 13th gen in that it has been rejected by most of the generation it has been used to identified. Further more numbers aren’t everything there are reasons why Roma people does not appear at Gypsy. My generation has fought long and hard to distance itself from the negative stereotypes that were forced on Gen X. The term Gen Y is offensive, and while most wikipedians of this generation are not in love with the term Millennials they have chosen it over Gen Y. Is it really so much to ask that when we identify ourselves through user categories, that we do so through a term of our own acceptance. -JCarriker 21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Why is it offensive?--Army1987 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
        • I have elaborated above on that, but in short it implies that the generation is a continuation of Gen X—which is wrong—and this assumption has lead to forcing the negative stereotypes about Gen X on this generation while ignoring the good traits of both generations. An anon (172.199.22.234)user, put it somewhat cruder on my talk page and several others he/she apparently used this cat to spam about the article title. -JCarriker 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge Category:Generation Y Wikipedians into Category:Millennial Wikipedians (the opposite of the original proposal). I don't like the idea of categorizing users in this manner, but the practice obviously is going to continue (and is largely harmless). With this in mind, the more popular of the two designations should prevail (given the fact that they mean exactly the same thing). It may be true that both terms are controversial, but maintaining redundant categories defeats the very purpose of their existence. —Lifeisunfair 03:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Merge both categories into Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians (per Army1987's suggestion), thereby preserving the overwhelmingly preferred designation while clarifying its meaning. —Lifeisunfair 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between 1977 and 1993 --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
As indicated in the Category:Millennial Wikipedians description, those years are "approximate." According to the Generation Y article, there is a considerable amount of debate regarding the precise cutoff points. Therefore, this category is loosely defined, and is comprised of individuals whose arbitrary definitions enable self-inclusion. It's of little encyclopedic value, but we can afford to impose lax restrictions upon user categories. —Lifeisunfair 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Okay, then merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between about 1977 and 1993. If that generation can't agree on what to call itself, it's not Wikipedia's job to impose a name on them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Even "about 1977 and 1993" is far more specific than the range that is undisputed. Such a name would be significantly more arbitrary and less acceptable than the "imposition" of either of the two widely used slang designations in question (one of which — "millennial" — appears to have been accepted by the vast majority of Wikipedia users who have opted to categorize themselves as members of this generation). —Lifeisunfair 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Can you please elaborate? Why should we keep two 100% redundant categories (only one of which is popular)?
  • Delete them again. I knew they'd come back here even as I restored them from a pointless VfU debate. -Splashtalk 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
    • Could you please provide a link to the VFU debate? The only time this category was deleted, to my recolectionwas when it was posted here for deletion and was deleted improperly as no CFD otice was place on its page. When that notice was posted, and the vote placed back here; consensus was nor reached. Surely you would not consider the restoration for continued debate of an improperly deleted category pointless? -JCarriker 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
      • I removed the debate in this diff. I then asked the nominator what he wanted done. Repopulation? Renomination? He was wilfully obtuse and wouldn't answer me, other than to mumble about some love of process (which hinged basically on when a single edit was made). So I didn't do anything (and neither did he), and left a bunch of completely empty categories lying around. I commented at the time that they became speediable 24 hours after my restoration, but I didn't act on that observation. I made a little bet with myself over when they'd next be on CfD. It took longer than I thought. -Splashtalk 16:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)
        • Thank you providing the link, and I'm sorry you found the nominator unresponsive (you won't have that problem with me). However, the vote for undeletion in the link was over Wikipedians by Generation, not Millennial Wikipedians. Has Millennial Wikipedians itself ever been on VFU? When Millennial Wikipedians was no notice of its CFD nomination was provided before its deletion. Again I ask: In that particular instance how was it pointless to restor a catgegory that was improperly deleted? -JCarriker 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both, as per CalJW's initial judgment. 12.73.194.179 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete both per CalJW. siafu 03:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment: Now I created Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians. As for me I'm in all three categories, and will remove myself from the ones which shall have been deleted. I'll write a message to all people in the two already-pop'd categories.--Army1987 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
So far, I've written messages to all those beginning with letter A or B. I am going to be quite busy this week, so please help me. Simply copy and paste the message fromUser:Army1987/MilGenWiki to the users' talk pages and sign it with four tildes. TIA. --Army1987 14:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)
I favor the use of Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians, but this debate's outcome is far from certain. It was imprudent to create yet another redundant category. —Lifeisunfair 16:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:Alt country to Category:Country music[edit]

Category:Kazakh politicians to Category:Kazakhstani politicians[edit]

Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs[edit]

Category:Serbian and Croatian Americans[edit]

Category:Articles which lack sources to Category:Articles that lack sources[edit]

Category:London history to Category:History of London[edit]

Category:South Korean companies to Category:Companies of South Korea[edit]

Category:Botanical gardens by country[edit]

Category:Botanical gardens in the United States[edit]

U.S. case law categories --> United States case law categories[edit]

Category:Hot Women[edit]