Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

[[:|WP:CFD]]

Archive and Indices
12^th 11^th 10^th 9^th 8^th 7^th 6^th

See How to use this page for the official rules of this page, guidelines for Speedy Deletion and Speedy Renaming, and how to do cleanup. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) for the policies guiding many renaming decisions.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category fewer.

How to use CfD

Shortcut

WP:CFD#HOWTO

Nomination procedure

Twinkle

You may use Twinkle to facilitate CfD nominations. To install Twinkle, go to Special:Preferences#mw-prefsection-gadgets and check "Twinkle" in the "Browsing" section. Use the now-installed "XfD" (Start a deletion discussion) tab while viewing the page you want to nominate.

Twinkle only allows you to nominate a single category or stub template. For bundled nominations including multiple categories, see § MassCFD.

MassCFD

You can use the script User:Qwerfjkl/scripts/massXFD to automatically make mass nominations.

Manual nominations

I

Preliminary steps.

Before nominating a category:

Read and understand the guidance for category names and overcategorization.
For categories containing biographical articles, read the guidance for categorization of people.
For categories containing the user pages of Wikipedians, read the guidance for user categories.

In the following special cases:

If a category is a red link, then it is already deleted (or was never created in the first place) and does not need to be nominated.
If a category is unpopulated, use {{db-catempty}} to request it be speedily deleted in 7 days.
If a category is populated solely by a template (other than a stub template, see #Stub types below) and you are proposing to delete both the category and template, follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Templates for discussion.

For further information, see Wikipedia:Categorization and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.

II

Edit the category.

Add one of the following templates at the beginning of the category page (not the talk page) of every category to be discussed. For nominations involving large numbers of categories, help adding these templates can be requested here.

Otherwise, if nominating a single category:

For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd}}
For merging, use {{subst:Cfm|Other category}}
- For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm-double|Other category 1|Other category 2}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|Proposed name}}
For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2}}
For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:Cfl|Proposed name}}
For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion}}

If nominating a group of related categories, use a bundled nomination:

For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd|CfD section name}}
For merging, use {{subst:Cfm|Other category|CfD section name}}
- For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm-double|Other category 1|Other category 2|CfD section name}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs|Proposed name 1|Proposed name 2|CfD section name}}
For converting the category into a list, {{subst:Cfl|Proposed name|CfD section name}}
For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd|type=nature of proposed discussion|CfD section name}}

Include "CfD", "CfM", "CfR", "CfS" or "CfL" in the edit summary, and do not mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
To add the template for previous nomination days, use the "full" version of the template by appending "full" to the template name, i.e. {{cfd full}}, {{cfm full}}, {{cfr full}}, {{cfs full}} and {{cfl full}}. Use the |day=, |month= and |year= parameters to make the banner link to the correct CfD page.
Consider adding {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 September 16|CfD section name}} ~~~~ to the talk page of the category's creator.
For details about these templates, see each template's documentation.

III

Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) to copy and paste one of the templates below. When inserting category names into these template's parameters, except the text= parameter, omit the Category: prefix and do not use wikilinks, as the template takes care of this.

If nominating a single category:

For deleting, use {{subst:Cfd2|Obsolete category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
For merging, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
- For merging to two categories, use {{subst:Cfm2|Origin category|Destination category 1|target2=Destination category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed merge. ~~~~}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Cfr2|Current category|Proposed name|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed rename. ~~~~}}
For splitting, use {{subst:Cfs2|Current category|Proposed category 1|Proposed category 2|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed split. ~~~~}}
For converting the category into a list, use {{subst:Cfc2|Current category|Proposed article|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}
For other options (containerization, etc.), use {{subst:Cfd2|Current category|type=other type|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed conversion. ~~~~}}

For a bundled nomination, use one of the standard templates to build the "Cfd section name" for the first nominated category. After saving that, the second and subsequent nominations must be inserted manually, as follows:

==== Cfd section name ====

* 1st category

* 2nd category [Make clear whether you propose deletion, merging or renaming]

* Your reason for nominating the categories, and signature.

If a bundled nomination is too long, consider using {{hidden}} to hide some of the nominated categories.
In your reason, use links if mentioning articles or categories. To link to a category, use the colon trick by adding a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, e.g. [[:Category:Foo]].
Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Stub types

I

Preliminary steps.

In general, a stub type consists of a stub template and a dedicated stub category. Before nominating a stub type for deletion, merging or renaming:

Read and understand guidance for creating stub types and stub type naming conventions.
Review the list of existing stub types—be advised, this list may not be comprehensive.
If you wish to:
- Create a new stub type—follow the procedure for proposing new stub types.
- Delete, merge or rename a stub category only, without deleting or renaming the associated stub template—follow the instructions above this section.
- Delete or rename a stub template—continue to section II.

II

Edit the template.

Add one of the following tags at the beginning of the template to be discussed.

For deletion, use {{subst:Sfd-t|Section name}}
For renaming, use {{subst:Sfr-t|Proposed name|Section name}}

Please include "SFD" or "SFR" in the edit summary, and don't mark the edit as minor. Preview before saving.
Consider notifying the template's creator on their talk page. To find the contributor, check the page history of the stub template.

III

Create the CFD section.

Click THIS LINK to edit the section of CfD for today's entries.

Follow the instructions (visible in edit mode) and paste the following text (remember to update the default parameters):

For deletion, use {{subst:sfd-t2|TemplateName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}
For renaming, use {{subst:sfr-t2|TemplateOldName|TemplateNewName|text=Your reason(s) for the proposed deletion. ~~~~}}

In your rationale, mention how many articles currently use the template to help other editors. When linking to a category in your rationale, always add a colon (:) to the beginning of the link, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes a category link that can be seen on the page, and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating.
Preview before saving to check that your nomination is formatted correctly, and remember to include your signature at the end of the nomination.

Notifying interested projects and editors

In addition to the steps listed above, you may choose to invite participation by editors who are likely to be informed about a nominated category. All such efforts must comply with Wikipedia's guideline against biased canvassing. In addition, to help make your messages about the CfD discussion clear, avoid Wikipedia-specific abbreviations, link to relevant policies or guidelines, and link to the discussion itself.

Notifying related WikiProjects

WikiProjects consist of groups of editors who are interested in a particular subject. If a nominated category is within the scope of one or more WikiProjects, consider adding a brief, neutral note on their talk page(s) about the nomination. You may use {{subst:cfd notice|Category name|2024 September 16|CfD section name}} ~~~~ or write a personalized message.

Tagging the nominated category's talk page with a relevant WikiProject's banner will include the category in that WikiProject's Article Alerts if they subscribe to the system. For instance, tagging a nominated category with {{WikiProject Physics}} will add the discussion to Wikipedia:WikiProject Physics/Article alerts.

Notifying substantial contributors to the category

While not required, it is generally considered courteous to notify the good-faith creator and main contributors of the category that you are nominating for discussion. To find the creator and main contributors, check the category's page history or talk page. You may use {{Cfd notice}} to inform the category's creator and all other editors.

Notifying other interested editors

It may be helpful to invite other subject-matter experts by posting a message on the talk page of the most closely related article, such as Protein family for Category:Protein families. You may use {{Cfdnotice}} for this.

Closing procedure

Shortcut

WP:CfDClosings

After seven days, someone will close the discussion according to the consensus that formed or, if needed, relist it to allow more discussion. Editors closing discussions must follow the administrator instructions and, except in the case of a "keep" or "no consensus" outcome, implement the result or log it at the Working page to ensure it is implemented.

Redirecting categories

Shortcut

WP:CATRED

In general, an unpopulated category should be deleted (see speedy deletion criterion C1) because it is not useful for navigation and sorting. In limited circumstances, and because categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (i.e. #REDIRECT[[''target'']]), we use a form of "soft redirect" to solve the issue. You can create a category redirect by adding {{Category redirect|target}} to the category page. Bots patrol these categories and move articles into the "redirect" targets.

In particular, category redirects are used at the former category name when we convert hyphens into en dashes (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations). It is also helpful to set up category redirects from titles with plain letters (i.e. characters on a standard keyboard) where the category names include diacritics.

A list of redirected categories is available at Category:Wikipedia soft redirected categories.

Redirecting categories

It is our general policy to delete categories that do not have articles in them. Unlike articles, categories are mostly for internal use only. If they don't have any articles, they shouldn't have any links from any articles or any other categories, because they are not useful for navigation and classification.

However, some categories frequently have articles assigned to them accidentally, or are otherwise re-created over and over again. In these cases, we use a form of "soft" redirection.

Categories cannot be redirected using "hard" redirects (#REDIRECT [[target]]) due to limitations in the MediaWiki software. Instead, just use Template:Categoryredirect. The NekoDaemon (talk · contribs) bot hourly automatically patrols these categories and moves articles out of them and into the redirect targets.

You can see a list of redirected categories in Category:Wikipedia category redirects.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidentally not be listed here.

See also meta-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.

Anonymous users may nominate and comment on proceedings, just as in AfD. Votes from anonymous or new users may be discounted if they lack edit history. See Wikipedia:Suffrage and WP:SOCK for details.

Categories relating to stub articles should not be nominated here, but should be taken to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion.

When nominating a category, it's helpful to add a notice on the talk page of the most-closely related article. Doing so would not only extend an additional courtesy, but possibly also bring in editors who know more about the subject at hand. You can use {{cfd-article}} for this.

Speedy renaming and merging

Shortcut

WP:CFDS

This page has a backlog that requires the attention of willing editors.
Please remove this notice when the backlog is cleared.

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

Determine which speedy criterion applies
Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} or {{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}
List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points, but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g., "patent nonsense", "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}} with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.

To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:

Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~

You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead, you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion, but unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments, but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.

Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be untagged and delisted after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.

Speedy criteria

Shortcut

WP:C2

The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

Shortcut

WP:C2A

Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

Shortcut

WP:C2B

Expanding abbreviated country names (e.g. U.S. → United States).
Disambiguation fixes from an unqualified name (e.g. Category:Washington → Category:Washington (state) or Category:Washington, D.C.).

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

Shortcut

WP:C2C

Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names

This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).

C2D: Consistency with main article's name

Shortcut

WP:C2D

Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
- unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
- uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.

C2E: Author request

Shortcut

WP:C2E

This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

C2F: One eponymous page

Shortcut

WP:C2F

This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use {{subst:cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).

Admin instructions

When handling the listings:

Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions

A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
- The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here, and
- No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list:

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use:

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use:

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 00:32, 14 September 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 2,088 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Category:MINIX to Category:Minix – C2D: per Minix. 1857a (talk) 21:23, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Documentary films about African cinema to Category:Documentary films about the cinema of Africa – C2C: siblings are Documentary films about the cinema of Canada‎ and parent is Cinema of Africa Mason (talk) 20:47, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:WikiProject Dinosaurs Task Forces to Category:WikiProject Dinosaurs task forces – C2A. Gonnym (talk) 14:45, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Brakel to Category:Brakel, Belgium – C2D: per Brakel, Belgium. 1857a (talk) 13:10, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Brakel templates to Category:Brakel, Belgium, templates
- Category:People from Brakel to Category:People from Brakel, Belgium
Category:Reproduction in the United States to Category:Human reproduction in the United States – C2C per Category:Human reproduction - Anomalous+0 (talk) 11:41, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Atlantic City templates to Category:Atlantic City, New Jersey, templates – C2D: per Atlantic City, New Jersey. 1857a (talk) 10:21, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Amami user templates to Category:Amami Islands user templates – C2D: per Amami Islands. 1857a (talk) 10:14, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Bakersfield templates to Category:Bakersfield, California, templates – C2D: per Bakersfield, California. 1857a (talk) 10:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Bakersfield navigational boxes to Category:Bakersfield, California, navigational boxes
Category:Massachusetts colonial-era clergy to Category:Clergy from colonial Massachusetts – parents are People from colonial Massachusetts, American colonial clergy, and Religious leaders from Massachusetts. None of which use "colonial-era" and per Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2024_January_2#Category:People_of_the_Thirteen_Colonies_by_colony. Siblings are FOO from/of colonial Massachusetts Mason (talk) 23:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Oregon clergy to Category:Clergy from Oregon –Norm for Category:People from Oregon by occupation is to use FOO from Oregon. Also parent is Religious leaders from Oregon Mason (talk) 22:53, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People from Sukhum okrug to Category:People from Sukhumi okrug per C2C and C2D: Sukhumi okrug and Category:Sukhumi okrug. Courtesy pings @Marcocapelle and Hey man im josh:--Ymblanter (talk) 18:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects to portal space to Category:Redirects to portal namespace – C2C: See others in Category:Cross-namespace redirects. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Redirects to project space to Category:Redirects to project namespace – C2C: See others in Category:Cross-namespace redirects. 1234qwer 1234qwer 4 17:49, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Nanjing Tongxi Monkey Kings players to Category:Nanjing Monkey Kings players – C2D. HanTsî (talk) 16:42, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Parma Basket players to Category:BC Parma players – C2D. HanTsî (talk) 12:41, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anhui Dragons players to Category:Anhui Wenyi Basketball Club players – C2A. HanTsî (talk) 11:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Afyonkarahisar Belediyespor players to Category:Afyon Belediye S.K. players – C2D. HanTsî (talk) 11:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Red Star F.C. templates to Category:Red Star FC templates – C2D. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:25, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Red Star F.C. players to Category:Red Star FC players – C2D. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Red Star F.C. matches to Category:Red Star FC matches – C2D. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:23, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Red Star F.C. managers to Category:Red Star FC managers – C2D. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Red Star F.C. to Category:Red Star FC – C2D. Paul Vaurie (talk) 08:22, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lifestyles to Category:Alternative lifestyles – C2D; Alternative lifestyle - Anomalous+0 (talk) 00:00, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Anomalous+0: better move this to full discussion because the rename should lead to a lot of purging. Marcocapelle (talk) 17:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Canadian premierships to Category:Canadian federal premierships – Distinguish from Category:Canadian provincial premierships. RedBlueGreen93 19:07, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@RedBlueGreen93: which speedy criterion is applicable here? Marcocapelle (talk) 18:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Natural Monuments of Nepal to Category:Natural monuments of Nepal – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:59, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Seashores of the United States to Category:National seashores of the United States – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Lakeshores of the United States to Category:National lakeshores of the United States – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:38, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Monuments in Guyana to Category:National monuments in Guyana – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:44, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Monuments of Colombia to Category:National monuments of Colombia – C2A: See also National monuments of Colombia. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Parks in Indiana to Category:National parks in Indiana – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:43, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Scenic Trails of the United States to Category:National scenic trails of the United States – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:39, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Proposed National Parks of Canada to Category:Proposed national parks of Canada – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:36, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Parks of Canada to Category:National parks of Canada – C2A. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:35, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:National Monuments of the United States to Category:National monuments of the United States – C2A: Caps fixes. For example, National monument (United States) was moved in 2019 to the downcased title and is lowercased in the article throughout when plural and not when referring to an individually named monument. Also see List of national monuments of the United States. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:30, 23 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment — The 2019 renaming referred to above occurred via WP:RM/TR after two previous unsuccessful attempts through the standard RM process. In other words, someone went venue-shopping for a less discerning group of editors. It wasn't uncontroversial then and shouldn't be considered uncontroversial now. I'd bet the same circumstances apply to other pages nominated alongside this one. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:34, 24 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
To be clear @RadioKAOS, are you objecting to all national monument title changes alone, or also all other national forest nominations as well? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:12, 26 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Hey @RadioKAOS, just following up on this to see if the other sets can be processed, or whether you oppose just the national monuments renamings? Hey man im josh (talk) 13:43, 28 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RadioKAOS, I believe myself and the admins who process the requests on this page would REALLY appreciate an answer on this. Additionally, even if we don't consider National monument (United States)'s move to be valid, the 2018 move by (now former) admin DGG of List of national monuments of the United States, which had a discussion preceding it, was a valid move and reason enough to move forward with the category renaming from my POV. Please at the very least clarify whether your objections are to the national monumemnt renamings, or also the national forest ones as well. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:04, 29 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I guess you responded after I stopped checking regularly for a response, so thank you for the note on my talk page. DGG is deceased, so it's obviously not an option to seek his input. I'm opposed to using obscure corners of project space to bypass discussion on items which should be discussed. Some editors in those project spaces appear only interested in pursuing (a purely superficial notion of) consistency, often without regard for whether there was any consistency involved WRT consensus enroute to that point. Hence, my earlier mention of venue-shopping. I have no strong opinion on capitalization variants other than they're often time wasters that stand in the way of moving the project forward. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 04:52, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't answer the question @RadioKAOS, we need to know whether you're opposing just the national monuments nominations, or also the national forest nominations. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:10, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I left them a message after the above reply on their talk page and I've left them another one now. We still need clarity on whether the objection is just to the national monuments renamings, or the other renamings as well, including the national forests. Hey man im josh (talk) 15:48, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is a ridiculous failure of communication... They've been pinged for clarity four times and had three messages left on their talk page about this. Personally I think it's reasonable to proceed with all but the national monuments nominations since there's been a lot of effort made to seek out clarity on this and they're not providing it. I don't think it's unreasonable to believe they're talking about the monuments categories solely, but I'm obviously a bit biased as the nominator. Any thoughts @Ymblanter? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Hey man im josh, I full support this move but I'd say move this to full Cfd, just to be safe. At this point, it is safe to say this person is deliberatly ignoring you. If they have an objection, they can raise it there. If not, then they had numerous oppertunities to do so. Omnis Scientia (talk) 21:15, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burmese magazines to Category:Magazines published in Myanmar – C2C: To match category tree of Category:Magazines by country and Category:Mass media in Myanmar. AusLondonder (talk) 18:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Burmese magazines might mean "magazines published in Myanmar" or "Burmese-language magazines" or both. Either way, needs clarification. Her Pegship (?) 19:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Pegship: all subcategories of Category:Magazines by language have "-language" in their name so Category:Burmese magazines has to mean "magazines published in Myanmar". Marcocapelle (talk) 18:26, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed requests

Category:10th-century Somali people to Category:10th-century Somalian people – C2C: parent is Somalian people by century Mason (talk) 02:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:11th-century Somali people to Category:11th-century Somalian people Mason (talk) 02:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Smasongarrison: I think this should go to full CfD. There is also Category:Ethnic Somali people and the country Somalia did not exist yet in the 11th and 12th century. Marcocapelle (talk) 14:37, 12 September 2024 (UTC) Marcocapelle (talk) 18:28, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honorary Fellows of Bangla Academy to Category:Honorary fellows of Bangla Academy – C2A: MOS:JOBTITLES. Hey man im josh (talk) 17:13, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Honorary Fellows of Newnham College, Cambridge to Category:Honorary fellows of Newnham College, Cambridge
- Category:Honorary Fellows of Selwyn College, Cambridge to Category:Honorary fellows of Selwyn College, Cambridge
- Category:Honorary Fellows of St Peter's College, Oxford to Category:Honorary fellows of St Peter's College, Oxford
- Category:Honorary Fellows of Trinity College Dublin to Category:Honorary fellows of Trinity College Dublin
  - Oppose: Fellows (and Scholars) are usually capitalised in usage within Trinity College Dublin, for example see https://www.tcd.ie/Secretary/FellowsScholars/fellowship/ - David Malone (talk) 21:21, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Dwmalone: For clarity, are you opposing just the one instance, or the entire set of honorary fellow nominees? Hey man im josh (talk) 17:33, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hey man im josh: The Trinity College Dublin one, specifically, as I know it is usually capitalised. I suspect it may be true of others too, but I don't know for sure. David Malone (talk) 13:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Dwmalone: My understanding has always been that "Fellow" would be capitalized as a title but the pluralized version is not given to individuals, and is treated as MOS:JOBTITLES. Hey man im josh (talk) 13:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  Not in TCD anyway - see the link above. The Fellows and the Scholars are both specific groups defined within the statutes of the university, and always seem to be capitalised. The related terms (Fellow, Fellowship, Scholar, Scholarship) are all usually capitalised when they are used to mean these specific roles/groups/... David Malone (talk) 14:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Academy of Medical Educators to Category:Honorary fellows of the Academy of Medical Educators
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the African Academy of Sciences to Category:Honorary fellows of the African Academy of Sciences
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the American Institute of Architects to Category:Honorary fellows of the American Institute of Architects
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the British Academy to Category:Honorary fellows of the British Academy
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the British Pharmacological Society to Category:Honorary fellows of the British Pharmacological Society
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists to Category:Honorary fellows of the Canadian College of Medical Geneticists
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Faculty of Public Health to Category:Honorary fellows of the Faculty of Public Health
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Institute of Physics to Category:Honorary fellows of the Institute of Physics
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the London School of Economics to Category:Honorary fellows of the London School of Economics
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal Academy of Engineering
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal College of General Practitioners to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of General Practitioners
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal College of Nursing to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of Nursing
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal College of Physicians to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of Physicians
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal College of Surgeons
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Microscopical Society to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal Microscopical Society
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal Society
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal Society of Edinburgh
- Category:Honorary Fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand to Category:Honorary fellows of the Royal Society of New Zealand

Category:PWHL Toronto to Category:Toronto Sceptres – C2D. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:PWHL Ottawa to Category:Ottawa Charge – C2D. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:PWHL Montreal to Category:Montreal Victoire – C2D. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:PWHL Boston to Category:Boston Fleet – C2D. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:03, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:PWHL New York to Category:New York Sirens – C2D. Wheatzilopochtli (talk) 04:02, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
From what I see, the articles were moved three days ago without any discussion. Whereas it is probably a good move, it would be safer to take them to CfD to avoid potentially moving back and forth. Ymblanter (talk) 05:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:LGBT studies academics to Category:LGBTQ studies academics – C2D: The field itself and its parent category is Queer studies or LGBTQ studies, so this subcat should match it. Raladic (talk) 18:44, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
i am pretty sure someone will oppose the move, so it would be better to go for a full discussion. Ymblanter (talk) 19:47, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved down to on hold pending the close of the below linked Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September#LGBTQ of the other related LGBT -> LGBTQ moves. Raladic (talk) 18:06, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Incidentally, the MR just concluded as predicted closed as endorsed.

Pinging @Ymblanter - I suppose we can move this and all the below LGBT -> LGBTQ moves back into active to process now? Raladic (talk) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Bluerasberry still needs to withdraw his objection – CFDS is like WP:PROD in that it has to be unopposed and anyone can object for any reason (or no reason) at any time. I have asked him to reconsider below. House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:28, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT writers to Category:LGBTQ writers – C2D: Consistent with parent LGBTQ article and List of LGBTQ writers after recent Talk:LGBTQ#Requested_move_14_August_2024 discussion per WP:CONSUB Raladic (talk) 02:51, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:LGBT events to Category:LGBTQ events – C2D: Consistent with parent LGBTQ article after recent Talk:LGBTQ#Requested_move_14_August_2024 discussion per WP:CONSUB (which was further endorsed in MR). These event categories are not strict LGBT, but contain LGBTQ related events Raladic (talk) 21:51, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Censorship of LGBT issues to Category:Censorship of LGBTQ issues – C2D: Per Talk:LGBTQ#Requested move 14 August 2024 BlasterOfHouses (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
- Oppose pending Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September#LGBTQ Bluerasberry (talk) 21:13, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  @Bluerasberry: do you still object to these moves, now that Wikipedia:Move review/Log/2024 September#LGBTQ (closed) was closed as endorse? Best, House Blaster (talk • he/they) 23:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@HouseBlaster: Yes. Instead of doing a speedy move, can you do a move discussion, and post the rationale there? Perhaps WP:CONSUB. @Dekimasu:, would you like to interpret your original close? Did that cover this too? User_talk:Dekimasu#LGBT_->_LGBTQ_move Bluerasberry (talk) 22:50, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Multiple people have already supported the move of sub articles (whether it be in Talk:LGBTQ community#Requested move 27 August 2024 RM and (myself including) have started moving various articles that are uncontroversial as many have for a long term already explained the Q in addition to the LGBT. The relevant policy that covers the category now following suit is WP:C2D.

Do you want a collective category move discussion for all categories as a sort of “sampling”? In any case I don’t think there will be any good policy based reason to oppose, other than the personal WP:JDL at this point and we should stop rehashing the same arguments over and over. As for you pinging the closer of the original RM, asking for interpretation, he already did that in his close he noted: This move may require changes to the article text to conform to the new title, and may imply that templates, categories, etc. should also be moved; please consider contributing to this sort of cleanup. - so yes, it implied that categories will likely (using the word may) follow suit in line with our existing consistency policies (CONSUB for artices, C2D for categories) for main and sub-topic relationships. Raladic (talk) 23:06, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Raladic (cc: Ymblanter), a common position I see in the move review discussion was that the RM result should strictly only apply to the article, while further renaming of the very numerous associated pages should be subject to further discussion I'd throw in another oppose for all these LGBT/LGBTQ speedies. --Paul_012 (talk) 06:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Paul 012 - This blanket opposition to "all LGBT moves" is not in line with policy.

The 2 latest requests I made above:

LGBTQ writers, LGBTQ events

were carefully submitted in line with their respective eponymous List of LGBTQ writers and List of LGBTQ events articles titles.

A blanket statement of saying we need to now run all of these category moves, whether they were bulk, or whether they actually were very deliberate and definitely uncontroversial through the bureaucracy of full category move reviews with an WP:SNOW outcome, then that just grinds us to a halt for no reason. Raladic (talk) 16:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Those two list articles were only recently moved by you, and not as a result of the RM discussion, which they were not named as part of. C2D does not apply here. --Paul_012 (talk) 17:08, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

C2D is not preempted just because I was the one that moved them, if those BOLD moves were still uncontroversial (which is the case there, as those pages I moved have LGBTQ events and LGBTQ writers explicitly).

C2D does allow a cat move even if the article it is based on was or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations

While my rename was bold, it still is well in line with our article policies, both on CONSUB, but also more specifically for those articles as I just outlined as I checked the content.

Arguably, I didn't provide a citation for the catmove itself as the unilateral part requests (as I missed that part), so on procedural grounds I can see someone could request one and place it on hold, which I'll be happy to provide.

But I dispute that C2D doesn't apply outright on this careful and deliberately selected move. Raladic (talk) 21:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is no reason to move quickly with a mass rename of tens of thousands of articles. I am asking for days, not unreasonable delays. I am not re-arguing this as I never got to participate in the move discussion anyway. This started as a move discussion attended by 20 people for one article, and now it is 100,000 moves of links and prose. I do not object to the moves if consensus is there but I want someone, perhaps the closing admin, to take responsibility for the decision that the one-article move discussion was sufficient for these massive changes. At Wikipedia:Move_review/Log/2024_September the closing admin said, I did not write here or elsewhere that the result should be used to "radiate everything outwards" without discussion.. The original move discussion was sufficiently attended for what it was - the move of a single article - but I am arguing that it was not sufficiently attended for mass changes of Wikipedia and what could very well be a change big enough to make the news and be the subject of anthropology studies. I am ready to stand down but I am trying hard to find a venue to have a voice in this. At the move discussion I feel like the subject was whether that one article's move was legitimate, and I agree it was, but I still want to be heard about the next cohort of several thousand moves when they are considered collectively. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:12, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

And that's why, just as I also expressed in the MR and some other editors as well, I posted after the initial RM, the notification on The WikiProject to ensure that the community agreed that in line with our long standing understanding of active members of the project and various sub articles (which I have participated in), that after we found consensus for the main article, likely this would also allow the movement of sub articles. Also as I already noted, this wasn't just the understanding of this single RM that ultimately triggered the move, but the follow up to last years RM, which already pointed everything in that direction and many active editors in the Wikiproject and the space were aware of it and anticipated it, so it didn't come as a surprise to any of us. Prior to the final move to LGBTQ, many sub-articles were repeatedly changed back to "LGBT", even though those pages were always explicitly about LGBTQ, but that was always shot down with the inverse argument of "we want consistency, so we'll keep it LGBT under CONSUB. So those inverse arguments can't have it both ways, now that we do have the main article moved to LGBTQ.

Now I have not moved tens of thousands of pages, nor am I advocating for it in a rush. I first posted the notice to the Wikiproject after the RM and waited, to ensure my feeling on this wasn't wrong, and you expressed opposition, which was discussed there, as well as in the MR, but beyond that, most active editors of the project appear to have had the same thoughts as me as they've followed it closely over the years. Following the SNOW outcome of the MR and not seeing any clear good policy based reasoning for further opposition of moving some sub-articles, I have now started with some individual, very deliberate uncontroversial moves of articles that have already discussed LGBTQ in the article bodies for a long time, including the sourcing to support it (basically using the litmus test of "if someone did decide that they disagreed with my BOLD move, would it be very likely that policy based my move would be supported by a subsequent formal RM for that sub-article (basically following our policies of WP:BEFOREMOVING).

Also independent of my own feeling and the notice, some other editors also appear to feel that it has become appropriate and have started moving a handful of articles. Separate to the few articles I have moved myself over the past few days, none of which have had any opposition from people, in fact, quite the opposite as I've gotten a few "thanks" for them, showing explicit support. So now I'm simply following up and nominating those categories to follow those articles that I believe are uncontroversial, based on the topics they cover. I think the move of many articles (and categories and the likes) will take many months, might even be a year or longer, since we want to be deliberate about it and even just the few articles I have moved, have required a lot of post cleanup, such as link corrections in templates, default sorts and updating article leads and prose as appropriate. But I don't think that it is unreasonable to get started with it in line with those topics that arguably are covering LGBTQ topics and doing so slowly as I have started. An article at a time. Raladic (talk) 21:32, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Raladic: Okay, everything seems cool then. Some articles are moved, and that's fine, and more people know, and that is good too. There was a move discussion last year - that's nice, let's build from that. Now that we have the attention of 100+ people and we know that the discussion is about moving all of this per CONSUB, can we move this to full category discussion? I support pinging everyone who has ever shown interest, to confirm we have consensus for this. Bluerasberry (talk) 21:50, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think we so need a collective discussion that says "should every single article be moved" as that question does not have a simple "yes/no" answer, the answer inevitably is "it depends on the context".

Instead, I think the right path forward, and that which I have taken so far is to raise awareness where we can, and go one by one on specific articles, whether it be with WP:BOLD moves with my own abilities as an editor to interpret that article X can likely uncontroversially be moved and stands a reasonable chance based on the data. Or for cases where there may be more contention, that someone will open an RM for that particular article and then it will be moved.

Even from a technical standpoint, we can't bulk move articles because of all the post-cleanup that has to be done manually, so I think doing these moves and trusting editors judgement of whether to be bold (and be subject to a retroactive RM if someone does find contention in a move) or do an RM is the right move, individually, per article. Raladic (talk) 22:05, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the now full Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 11#LGBT nominations which were opposed at CFDS category discussion for those categories that @HouseBlaster nominated is underway and it also looks like a SNOW case and a very experienced editors has questioned why the speedy move requests were opposed procedurally to begin with.

So I think I'd take that one full CfD as the litmus test for these category moves and hope that after it, we can proceed with the others as CfDS, such as my above ones that were very deliberate. Raladic (talk) 22:19, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As it stands now, I will not be willing to move ~~everything~~ anything via CFDS. We always have extremely vocal people coming a week after everything has been moved demanding that the categories get moved back because they oppose the move but were not around during the 48h nomination period. And processing these categories is a lot of my time. I believe my (limited) time is best spent on something else than on moving thousands of categories back and forth.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hear hear, @Ymblanter. It's about time to move on, I think. We're currently having the same discussion in multiple places and it's becoming a huge time sink.

You state yourself, @Bluerasberry, that at least part of your objection is based on being heard rather than policy. In a single post yesterday, you said:

"I never got to participate in the move discussion"
"I want someone, perhaps the closing admin, to take responsibility for the decision"
"I am trying hard to find a venue to have a voice in this"
"I still want to be heard"

Your words strongly suggest, at least to me, that this is actually about feeling unheard and your sense of unfairness that this discussion was resolved without you. And I get that—it sucks when you get left out, or you miss out on something, or it seems no one agrees with you. But I do think you have been listened to—multiple times—and your viewpoint has been taken onboard.

I don't intend my comments as a personal attack, so I apologise if I seem blunt, but your remaining objections no longer seem to be based on valid WP policy. Your policy-based arguments, on the other hand, have all been addressed and discussed in turn, and you've slowly retreated from those arguments. Most people didn't agree with your interpretation of those policies or believe other policies are more relevant, and it seems unlikely anyone is going to change their minds here.

So, in the end, your remaining argument largely seems to boil down to WP:DONTLIKEIT, and holding the process hostage based on this (again, IMO) risks becoming disruptive. I suspect others are getting tired of the same debate, too.

@Raladic's suggestion of addressing each page on a case-by-case basis (following WP:CONSUB where there isn't a specific reason to use another initialism) seems to me to be a very pragmatic one. In fact, it gives people the option to discuss such changes on each individual page, which allows even more people to potentially engage in the discussion—which is exactly what you want, anyway. It doesn't rely on people having to engage with a process within a limited timeframe, either.

It would be great if we could draw a line under this now. I hope we can. Lewisguile (talk) 11:20, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is what is happening: "Because of the move discussion at Talk:LGBTQ#Requested_move_14_August_2024, we have now established consensus to move all all instances of LGBT to LGBTQ. This includes categories, wikilinks, and instances of the term in prose, and may be a change of the term in 100,000+ instances. Here we apply that consensus to categories."

@Lewisguile: is this an accurate statement of your reasoning? I am still surprised about the speed and impact of all of this, and want confirmation of what is happening. Is there another consensus statement in support of the move somewhere, or is this the one? Bluerasberry (talk) 20:35, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, I wouldn't say that's quite right. It seems to me that, with the consensus to change LGBT-->LGBTQ, there is a case for moving many, but perhaps not all, pages using the former initialism to the latter, and that this can be done via WP:BOLD as per WP:CONSUB. And I believe that, in most cases, this change will be non-controversial based on policy and changing common usage.

But there will, obviously, be pages that need to stay as LGBT, or some other, related initialism—not least because of proper names of organisations. In those cases, it will mostly be obvious from context (an org called, f'rex, LGBT Organisation would need to retain its name in the relevant article). Where it is debatable, discussion and the requested moves process can help us reach consensus in those specific cases. We therefore don't need a drawn out process to make a blanket decision, because a blanket decision isn't required.

Links currently pointed to LGBT will also redirect to LGBTQ anyway, so there doesn't need to be a sudden effort to change everything. Most of this will happen in time as people edit and tweak individual articles, and/or when any moves occur. That removes the worry that 100,000s of changes will need to be made immediately. Lewisguile (talk) 12:00, 15 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

- Restored these, they are obviously opposed as well. A bunch have already been processed.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:30, 2 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  
  The RM was endorced, restoring to the queue. Some have already been processed, but the backlinks still need to be checked.--Ymblanter (talk) 20:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Now the move has been opposed again. I am not going to process via speedy any LGBT categories for at least a few months, this is a massive waste of my time. Thank you for understanding.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lost works to Category:Lost media – C2D: Per main article, lost media. ᴢxᴄᴠʙɴᴍ (ᴛ) 12:15, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose – That's not an eponymous article. The hatnote at the top of Lost media says "This article is about lost audiovisual media. For other types of lost works, see Lost literary work and Lost artworks." Category:Lost works is for all works. Mclay1 (talk) 11:45, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Tyla (South African singer) to Category:Tyla – The main article Tyla (South African singer) was moved to Tyla. dxneo (talk) 03:02, 8 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose speedy because "Tyla" is an ambiguous term. 1857a (talk) 04:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
And so is Chris Brown, Rihanna and so on. The rationale was not to swap per PRIMARY but to move as there's currently nothing at Category:Tyla. Does opposing mean Category:Tyla will never be created because there's a lot of Tylas? dxneo (talk) 18:14, 9 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
This opposition is only to the speedy renaming of this category (C2D does not generally apply when removing a disambiguator from an ambiguous term). The category may be renamed to Category:Tyla via full discussion, if there is consensus. 1857a (talk) 01:04, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
understandable Thank you. dxneo (talk) 01:59, 10 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
1857a, would it have been okay if I moved it myself before coming here? dxneo (talk) 14:07, 11 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Historical poems to Category:Historical poetry – C2D Anomalous+0 (talk) 22:22, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, it is a set category, not a topic category. Marcocapelle (talk) 07:33, 7 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Premiers of Niue to Category:Prime ministers of Niue – C2D: Following move from Premier of Niue to Prime Minister of Niue, per 2024 Niuean constitutional referendum. (Capitalization is consistent with Category:Prime ministers by country and its subcategories.) Sources are provided in the article on the referendum, but for completeness: see an article explaining the referendum, and the official results. jlwoodwa (talk) 18:12, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa Would the leaders prior to 2024 still have the old title? (That's a question, not an objection.) - RevelationDirect (talk) 19:31, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@RevelationDirect: Good point; I hadn't considered that. The article's headline (Niue set for first Prime Minister as constitutional changes pass second reading) suggests that former Premiers would not be Prime Ministers. However, the referendum itself is to change the Title of Premier to Prime Minister, and since nothing else about the position is changing, I don't think it justifies separating the office-holders into two categories. This now seems nontrivial enough that it should be discussed at CfD proper, though… jlwoodwa (talk) 01:30, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Jlwoodwa The Philippines moved from a PM to President and has a category for the old title, Category:Prime ministers of the Philippines, with a parent category to hold both titles, Category:Heads of government of the Philippines. If we agree on that approach and it's non-controversial with other editors, you wouldn't necesarily need a CFD since you're just adding categories. (This is a long way of saying I've moved to Oppose on the rename.) RevelationDirect (talk) 14:25, 6 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

Moved to full discussion

Category:Rodeo in the arts to Category:Rodeo culture – C2C: to match sister categories and expand its scope. Omnis Scientia (talk) 22:40, 13 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Omnis Scientia: if renamed I would rather propose Category:Rodeo in culture but upmerging is perhaps an even better idea. Marcocapelle (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'll move to full Cfd then. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Moved to full Cfd. Omnis Scientia (talk) 19:15, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.

Discussions

June 20

Category:Games with Bret Hart

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is small in scope, the maximum number of things that could possibly go in here right now is about 10 and would grow at a max of one or two articles per years, for newly released games. --Jtalledo (talk) 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, before categories like this are created for every professional wrestler. --Musicpvm 23:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Or every athlete: Games with Michael Jordan, Games with Tiger Woods, Games with that backup left tackle for the Texans... No thanks. Delete.--Mike Selinker 01:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the issue I see with keeping this kind of category is that the game articles themselves will be swamped with categories. SeventyThree^(Talk) 05:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per above. This is not unlike Julia Roberts films and similar cats that often come through here. ×Meegs 12:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and SeventyThree --Darren Jowalsen 00:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bundesverdienstkreuz to Category:Members of the Order of Merit of the Federal Republic of Germany

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I saw this at the bottom of an article about an Italian composer, it wasn't exzctly meaningful to me. It would be much better to rename it is English. Chicheley 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Chicheley 20:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Click on Bundesverdienstkreuz to find out? Regards, David Kernow 12:43, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. You can't click directly on the Bundesverdienstkreuz article when the word appears as a category name. Calsicol 15:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oops, yes. Well, maybe a sentence or two at the top of the category page...? Regards, David Kernow 23:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. You have to visit the category page to read what is written on it and that shouldn't be necessary. As far as possible the meaning of every category at the bottom of an article should be clear immediately. Osomec 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. However, as broadband speeds and load-in-new-tab become the norm, I also agree keeping category lists at concise, scannable lengths is at least as important. Keeping this future in mind, is it or will it really be that inconvenient? Regards, David 00:00, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Recipients of the Bundesverdienstkreuz or Category:Bundesverdienstkreuz recipients. David Kernow 00:03, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Thomson family

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category has few members and is unlikely to grow significantly. Members can go to parent, but 3 of 4 are already there. Brian G 19:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The richest family in Canada and one of the richest in the world. Chicheley 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not sure that wealth is pertinent to there being a category. In my opinion, the number of family members with articles is of relevance. Will this be growing significantly at some point in the future? I have no problem if this will evolve into something the size of Category:House of Glücksburg or even Category:Mountbatten-Windsor family, but do we need a category for 4 members who are all easily linked within their current articles? We do not currently have categories for the families of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Carlos Slim Helú, Ingvar Kamprad, Lakshmi Mittal or a number of other famously rich families.-- Brian G 00:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The five men mentioned by Brian G are all self-made, but the present head of the Thomson family is the 3rd Lord Thomson. Cloachland 01:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- OK. So now 4 more articles have been added to the category, but 3 of these are not people and since this is a people category, they don't belong here unless you rename the category or make it a subcategory of a different patent category. The other is a list page that contains 3 of the family members. Does every peerage title family deserve its own category? I reaffirm my Delete--Brian G 02:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Given their importance in Canada, I expect more related articles will be written in the future. Deet 02:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you saying that more of these articles will be about people? If so, I could be convinced, but if the articles are about other things then I say move the category to somewhere else in the category tree or delete.--Brian G 02:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was thinking people, companies and significant events. Deet 02:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is well established that family categories aren't restricted to biographical articles. Calsicol 15:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Recent (2 day old) creation. Tiny and of no actual use. Any peerage should be listified, as most will not be notable enough for an individual article. --William Allen Simpson 02:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A category does not need to be enormous to be useful. We have dynasties with fewer members. User:Dimadick
- Could you please cite some of them here?--Brian G 12:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Did you look? This category has more articles than any of the other six categories for Canadian families and scores of categories for non-Canadian families. Calsicol 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Attalids has only eight articles but covers two centuries of rule. Category:House of Balliol has only eight articles but decently coverts a short-lived Scottish dynasty. Category:Ayyubids has only six members because we do not have articles on all members of this Kurdish dynasty of Egypt, Damascus, Aleppo, Hamah, Homs, Yemen and Jezireh. Category:Cao Wei emperors has only 5 articles because there were only five of them. There are others. User:Dimadick
Keep This is probably the first family one would expect to find in category:Canadian families. Calsicol 15:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep against nom Antares33712 19:24, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canyons to Category:Canyons and gorges

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename, implemented throughout the subcategory hierarchy. --RobertG ♬ talk 16:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "canyon" is not widely used in all countries; as a name, "Canyons and gorges" gives a better world view. this change should also ripple down through the subcategory hierarchy if agreed SP-KP 19:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreement here - it felt odd when I created the NZ subcat, since there's only one "canyon" I know of in New Zealand, and that hasn't got an article. All the others are gorges. Combining the names makes perfect sense. Grutness...wha? 00:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nominator. There are no canyons in the UK so far as I know but we do have some gorges (smallish ones). Calsicol 15:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Antares33712 15:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename since different terminology is used for the same feature in different contexts. Kestenbaum 18:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Conservative Party members of the United Kingdom Parliament to Category:Conservative MPs (UK)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created the former, but the latter already exists. However I would be just as happy to merge the old one (which is also woefully underpopulated) into the new one. But if we do that the Labour and Liberal categories will need to be renamed as well. Chicheley 18:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Merge and rename related categories per nom. David Kernow 12:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC), amended 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I do not understand which naming you are supporting David: if we Merge as propsed then the other two cats will not need renaming (but if we Reverse merge, then the other two will need CFR tagged and Renamed). --Mais oui! 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I compacted my vote too much. I was thinking that "Conservative Party members of the United Kingdom Parliament" breaks up the phrase "Member of Parliament", so "Conservative Members of Parliament" plus a reference to UK somewhere might be preferable; then thought "MP"/"MPs" may be a sufficiently well-known abbreviation... I'm becoming more convinced that abbreviations in category names (rather than the current penchant for long category names) aren't such a bad idea, as one or two clicks can reveal what an unrecognised abbreviation means... Unsure, David 18:09, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse merge and tag and rename the Lab and LD ones too. --Mais oui! 15:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rock Musicians of the Political Right

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Like Category:Rock and Roll Musicians For The Political Left, which is nominated for deletion below, this is not a useful categorization scheme. - EurekaLott 18:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where is the other nomination? I can't find it. Please coppy my vote there as well. -MrFizyx 11:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried to look for the pair, but it wasn't categorized. --waffle iron ^talk 18:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 23:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. -M^ask 21:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, and tar and feather the musicians as unpatriotic Hollywood elites who don't support our troops. Postdlf 23:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Useless. And artists don't fall neatly on political spectrums anyway. Wasted Time R 00:08, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Category:Musical activists seems to do the job and this category doesn't meet naming conventions anyway. -MrFizyx 11:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tibetan monasteries to Category:Monasteries in Tibet

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Naming conventions. Darwinek 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These are monasteries which follow Tibetan Buddhism but they are not all in Tibet. Rename category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries and create a subcategory for monasteries in Tibet. Chicheley 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries per Chicheley. David Kernow 12:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There's a significant overlap with the already existing Category:Buddhist temples in Tibet--Confuzion 17:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Buddhist temples in Tibet to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries in Tibet and make subcategory of Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries...? Regards, David Kernow 21:06, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tibetan Buddhist monasteries per Chicheley. Osomec 14:35, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Serbian and Montenegrin football managers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already speedied. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members should become Category:Serbian football managers or Category:Montenegrin football managers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split. Now that the state and the football team don't exist, it's perfectly logical to split the category. Todor →Bozhinov 11:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Footballers in Serbia and Montenegro by club

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted - TexasAndroid 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members shoud become Category:Footballers in Serbia by club or Category:Footballers in Montenegro by club -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Serbian and Montenegrin footballers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep until split. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Members should become Category:Serbian footballers or Category:Montenegrin footballers. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose for now. Indeed they should, but the first two I looked at don't give the information needed for recategorisation. Let's wait for someone with local knowledge to sort it out. Osomec 14:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose can't knee-jerk change due to current events that may rapidly change. Antares33712 14:47, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It wouldn't change. "Greater Yugoslavia" fell apart, that's an inevitable fact. Montenegro is de facto a new country now. Waiting for "local knowledge" (Serbian nationalists) isn't a good idea. This is exactly the same situation as with the Republic of Macedonia and subsequent problems with Greek nationalists. Split as quick as possible. - Darwinek 08:24, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anarchism and Judaism to Category:Jewish anarchism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename this category because it was carelessly named in the first place since this category does not have any articles or connection to Judaism which is the Jewish religion -- and Jewish anarchists are not identified or noted for their allegiance to Judaism. Rather, this category's main article is Jewish anarchism which defines and explains the subject in detail (and also includes it's sub-category of Category:Jewish anarchists) and thus this category should rightly be (re)named Category:Jewish anarchism. IZAK 09:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename for above reasons. IZAK 09:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, to match the main article, if nothing else. Luna Santin 10:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom - Nesher 16:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename --William Allen Simpson 02:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Abortion rights opposition

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We just started Wikipedia:WikiProject Abortion, and looking through the subcategories of Category:Abortion, we noticed we had a category called "Abortion rights opposition". That seemed kind of biased, so we sorted the couple of articles that were in it into a new Category:Pro-life movement, which matches Category:Pro-choice movement rather nicely. There's no further use for Category:Abortion rights opposition, as we're very unlikely to introduce a Category:Fetal rights opposition anytime soon. GTBacchus^(talk) 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per GTBacchus. -Severa (!!!) 09:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Both movements commonly refer to themselves in positive terms, I don't see why we shouldn't. The two categories may have been submitted by different editors, I doubt there was actual malice involved, but nevertheless we should go for consistency. Luna Santin 10:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Reverse merge into this and amend the other one to category:Abortion rights support. Pro-life and Pro-choice are both propaganda spin terms and not neutral. Osomec 12:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have tagged the following for renaming to neutral terms:

Category:Pro-choice movement --> category:Abortion rights movement
Category:Pro-choice activists --> category:Abortion rights activists
Category:Pro-choice organizations --> category:Abortion rights organizations
Category:Pro-choice politicians --> category:Politicians that support abortion rights
Category:Abortion rights opposition --> category:Opposition to abortion
Category:Pro-life activists --> category:Anti-abortion activists
Category:Pro-life organizations --> category:Anti-abortion organizations
Category:Pro-life politicians --> category:Politicians that oppose abortion
Rename all Osomec 13:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's pretty biased to suggest that the Pro-choice movement is simply about abortion rights, or that the Pro-life movement is simply about abortion opposition. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is totally false and groundless speculation to accuse me of bias. I don't give a toss about this debate, or all the accretion of side issues that have accumulated around itm but I know what propaganda is, and I know it breaches Wikipedia's policies. Osomec 19:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't think of it as an accusation against you, just against your suggestion. Please don't take it personally. Like Andrew c said below, it's pretty weird to talk about the anti-abortion activists protesting outside of Terry Schiavo's home, or the abortion rights activists campaigning for sex education to prevent teen pregnancy. There actually is a deeper conflict than the legality of abortion at stake there, and the respective movements recognize that. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I also now note that Category:Abortion rights opposition is the original. It has been renamed without seeking approval here. It is inappropriate to present this page with a fait accompli, so I will repopulate. I have also added a proposal to rename the first nominated category to category:Opposition to abortion to the list above as using the word "rights" pre-supposes that such rights exist, and is therefore POV. However it is acceptable to use "rights" for the other camp as it is "rights" that they are campaigning for (as distinct from campaigning for the number of abortions to be pushed up to the highest possible level). Osomec 13:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Also, Oppose Osomec's renaming. We try to use the terms "Pro-choice" and "Pro-life" as often as possible, since, although they are both politically charged, they are the most neutral in that they are what people of each side identify with. Besides, both are about more than just abortion, as you will see if you go to their respective pages. So, it only makes sense that the categories would reflect this point as well. roma rin [talk ] 14:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm sorry to have presented this CfD improperly. I guess I've done a CfD nomination once or twice before, but I didn't realize it was a big deal to move a few articles. I won't do that again in the future. I also didn't realize there would be any controversy over this deletion - after working with the same group on the abortion articles, who've all basically accepted that Pro-choice and Pro-life are the terms we've chosen to use in those articles, I just assumed naming the categories consistently with the articles was the obvious way to go, and that everybody would see that immediately. Considering that most people aren't such gluttons for punishment as to have Abortion on their watchlist, I guess I should have known better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Even items listed for speedy renaming often attract opposition. Osomec 19:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this any any category of "opposition" (i.e. "gay rights opposition") Paul 17:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Osomec's renaming. If a group is best known by a politically charged term, well, that's what they're known by, and we should organize them by that usage rather than trying to change the meanings of words.--M@rēino 17:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That's beyond understanding. You set out the main reason why they are not neutral, why they are pure propaganda, and then you say that it is a reason why they are neutral! Osomec 19:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is the activists who are trying to change the meanings of words, whereas Wikipedia should use straightforward English. My proposal calls things by their proper names and will be understood by anyone with a grasp of English, not just people familar with this mainly American tussle. In my opinion the way you are doing things is throughtly unencyclopedic and shows that you have allowed yourselves to be manipulated by propagandists on both sides. It suggests to be that Wikipedia's coverage of abortion will be totally untrustworthy and should be avoidedOsomec 19:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - As noted above, calling the pro-life movement "anti-abortion" fails to recognize that their platform typically embraces multiple issues, ditto for pro-choice. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is one central issue. Abortion is the reason these categories exist so the focus should be on abortion, not on any side issues or distraction tactics used by either side. It seems to me that people who are involved enough in these issues to have taken part in the discussion aren't really in a good position to judge what terminology will look neutral to the majority of people who are not emotionally involved in this issue. Osomec 19:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I really don't think it's for Wikipedia to take a position on what parts of a political movement's agenda count as "distraction tactics". You may be right about that, but it's not NPOV. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This sorry mess just shows that Wikipedia can't handle controversial topics because of the amount of manipulation that is involved. I don't read Wikipedia articles on controversial topics, and I don't think anyone else should use or trust them either. Osomec 19:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your feedback. We set up WikiProject Abortion last night in the hopes of improving our coverage in the 150 or so articles in the abortion-related categories. We would certainly value your feedback there about how the articles can be improved, and your assistance in improving them would be even more gladly appreciated. Our first job seems to be getting the names right on these categories. I'm not married to the current names; I was just keen not to reinvent too many wheels, since debates over these names have occurred in the past. Since that's not in our collective memory, I don't mind talking about it, and maybe we can start to do something about the situation you're lamenting. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. As Osomec's comment about straightforward English, which of the following is more straightforward definition of "abortion rights" if you aren't already aware of the issue: the right for a woman to have an abortion or the right for a fetus to be protected from an abortion? Caerwine Caerwhine 19:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment there is a difference between Neutral POV and NO point of view. Neutral tries to balance ALL POVs with due weight. No point of view tries to write in a "neutral" manner, excluding any POV. I refer you to WP:NCI. Just because something sounds more "neutral" to you, does not make it so. The best solution is to simply use the terms that the organizations/movement uses for themselves. This avoids confusion of using uber PC terms that a lay audience may not understand are euphamisms for common terms tha some editors find offensive (Pro-life, Pro-choice, gay rights, etc). Furthermore, by reducing these movements to a single issue, you are setting up a strange situation. For example "The opposition to abortion movement protested outside of Terri Schiavo's hospice..."--Andrew c 19:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Per Andrew c, in this case, I think the simplest solution would be to stick with self-identifying terminology. -Severa (!!!) 20:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as per Osomec. In each case it removes either the debated term "pro" or "rights" while continuing to be completely factually accurate. Deet 02:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's not factually accurate, as far as I can tell, to suggest that the pro-choice movement is about nothing but abortion rights, nor that the pro-choice movement is about nothing but opposition to abortion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, merge subcategories into Category:Pro-life movement -- Oppose renaming by Osomec --William Allen Simpson 02:40, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per GTBacchus and strongly oppose Osomec's suggestion. I'm sure Osomec is striving to come up with the least biased terms possible, but I do think his suggestions are definitely more biased (and, incidentally, confusing) than how things currently stand. Caerwine makes a very good point that the term "abortion rights" is itself ambiguous because (as has been made clear through the last two decades of heated debate in the US) many people feel the issue is much more complicated than simply a question of rights. It's also framing the debate, in some sense. In short, I propose that all categories and related be named using the "pro - choice / pro - life" pattern, as
1. We all know what "pro-life" and "pro-choice" mean
2. These terms, while not perfect, are actually more accurate than using "abortion rights" or "anti-abortion"; e.g. see Bacchus' comments regarding Terri Schiavo and availability of contraception
3. These are the terms that the overwhelming majority of news and news analysis sources use
4. Just about the only thing that the partisans in this debate have agreed to is to use those terms, and that says something. --Deville (Talk) 02:54, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Osomec's rename. -Severa (!!!) 05:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Abortion rights opposition" and Oppose renaming scheme proposed by Osomec. Many political terms now seen as neutral descriptors started out as propaganda spin terms, e.g., Bolshevik. "Pro-life" and "pro-choice" are now widely understood and used across the spectrum; neither side seriously contests the other's label. Kestenbaum 06:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SUPPORT Osmec, except replace "rights" with "access" to be more neutral. "Anti-abortion" is a widespread term, and a perfect description for people who support the death penalty, or euthanasia, etc, but oppose abortion, and "access" is what the "pro-choice" people want, but they are not pro-choice about other issues, like say... cannibalism, and not all would support a choice in homosexuality, etc. 132.205.45.148 19:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Abortion access movement sounds like a pretty contrived locution to me, that wouldn't naturally occur to many readers... Don't most people recognize the movement by the name "pro-choice"? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:06, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per GTBacchus and Luna Santin. Oppose - porposal by Osomec per self-identifying terminolgy. Doc Tropics 07:30, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, Oppose proposal by Osomec. Although I agree with your terminology in principle, Osomec (see my user page), actually switching to those terms would simply provoke an endless semantic war--not to mention violate WP policy. The self-identifying terminolgy guidelines seem practically like they were written for this argument. WP is an encylopedia, meant to gather information according to the most generally recognized terms, not the terms that are necessarily correct. --BCSWowbagger 08:08, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Osomec's rename. - "pro-life" and "pro-choice" are not just about abortion MamaGeek (Talk/Contrib) 17:41, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose Osomec's rename.Sounds contrived and limiting. Should use the names each side gives itself.Killua 14:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anti-Germanism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted - TexasAndroid 21:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recently created category (with only one Jew in it so far!) is a perfect example of a "neologism in action" and thus violates Wikipedia:Avoid neologisms as well as contravening WP:OR or worse. It is a silly attempt to present Germans as "wronged" people whereas nothing could be further from the truth. The Germans are strong and admired and have always been so, and if they have only themselves to blame for failing in two world wars, there is no need to create cockamamy categories on Wikipedia to "justify" them. Give us a break and delete this silly category soon. Thank you. IZAK 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for above reasons (do we need any?) IZAK 08:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as recreation of deleted content. - EurekaLott 13:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete.--Shlomke 20:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Israeli propaganda

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both of 2 (two) items in this new category are deliberately misinterpreted as propaganda by their haters: one is a Hebrew language word for "explaining" and another is a translation service from Arabic and Farsi that Islamists are trying to denigrate by combining poisoning the well and ad hom attacks. An example of extremist political POV interfering with making a serious neutral encyclopedia. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom abakharev 08:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Pecher ^Talk 09:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No room on Wikipedia for potential hatemongering. IZAK 09:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and give me a break. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 12:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - these efforts are getting more and more pathetic. --Leifern 13:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ASAP per nom. --DLand ^TALK 13:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete --I have an urge to just go ahead and do it myself speedily... While an article on "propaganda in Israel" might be worthwhile, "Israeli propaganda" is not a good member of Category:Propaganda by country, it is simply a smear tactic...and a rather obscene one at that... The only other "country" subcategory represented there by an adjectival form is Category:Nazi propaganda. I think that alone is reason to delete the category and probably slap its creator around a little bit with a large trout. Tom e r ^talk 19:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. --Shlomke 20:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Mantanmoreland 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. At this point there's only one item in the category - hard to think of anything more pointless.Timothy Usher 06:27, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Tomer. Kestenbaum 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and now Antares33712 14:46, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV Sonofzion 01:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and pass the trout. Doc Tropics 07:32, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jewish groups

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This recently created category is far too vague. The larger Category:Jews requires greater clarity and specificity for its sub-categories, see its other contents that clearly prove the meaninglessness of such a nebulous name of "groups" (of what?). There are other clearer ways to do this, see for example Category:Jewish organizations. This Category:Jewish groups also poses the danger of creating future clutter of unwanted redundancy. IZAK 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per the above reasons. IZAK 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Category:Jewish organizations or Delete (it empty anyway) abakharev 08:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Del per above. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 08:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per abakharev. Pecher ^Talk 09:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or Delete per above. --PinchasC | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per abakharev. - Ugliness Man 11:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per abakharev, failing that, delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - duplicates existing categories -- Nesher
Delete quickly, before someone starts populating it. It's presently empty, as it should remain. As per nom, this category name is way too vague to ever be useful. Tom e r ^talk 02:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom, quick while it's empty Doc Tropics 07:34, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Chile peppers to Category:Chili peppers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 17:10, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In Talk:Chili_pepper#Requested_move it was decided that "chili pepper" is the best naming. So now the category should presumably be also renamed for consistency. Bovineone 05:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Musicpvm 05:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename should be consistent -- Chris Q 09:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Good catch. Luna Santin 10:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Ugliness Man 11:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:British expatriates in the United States

and

Category:American expatriates in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[R]ather pointless list[s] that would prove quite difficult to mantain. BMetts 05:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep both Not pointless at all. The fact that categories are based on nationalities, but some people make a notable contribution in countries which are not their own is one of the problems of the category system, and this addresses that. It is no harder to maintain than any other category. Osomec 13:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both -- recent Mayumashu creation -- contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- nationality is always coupled with the occupation -- use (sub)category of Category:People by American city and/or Category:People by British city for notable residence. --William Allen Simpson 02:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is not contrary to policy at all. One type of category does not preclude others. Osomec 14:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep assuming the list is about important American citizens who contributed as British residents. Antares33712 13:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fire alarms to Category:Fire detection and alarm

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More specific title that better describes the content. Part of a larger overhaul of fire protection categories. SchuminWeb (Talk) 05:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Streams to Rivers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Technical nomination to complete Jun 10 approved move of Category:Streams of the United States to Category:Rivers of the United States. These subcats were not tagged. Since the three for deletion only had 1 entry, I moved those and am proposing for deletion here. Vegaswikian 05:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all five. Caerwine Caerwhine 19:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above.--Mike Selinker 19:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Two-way artist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NN neologism that gets exactly one Google hit with this meaning outside of Wikipedia and its mirrors; it gets more hits as a euphemism for bisexuality than for singer-rappers (and even then, it gets only three). Delete. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Two-way artist. (ETA: renaming the category to Category:Singer-rappers might be a viable alternative, but the current name is an unsourced term that has strong potential to be misunderstood, which is generally a bad idea for category naming.) Bearcat 04:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 05:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Artists who sing and rap with equal notability are even more notable. Also, its not a neologism, but urban black vernacular. 216.141.226.190 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Urban black vernacular generally shows up on Google. Bearcat 05:37, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, and also, even if the definition were more widespread, it doesn't look like all the people in this category have been described as "two-way artists" in any published media. So it just seems more like they're listed there because random people on Wikipedia think they sing and rap well. POV categories are generally problematic, this one is no exception. --W.marsh 14:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No way I want to label someone as that.--Mike Selinker 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. —Centrx→talk 20:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and comment. Sorry folks, please forgive me, I jumped the gun and created this mess (I thought the term was more notable than it was). The intent was not to be POV (well is subjective, notable is not). For example Queen Latifah is notable as a rap artist (her early work, Black Reign for example). Her latest has her singing standards and light jazz. Is she a good singer or rapper? I don't care, but she is notable for both abilities and that was the intent of the category. the ten or so names I put in there I could say on song X this artist sang and on song Y this person rapped. Mariah Carey rapped on Prisoner on her eponymous debut, but she is not notable for rapping (thank God), only singing. It wouldn't matter if she was "good" or not, just notable. I would like to see a singer-rapper (rap song) category created, since people with both abilities are notable, but the cat would need watching. Antares33712 19:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Exceptional Vocalist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was already deleted - TexasAndroid 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously POV. --Musicpvm 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete... Sarge Baldy 03:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete PoV junk Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete BabuBhatt 03:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete what makes a vocalist exceptional? to some it's Whitney Houston, to others it might be Axl Rose. Drmagic 04:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculously POV 216.141.226.190 05:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Television Shows set in the United Staates to Category:Television shows set in the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename (by GTBacchus). ×Meegs 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to correct spelling and capitalization. 'United Staates' is incorrectly spelled with two 'a' and 'Shows' should not be capitalized. Q0 02:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By all means, fix this per nomination. SchuminWeb (Talk) 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename --Musicpvm 03:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy rename. Slam dunk. Deet 03:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not necessary to submit this for debate; speedy rename. Bearcat 04:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Ongoing or upcoming comics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems exactly what Wikipedia:Avoid statements that will date quickly says to avoid. Without constant, dedicated vigilance, canceled comics could remain here indefinitely. There's much potential for dated, inaccurate information. Propose for deletion. --Tenebrae 01:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Deet 03:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Wisd e n17 13:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 13:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Tenebrae and Deet. Also, the very nature of the object of this category is essentially unmantainable. Phædriel ♥ tell me - 00:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per Tenebrae and Deet. Doc Tropics 07:40, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional people with pyrokinesis to Category:Fictional pyrokineticists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More concise category title, fits in with the existing fictional character convention better. Pikawil 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Cool categories, these. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Much tighter.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per norm. Zythe 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Doc Tropics 07:41, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional characters with hydrokinesis to Category:Fictional hydrokineticists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 13:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More concise category title, fits in with the existing fictional character convention better. Pikawil 01:26, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as above.--Mike Selinker 19:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per norm. Zythe 00:11, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - per nom. Doc Tropics 07:42, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Companies of the United States by state

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 07:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Companies of the United States by state has its subcategories out of sync with the way the rest of the company by location categories work. Instead of the expected Companies of Alabama, etc. It uses the format Companies based in Alabama, etc. I recommend harmonizing these by replacing the based in with of in all 51 categories here, plus the 18 subcategories of Category:Companies based in California, the 3 subcategories of Category:Companies based in Nevada, Category:Companies based in Philadelphia, Category:Companies based in New York City, Category:Companies based in Fargo-Moorhead, and Category:Companies based in Seattle, Washington. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming of categories has become a sub-culture all of its own, one that I find hard to care much about anymore. (N.B., I don't mean this as a slam against those who labor here--it's more an indication that I find it too wearying to keep up with all the accumulated precedents and lore that has been built up.) However, qualifying these as "companies of X" seems misguided. Companies often have a multistate or multinational presence. And with mergers and acquisitions, it can become difficult to tell what "of" means. What is objectively verifiable is where a company's headquarters is based. Of course we can by fiat define "companies of place" to mean whatever we want it to mean, but I think the non-intuitive "of" will make a bit more difficult to keep the random addition of companies with a significant presence in a place (but which is headquartered elsewhere) from cropping up in the renamed categories. older ≠ wiser 00:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- The alternative of renaming every other localized company category that is outside Category:Companies of the United States by state (including Category:Companies of the United States) to use based in instead of of is also a valid option, but will require a lot more work; a lot, lot, lot more work. Caerwine Caerwhine 00:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. I also don't think saying a company is "of" a state means anything in particular, and to perhaps unnecessarily elaborate after the above well-reasoned comment, I think the proposed rename would inevitably cause the categories to be used for simply any company that does business in the state, whether by physical plant or shipping, or any company founded by people from the state. Where a company is headquartered is a clear and meaningful relationship to categorize, and this limitation prevents such inevitable inanities as 51 categories for McDonald's. There's also no need to conform naming styles of category structures that perform separate functions and are meant to coexist as here (the last thing we want to do is make every U.S. company only categorized by state), and I think being "of" a country is much more significant and clear than being "of" a state. Even corporations that exist multinationally still have strong national identities; not so of interstate ones and state identities. Postdlf 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Instead, why not make Category:Companies of the United States by state, Category:Companies in the United States by state. --evrik 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose "Based in" is much clearer. Chicheley 01:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose The trend is to use "based in" more often. Osomec 13:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose In the USA, there is a legal difference among where a company is located (all the states it does business in), where it is based (where the headquarters is), and where it is registered (usually Delaware for very large companies, for very complicated reasons). A company could be said to be "of" any of those three, so "of" is a poor choice of words. --M @r ē ino 17:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Though I concur that there should be a consolidation of multiple categories, the term "of" can be misleading. I believe the listing "Companies based in {{state}}" is a better heading, as a company can have locations in many places but headquartered (based) in only one. Quidam65 19:07, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 19

Category:US primetime network series that ran over ten years

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Listify and Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a category that would be better served by a list. Also too narrowly focused: why exclude non-primetime series or syndicated series? MakeRocketGoNow 23:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listify per nom. David Kernow 00:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; entirely arbitrary category. Anyone who wants a list can knock themselves out of course. Postdlf 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Choreographies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Superfluous category. No articles listed, and "choreographies" is a rather obscure term. Editor at Large 22:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as I'm not sure a choreography lends itself to description by a text-based encyclopedia article... David Kernow 00:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Jews and Judaism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 10:53, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Category:Judaism - sub categories of this overweight category include "Anti- Semitism", "Jewish History", "Judaic Studies in Academia" and "Jewish Education". These sub-categories have no more affinity to "Jews and Judaism" than they do to "Judaism" and this category just hinders efficiency, is a nuisance to the many confused people (even experienced wikipedians) and in my view, wholly unecessary. Merging with Category:Judaism - which is and deserves to be the central and absolute super-category for ALL things relating to Judaism, is a long overdue measure. Many thanks, Nesher 21:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See 4 counter-arguments of mine below - especially last one - Nesher
- Oppose and Keep Category:Jews and Judaism (As the original creator of this parent super-category [1] in June 2004 I am placing my vote and comments here as a juxtaposition to the above short-sighted and misguided proposal) -- because this parent super-category has served a great function for two years! Merging into Category:Judaism would create confusion and force only a religious interpretation of all matters relating to Jews, something which is not always true at a time when the majority of the world's Jews are not religious in their observance of Judaism. This parent super-category was the solution to a very serious dilemma: How to inter-connect topics/categories relating to Jews who are secular and secular Jewish subjects/categories with Judaism which is purely a RELIGION only without compromising the integrity of either sub-category?! Category:Jews and Judaism creates a unified and unifying super-CATEGORY for two diverse sub-categories/subjects Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. If only Category:Judaism remains then the problem would remain how to legitimately link Jews and Judaism without compromising on the secular/religious dichotomy. In the same way, there are TWO main articles on this subject: Jew AND Judaism (see the introduction of those articles to understand this) and why they are NOT merged because of the simple truth that being a Jew is related to ETHNICITY (regardless of religious practice or beliefs) as well as Jewish religious law, whereas Judaism is only a religion. Thus Keep Category:Jews and Judaism and do NOT merge for the simple reason that Jews and Judaism are NOT always equal subjects/categories. Not all Jews and Jewish subjects are related to or connected to Judaism, and Judaism is not always part of the lives of Jews! IZAK 04:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment by nom - Whether to your liking or not, Jews only exist because of Judaism. Hence, it is entirely self-defeating to make Judaism a sub-category of Jews - tantamount to making "beverages" into a sub-category of "tea". Please, at least evaluate this in an unjaundiced fashion, without resorting to emphatically emotional stereotypes and personal terms. "This parent super-category was the solution to a very serious dilemma" - what dilema! Its astoundingly simple; the way to "inter-connect topics/categories relating to Jews who are secular and secular Jewish subjects/categories with Judaism" is to have the former as a subcategory of Judaism! As another user tellingly pointed out, Category:Muslims is a sub-category of Category:Islam, just as Category:Christian people is a sub-category of Category:Christianity and Category:Hindus is a subcategory of Category:Hinduism. Only the Judaism categories are in such a mess! Need I go on? Nesher
    - Nesher: Firstly, no need to be so deprecating, the categories are not a "mess". Secondly, please do not state falsely that we are making "Judaism a sub-category of Jews" when no such thing is happening here. This is what it's about: It is simple: BOTH Category:Jews and Category:Judaism are clear and logical sub-categories of a larger WIKIPEDIA parent category that is named Category:Jews and Judaism, which is not so difficult to grasp -- that's all. Thirdly, these present categories are not meant to be a grandiose theological judgment or a mystical realigment of the stellar constellations that somehow effects Jewish destiny as you are making it out to be -- far from it -- this is simple editing and categorizing in what is after all a secular online encyclopedia. Fourthly, questions such as if there can be no Judaism without Jews or vice versa, or if Judaism contributes more to the Jews than the other way around -- these points are not what need to be settled here via your attempts to squeeze everything into Category:Judaism which will only result in giving that category indigestion and cause it to short circuit. Fifthly, your other point/s abouts Christians and Muslims also does not apply here. There's no such thing as a "secular Christian or Muslim" because being a Christian or Muslim means only just that (because they are religions ONLY) -- But in the case of Jews it's different since being a Jew is both a religious AND and an ethnic fact. Thus while Judaism refers to the Jewish religion, yet being only a Jew alone also legitimately implies being part of an ethnic group (by just being being born Jewish, for example) that need not be connected to the practice or acceptance of Judaism as a religion because being Jewish has BOTH ethnic and religious connotations unlike in Christianity or Islam which are religions only with ethnicity NOT a criterion. (This is clearly explained in the Jew article -- please read it sometime soon!) Sixthly, from your comments it is obvious that you are not aware of what Wikipedia's system of categorization is about. Please read Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization. Seventhly, no-one is making any judgment of "which came first, the chicken or the egg?" This is merely a system for categorizing knowledge and information (in this case articles). Thus there is a category that focuses on the Jews mainly called Category:Jews, and there is also a category that focuses on Judaism mainly called Category:Judaism. Eighthly, now it is because there is so much diverse, and even contradictory information (yes, it's a dilemma) in these two differing types of categories that it would be impossible according to all the rules of logic and fact to create a "one size fits all" category out of Category:Judaism alone. Ninthly, that is where the beauty and functionality of the system of categorization comes into the picture whereby a larger parent category called Category:Jews and Judaism comes into play whereby both categories can co-exist side by side happily and truthfully. That's all -- do not read more into the "tea leaves" because there are none here. Finally, you are trying to make this into a "do or die" battle about the supremacy of Judaism, but that is not the question here. The only issue is the best system of organizing the information about these subjects on Wikipedia using it's system of categories. For more help on this subject you may also want to read up on Help:Category and Wikipedia:Categorisation FAQ. Thank you. IZAK 05:56, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. My preference is that this be merged with Category:Judaism per nom, but I'd be willing to listen to arguments that it should be merged the other way. But having both cats seems silly and redundant. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Brian, why not take a look at what is in Category:Jews alone and then Category:Judaism alone (and see why they can BOTH be sub-categories of a parent category like Category:Jews and Judaism but NOT of Category:Judaism on its own.) Do you honestly think that it's right that Category:Jewish sportspeople or Category:Jewish cowboys or Category:Jewish anarchists or Category:Jewish film directors should feed straight into Category:Judaism? It would make absolutely no sense to do so according to any criteria of Judaism alone. Now that would be not just "silly and redundant", but hysterical and ludicrous. Please consider this seriously. IZAK 11:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment by Nom - IZAK, you are "short-sightedly" placing "Jews" on an equal pedestal with "Judaism" when that is clearly not the case. It is patently obvious to anyone willing to listen that Judaism came before Jews and is what makes a Jew a Jew - whether that Jew likes it, observes it, fathoms it, or not. Clearly, the Christian, Muslim and Hindu categorisers have no trouble understanding this concept. Nesher 12:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: "It is patently obvious to anyone willing to listen…" borders on an ad hominem attack on those who disagree with you. It changes nothing and proves nothing. -- Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Point taken - Nesher 17:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Nesher: I do not really wish to engage you in a theological debate, but I can easily refute you. I think you are confusing a Godly perspective with the perspective of human beings. While Jews worship God, they are unable to understand the way God runs the world. Thus Jewish history can be seen and understood from the narrative of human events and not just by insights into quasi-mystical interpretations posturing as having "inside information" to other-worldly visions and perspectives which you are clearly alluding to as I understand your urgument/s here to be. Perhaps others may not sense the direction you are coming from, but I do, and I disagree with your approach and its suitability for Wikipedia. Wikipedia is not a yeshiva for Torah study where Daat Torah of Torah Judaism must prevail at all costs -- even if I wish it could be so, it could never be, as things stand, unless the Jewish Messiah were to turn up tomorrow and take over the Internet to teach Judaism his way. Rather, you need to grasp that Wikipedia is a secular online encyclopedia that must accomodate all views, for better or worse. Furthermore, in the Torah there is no such thing called "Judaism" as such because it was formulated much later in history and then named for only one of Jacob's sons Judah (each of the 12 Israelite tribes in fact had its own forms of "Judaism"!) "Judaism" is thus named for those connected with the Tribe of Judah who founded the later Kingdom of Judah and Judea. Indeed, Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, the fathers of the Children of Israel lived long before anyone ever thought there would ever be something called "Judaism" many millenia after they had died. Scholars know that in fact "Judaism" is not even a "religion" as such -- it's not even a "Jewish word" since Jewish texts like the Tanakh, Talmud; Shulkhan Arukh or rabbinic literature do not refer to the "religion" of the Jewish people as Yahadut ("Judaism") -- they simply assume that Jews observe the 613 mitzvot ("commandments") as a DOGMA that has no name more than anything ! (Religious Jews today do not ask if someone observes "Judaism", rather it's "Is the person "shomer Shabbat?" or "shomer Torah U'Mitzvot" or a "yerei shamayim" (one who "fears heaven") and suchlike, but it is never if this person observes Yahadut ("Judaism") and no-one in their right mind would say, that based on this, that all articles about Jews and Judaism should thus become sub-categories of Category:Shabbat or Category:Names of God in Judaism!) So, the Children of Israel, later called the Hebrews, and eventually called the Jews are commanded by God to practice and follow in the Torah to live according to its 613 mitzvot (in fact there were more but not all applied for all time.) In fact, Abraham started out life as an idol worshiper and NOT as a "Jew" at all, and he is considered the FATHER of the Jewish people, together with Isaac and Jacob according to classical Judaism itself. Additional dilemmas, according to the midrashim of Judaism, include the fact that Abraham fathered Ishmael the founder of Islam and Isaac fathered Esau who established Rome and its offshoot the Roman Catholic Church. Abraham, Isaac, Jacob, Judah and the Children of Israel are human people of flesh and blood, and according to the Torah itself, they had as much to do with the formation of Judaism, as their belief in God (which should not be confused with the totality of Judaism) guided them to do in their lives. True, God is infinite and He can exist without the Jews, but it does not run counter to anything in Judaism itself to say that there can be no Judaism without Jews in the sense that there can be no king without subjects. IZAK 07:19, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        IZAK: Sorry, but the impressions I'm getting here are pretty vague. I didn't know and would like the mekor for "each of the 12 Israelite tribes in fact had its own forms of "Judaism"". Secondly, I fail to see how this relates to the discussion at hand, rather, it is a long-winded and far-off-the-point tangent. Thirdly, your point that "scholars know that in fact "Judaism" is not even a "religion" as such... Religious Jews today do not ask if someone observes "Judaism", doesn't hold water, at least in my eyes. " I'd venture to say - nay, I'm fairly confident that religious Christians today do not ask if someone observes Christianity, but rather if they believe in xyz and do xyz and go to xyz on xyz. Similiarly, religous Hindus today do not ask if someone observes Hinduism. So, you seem to have left me more perplexed than before. Any explanation welcome. Many thanks, Nesher 15:51, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        
        Nesher: As I said, I would like to avoid a theological debate, and I would be glad to answer the questions about the seemingly unrelated tangents elsewhere. But on your last question, all I was pointing out was that clasically and historically, the Jewish religion was not called "Yahadut" ("Judaism") by the Jews who practiced it (and "Yiddishkeit" was a rather colloquial Yiddish expression never used in a learned sense.) Rather, "Judaism" is the name that the outside world uses to describe and identify the religion of the Jews, and which Jews have adopted as well out of convenience. Often, non-Jews cannot fathom that Jews did not need to "name" their religion the way that Christians need the names of their denominations or Muslims need the label "Islam" to define themselves. Indeed, clasically, just being simply a "Jew" implied that that person practiced "the (Torah) ways of the Hebrews/Israelites/Jews" or a "Hebrew/Israelite/Jewish (Mitzvah/Halakhic) life". The upshot being that the term "Judaism" is ultimately insignificant in terms of what it means, to the Jews especially. And getting back to this vote, there is nothing wrong with having the word "Jews" in a larger parent category, in fact it's most appropriate, and we could just as easily and 100% justifiably have only Category:Jews as the main parent category. Best wishes, IZAK 06:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as my first thought would be to regard Category:Jews as a subcategory of Category:Judaism (and Category:Muslims of Category:Islam, Category:Pagans of Category:Paganism, etc). David Kernow 00:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Nesher (talk · contribs) just reorganized a pile of these categories, and that's why they seem backwards. That's what he means by "is" as he just did it (out of process). Previously, as they had been organized for over 2 years, they made sense; both Category:Jews and Category:Judaism were subcategories of Category:Jews and Judaism. I'm putting things back in order now! --William Allen Simpson 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you User:William Allen Simpson. Until this debate/vote is resolved, and to avoid the distortions you rightly point out, User:Nesher's changes will thus need to be reverted so that other editors can evaluate the matter as it stood prior to Nesher's tendentious edits. IZAK 04:23, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Judaism. Category:Jews should be a subcategory of Category:Judaism. --Musicpvm 03:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There should be a single parent category for all articles relating to Judaism, and I'm not sure if there's a reason why it shouldn't be Category:Judaism. That said, IZAK does bring up some legitimate concerns, and I'd encourage an examination of the current categorization scheme, with an eye to improving the overall organization where necessary. Luna Santin 10:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Luna: Thanks for your comments. FYI the "overall organization" is very good -- there should be as little tampering as possible where long-established and known categories are concerned. Please note that Category:Jews and Judaism IS the parent category and Category:Jews and Category:Judaism are two of its sub-categories. It is logically and factually IMPOSSIBLE for Category:Judaism to be the main category (since "Judaism" refers to the religion of Judaism only which is something some people fail to grasp.) Indeed that is why there are seprate articles for Jew and Judaism because they CANNOT always be equated or fully connected -- not all Jews want or accept a connection with Judaism! If one looks at the type of sub-categories in Category:Jews and Judaism it is very obvious why Category:Judaism CANNOT supercede it. For example, there is no way that the sub-categories (and sub-sub-categories) like Category:Jewish society can EVER be part of Category:Judaism alone because things like Category:Jewish media; Category:Jewish film and theatre; or Category:Anti-Semitism with sub-sub categories like Category:Nazism and Category:Adolf Hitler OBVIOUSLY have nothing to do with Judaism as a religion but has everything to do with Jews as an ethnicity and a people and hence while it can be connectd to the long-established parent Category:Jews and Judaism it cannot fit into a more specific RELIGIOUS Category:Judaism alone. IZAK 10:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ahh, thanks. Now that I've read this a bit more closely, I will vote to keep, per IZAK and William Allen Simpson. Luna Santin 11:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment by nom' - IZAK, you're right yet you're still wrong. Of course, categories like "Jewish Society" and its sub-categories such as Jewish Media, "Jewish film and theatre" and "Anti-Semitism" cannot be part of Category:Judaism DIRECTLY - but of course the simple solution is to make Category:Jews and Judaism or Category:Jews into a sub-category of super-cat Judaism. Then, concepts like Anti-Semitism can be sub-sub categories. This is so absurdly simple I can't even grasp your opposition. Nesher 13:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Nesher: This is NOT a word game! Just by saying something (verbally or in writing) does not make it so (in the real world and in fact)! I cannot understand anything you have just said here so it's impossible for me to comment. Clear thinking will lead to clear categories. IZAK 07:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. Jews are Jews because of present or past allegiance with Judaism. Only revisionists claim that there were Jews before there was Judaism. JFW | T@lk 10:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Umm JFW: What "revisionism"? Once upon a time Wikipedia had a combined article for Jews and Judaism but they were split, as you no doubt recall. So why was there a split between the two core articles of Jew and Judaism on Wikipedia? It was for the very good reason that the two are different subjects and need to be handled differently. Even from the Biblical perspective, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob came before Judaism and not after it, so your point here is moot. In any case, this is a discussion and vote about CATEGORIES on Wikipedia and how to accomodate divergent views without confusing and mixing up logical and truthful categories, it's not about theological arguments. (See Wikipedia:Category and Wikipedia:Categorization which I have read and always try to apply and follow...has User:Nesher familiarized himself with these guidelines before he lodged his criticisms here?) What about Jews for Jesus or Secular Jewish culture is that also to be part of "Judaism"? One cannot blow a trumpet of "Judaism ubber alles" while ignoring simple realities that there are other related domains that need to be categorized here but they will never fit in a Judaism category alone...unless...the real "trick strategy" was to eventually dump all the non-Judaic categories into some other realm...?) At any rate, you cannot squeeze outlandish topics that are obviously not part of Judaism into a "Judaism" category, ever. There has to be something a little broader, and Category:Jews and Judaism has served that function well for two years now (you never complained...) IZAK 10:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Rename. I agree with IZAK that there is an important distinction here. I don't think, as JFW suggests, that it is a matter of first or last. Many people see themselves as Jewish but this has little or no bearing on their religion. Despite my feeling of a need for a distinction, I am not sure that the current category names are clear, although they do correspond to the relevant articles as IZAK points out. Maybe what is currently in Judaism should be Jewish religion and the contents of Jews and Judaism should be merged into Judaism. Yet some of the boundaries will remain blurred. jnothman ^talk 11:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi jnothman: What would be the point of moving the furniture around if we aren't going anywhere? Firstly, Judaism = "Jewish religion." Would it occur to anyone to rename Category:Christianity to "Christian religion" or Category:Islam to "Islamic religion" and then shove into the "empty spaces" very artificial subjects that are only tangentially connected (and even opposed to) the very essence of either Christianity or Islam? Of course NOT! So why even think along such lines here? Finally, there is nothing unclear about a parent category called Category:Jews and Judaism that has as its two main sub-categories Category:Jews and Category:Judaism. How much plainer could or should it be? User:Nesher's complaint is not credible because anyone who reads simple English and wishes to get to know how the categories work can do so very easily. Perhaps he is in a rush whereas this system has been working extremely well for two years now. IZAK 11:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Keep per IZAK.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 11:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- as IZAK points out, there are many sub-cats of the over-category Category:Jews and Judaism that are relevant to Jews but have nothing to do with Judaism, and vice-versa. Moreover, there are sub-cats that seem to fit between the lines -- such as Category:Anti-Semitism or Category:Israel -- which do fit in the over-category, but aren't directly related to Judaism or Jews per se Ð’n^talk 11:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- D'n:FYI, subjects relating to Category:Israel are part of another parent super-category called Category:Israel and Zionism which is a very distinct category with some obvious connections and overlap/s at times to categories and subjects in Category:Jews and Judaism. IZAK 12:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment by nom - D'n: When you say "sub-cats of the over-category Category:Jews and Judaism that are relevant to "Jews" but have nothing to do with "Judaism"" - I assume you refer to catgeories such as Category:Jewish society, Category:Jewish education and Category:Jewish history. This is not a rhetorical question - Why on earth can each of these not be placed into a sub-category of supercategory Judaism (i.e. the categories "Jews" and/or "Jews and Judaism" will become sub-catgeories of "Judaism") -- Let me give you some solely needed examples:
    1. Category:Jainism is the sole super-cat for all things Jain
    2. Category:Christianity is the sole super-cat for all things Christian
    3. Category:Islam is the sole super-cat for all things Muslim - i.e. "Muslims" are a sub-cat
    4. Category:Bahá'í is the sole super-cat for all things Bahai
    5. Category:Buddhism is the sole super-cat for all things Buddhist
  - This is verging on the ridiculous. Can you not see the sense? -- Nesher 13:21, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Yes, people who disagree strongly may see each other's views as "verging on the ridiculous", but that doesn't magically make one side right. Christians, Muslims, Bahá'í, and Buddhists are in no senses ethnicities; I'm not so sure about Jainism, but I'm pretty certain that there is no secular Jainist culture comparable to secular Jewish culture. These are simply poor analogies. An analogy that cuts the opposite way would be something like Category:Bulgarian Orthodox Church which is under Category:Bulgaria or Category:Romanian Orthodox Church which is under Category:Religion in Romania. I'm not saying that is a more valid analogy. I'm saying that it is an equally invalid analogy to yours. Category:Judaism does not belong under Category:Jews any more than vice versa. This is exactly why the supercategory is legitimate here. - Jmabel | Talk 16:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Pecher ^Talk 11:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep per IZAK. It might be tempting to reduce everything to Judaism, but even a first-pass read of the articles involved will make it clear that it's all broader and more complex than that. We may want to consider a better taxonomy for this broad subject, but this kind of reductionism won't do it. --Leifern 12:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and keep. Analogies with Hindus and Hinduism or Islam and Muslims do not hold - because these are all religious concepts. If we really have to make analogies, I'd say Jews and Judaism are closer in concept to Greeks and Greek orthodoxy - a people with a religion and a culture. While the people may not "exist" without their religion or culture, the people are not a subcategory of their religion (or culture). - Hillel 13:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Why are "Hindus and Hinduism or Islam and Muslims" called "religious concepts" whereas Jews and Judaism aren't? Surely, the latter is most definitively a religous concept - there wouldn't be Jews without Judaism. Sorry, you can't have it both ways. Either you're Jewish (any level of observance) or you're not; one can't call oneself a non-practising Jew and define oneself as completely distinct from the rubric of Judaism - it's an oxymoron. If you invoke one, the other is by definition connected. Nesher
  - Comment - Nesher, you are making an assumption that is disputed, which is that Jews are to Judaism as Hindus are to Hinduism, Christians are to Christianity, etc. There is lots and lots of literature on this issue, and it can be highlighted with Mordechai Kaplan's (also disputed) assertion that "Judaism is the evolving religious civilization of the Jewish people," which makes peoplehood supreme to religion; whereas others would have it the other way. It would be meaningless to talk about "secular Christian culture," but meaningful to talk about "secular Jewish culture." I suppose every religion and every nationality is unique in its own way; on this topic, the Jewish enterprise is unique. --Leifern 15:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment - Of course they're connected. That doesn't mean we can reduce a people to a subcategory of their religion. Within many cultures, your relationship with the religion of your people is necessarily part of your identity, and within this context not practising it (or practising Buddhism instead) is indeed a significant link/relationship in itself. That doesn't mean that Spaniards are a subcategory of Catholisism, Greeks a subcategory of Greek Othodoxy, or the People of Israel a subcategory of Judaism. – Hillel 14:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is a lot of logic to having a super-category for both religious and secular categories. It does not make sense to lump the articles together. That said, I agree with jnothman that renaming in such a way to make 'Jews and Judaism' into 'Judaism' (consistent with other religions) and what is currently in Judaism be renamed something else that point to the religion of the Jewish people. Nevertheless I also think that Izak raises a good point that there aren't really any naming alternatives that are any clearer. Jon513 15:12, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, possibly rename. I myself am a Jew who does not actively practice Judaism. When my family ceased to be actively religious (sometime in the 19th century for most of my ancestors) that did not change our ethnicity. Yes, I am very skeptical about the small number of non-Jews (neither born nor formally converted) who claim to practice Judaism, but that says nothing about the literally millions of secular Jews who may or may not have a sentimental attachement to Judaism, but certainly do not practice it. The ethnic identity and religion are strongly related—very strongly—but that does not make the ethnic identity a subset of the religion. - Jmabel | Talk 15:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Keep per IZAK. Yevgeny Kats 18:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - this discussion won't be solved here anyway. I'm sorry if most people think that 'Judaism' is a religion. I understand Nesher's nom, but unfortunately, wp is a democracy with all the disadvantages of democracy emphasized. FWIW, the Jews cat should be a sub cat of Category:Sons of Israel which should be under Category:Ancient peoples --Shuki 20:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per nom. IZAK's arguments about confusing secular judaism with religious Judaism are really nothing more than a red herring. All the subcats of "Jews and judaism" could just as easily be subcats of "Judaism", and vice-versa. Creating two functionally identical cats is wasteful and confusing. --Bachrach44 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Bachrach: There is no such thing as "secular Judaism"! There are secular Jews, yes, but not "secular Judaism" -- even Humanistic Judaism is a religion albeit minus the Jewish God. And who has ever heard of "religious Judaism"? There is no such thing because Judaism by definition only means the religion itself. Please review the above discussions carefully to see what is actually being said and do not recast the discussion in terms that no-one, but you, is using. I am deeply offended that you regard my hard work as a "red herring" of all things. The roots of the discussion/s we are having here, and the reason there are both Category:Judaism and Category:Jews that are contained in the parent Category:Jews and Judaism, all goes back to OLD discussions on Wikipedia, some three or four years in fact, leading to the split between the Jew and Judaism articles into separate articles. You will need to go back to the early archives of those articles' individual talk pages at Talk:Jew and Talk:Judaism to understand how and WHY those subjects got split into articles of their own and how that in turn, when the system of categories on Wikipedia was introduced, influenced and spawned the creation of two different categories of Category:Jews and Category:Judaism as categories that cannot be the same, and in turn how the parent Category:Jews and Judaism could, and does, legitimately house them both. Thanks for giving this a little deeper thought. IZAK 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Satirical Comment as an IT person - yet another example of hierarchical decomposition being completely inadequate - go multidimensional ;) Kuratowski's Ghost 23:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But do you vote nay or yea? IZAK 08:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per IZAK. Jews (a cultural and ethnic group) and Judaism (a religion), though related, are not identical. Dauster 01:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose and Keep per IZAK. ShalomShlomo 02:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Books critical of Judaism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 10:36, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete - This is an entirely redundant category. Besides being completely empty, any serious and non anti-semitic criticism can be found in Category:Biblical criticism. That makes this category a needless duplication. Nesher 21:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 22:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, if it can be populated. There do already exist similiar categories: Category:Books critical of Christianity and Category:Books critical of Islam. However, wouldn't there be a lot of overlap between this category and Category:Books critical of Zionism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by MakeRocketGoNow (talk • contribs)

If Judaism is necessary for Zionism, I'd say Category:Books critical of Zionism would be a subcategory of Category:Books critical of Judaism. Meanwhile, I believe there is a distinction between "Books critical of Judaism" and "Biblical criticism", not least as Judaism is not the only religion to refer to a collection of scriptures known as a "Bible". Regards, David Kernow 00:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep -- what the heck does "Biblical" criticism have to do with Judaism? --William Allen Simpson 01:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate per MakeRocketGoNow; if I'm not mistaken, Category:Books critical of Zionism is about a political topic, while Category:Books critical of Judaism should be about a religious one. N'est-ce pas? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Pegship; nom is furthermore wrong to equivocate criticism of Judaism with Biblical criticism and vice versa. Postdlf 01:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept for future population, may be wise to rename it to Category:Criticism of Judaism to increase the scope of the category, allowing for the inclusion of more articles. That said, while many criticisms of the Bible may be relevant to Judaism, it's important to remember the seperation between the Old and New Testaments (among other things), and that not all criticisms will necessarily refer to the Bible. Thanks for the thought, though, I can see where you're coming from. Regards, Luna Santin 10:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Does anyone know if this was depopulated in advance of the nomination? Osomec 13:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Honestly, do you really think I'd stoop so low? Nesher
Delete attack category - unlikely anything in here would be encyclopedic. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you believe the same of the above categories for books critical of Christianity and of Islam? Postdlf 00:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, since it appears to be empty. No view either way at the moment on whether it could be a legitimate category, since there is no content to illustrate the point either way. - Jmabel | Talk 16:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for now, as per Jmabel. --Shuki 20:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Jayg Kuratowski's Ghost 23:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- we already have Category:Anti-Semitism and Category:Jewish Christian topics, which, together, more than adequately cover anything this category could ever hope to, and with a much more reasonable scope. Tom e r ^talk 05:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep similer cats exist, and merely pointing out that there are things critical to X is not an attack nor criticism of X. -M^ask 21:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per AKMask. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Billboard number one categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was revised rename. Conscious 10:34, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These should be renamed to reflect the new chart names. In the proposed names, I also removed the hyphen in "number-one" so they will be consistent with their parent categories Category:American number one singles and Category:Number one singles. If the hyphen should be removed (I'm not sure if it necessary or not but it seems it should be removed for consistency reasons), these following categories should be renamed as well:

--Musicpvm 21:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support for new chart names, Oppose removal of hyphen - If the chart name is updated then definitely change the category name. As far as the hyphen, I think the categories without the hyphen should have it added. I might be wrong, but I assumed that grammatically a hyphen is correct when "number-one" is used as an adjective, but not needed when used as a noun. -- eo 12:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support for renaming the Hot Dance Club Play chart, oppose removal of hyphen, which is grammatically wrong. —Eternal Equinox | talk 22:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, Ok, that makes sense. I will revise my proposal. --Musicpvm 21:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States district court cases → Category:United States District Court cases

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 10:32, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. If Category:United States Court of Appeals cases is capitalized, then this one should be, too.—Markles 20:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; "district court" is only capitalized when referring to a specific court rather than United States district courts generally; same as with the U.S. courts of appeals. The COA category is instead miscapitalized. Postdlf 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Fine with me, I don't care which gets corrected. Nevertheless one is capitalized (COA) and the other is not (dc). It should be consistent.—Markles 21:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Portal:Foo

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per revised proposal (see table). Conscious 10:44, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Following on from renaming the Category:Wikipedia:Foo categories, and a nomination below, we should rename these. The suggestion is Category:Fooian Portal for countries and geographic regions, and Category:Foo Portal for others. SeventyThree^(Talk) 21:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Support sounds reasonable to me. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename each to Category:X portals / Category:Portals for X / etc as each carries more than one portal. David Kernow 13:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not true. Several of these contain subpages for a specific portal, rather than having several portals. For that reason, rename either to Category:X/Xian Portal or Category:X/Xian Portals on a case by case basis. Grutness...wha? 01:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - How about:

Rename from	to
Category:Portal:Africa	Category:African portals
Category:Portal:Americas	Category:Americas portals, but perhaps Category:Portals to the Americas or the like to avoid awkward double plural.
Category:Portal:Asia	Category:Asian portals
Category:Portal:Canada	Category:Canadian portals
Category:Portal:Cannabis	delete? (Portal:Cannabis the only member)
Category:Portal:Cars	Category:Cars Portal
Category:Portal:Cars anniversaries	Category:Cars Portal anniversary pages
Category:Portal:Cars quotes	Category:Cars Portal quote pages
Category:Portal:Cars selected articles	Category:Cars Portal selected articles
Category:Portal:Cars selected pictures	Category:Cars Portal selected pictures
Category:Portal:Christianity	Category:Christianity portals
Category:Portal:Computer and video games	Category:Computer and video game portals
Category:Portal:Dragonlance	Category:Dragonlance Portal pages
Category:Portal:Europe	Category:European portals
Category:Portal:Food	Category:Food portals
Category:Portal:Fromer Cars selected articles	Category:Cars Portal former selected articles
Category:Portal:Geography	Category:Geography portals
Category:Portal:India	Category:India Portal (and merge Category:India portal)
Category:Portal:India/Selected article removal candidates (NB currently empty)	Category:India Portal selected article candidates for removal
Category:Portal:Latin America	Category:Latin American portals
Category:Medicine portal	Category:Medicine Portal
Category:Portal:Middle-earth subpages	Category:Middle-earth Portal (and add Portal:Middle-earth)
Category:Portal:North America	Category:North American portals
Category:Portal:Oceania	Category:Oceanian portals
Category:Portal:Religion	Category:Religion portals
Category:Portal:Southeast Asia	Category:Southeast Asian portals
Category:Portal:Sports	Category:Sports portals
Category:Portal:Television	Category:Television portals
Category:Portal:Tropical cyclones	Category:Tropical cyclones Portal
Category:Portal:United States	Category:United States portals

Apologies in advance if I've missed any containing pages rather than portals. Regards, David Kernow 02:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nuts, I missed that most of them contain portals - well caught, both of you. I'd disagree on the new renames though, because I see no reason to split "articles related to the Foo Portal" from "subportals of the Foo Portal". For example, Category:Portal:Food contains both Category:Food portal selected articles and the subportals of Food (Cooking and Beer). SeventyThree^(Talk) 06:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

Taking the Portal:Food example, Portal:Cooking and Portal:Beer appear to be related but standalone portals rather than subportals, hence my "...portals" suggestions. However, I may well be missing something. Regards, David 13:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Added Category:Medicine portal to list... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, the category for pages relating to the New Zealand Portal are simply in Category:New Zealand Portal, which is in line with the renaming proposal. I agree with all the above rename proposals (i.e., the ones in the table), but wonder whether it would be worthwhile adding Portal: Middle-earth to the category and simply renaming to Category:Middle-earth Portal. Grutness...wha? 00:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good, I've adjusted the nomination above. Since that's more of a rescope than the others, I've whacked a {{Cfd-article}} on Portal talk:Middle-earth to let them know (and object if they want). I still prefer my general format, but it's not a big issue as long as the double-namespace thing goes. SeventyThree^(Talk) 09:32, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Six of one half-dozen of the other to me. Sounds fine for the Middle-earth portal specifically and these categories in general. --CBD 10:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree for the medicine portal.--Steven Fruitsmaak 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dark Lords

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 10:31, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV, misnamed (should be prefixed with Fictional if allowed to exist), fancruft. CovenantD 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename if kept. Dark Lord handles this pretty well. Perhaps just add this as a "See also" link to the articles contained in this category? --LV ^{(Dark Mark)} 19:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indian Navy ships to Category:Naval ships of India

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn/no consensus. Conscious 10:29, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These are synonymous and should be merged. I think merging into Naval ships of India is more consistent with other ship categories, but I don't care much about which gets merged where as long as a merge occurs. TomTheHand 19:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge I would suggest merge to Indian Naval ships, seems to be the more natural phrase of the two. --Wisd e n17 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge both to Category:Ships of the Indian Navy. David Kernow 01:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Almost every Naval ships of foo category has a Fooian Navy ships subcategory. - EurekaLott 03:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I see what you're saying, EurekaLott. I was probably mistaken in nominating this for merge. I don't agree with every country having a "Naval ships of (country)" cat and those cats having a "(country's navy) ships" subcat, but it is consistent. This one was just an unusually big mess. The cats need cleanup, not merging. TomTheHand 18:56, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I believe having 2 pages with the same topic is a waste of space and also contributes to splitting away of information —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.117.175.130 (talk • contribs) .

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus. As has been the case in the past, there is no clear consensus on what to do with these categories at this time. Late in the disucussion, some alternatives began to get discussed that may warrant further discussion, and Category talk:Wikipedians by politics appears to be an approriate venue. This master category affects a ton of users, and links to any straw polls, or other options brought up in the future discussion should be properly linked to from village pump and/or other community related areas. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:35, 4 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories

See also: Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_29#Category:Advocates_of_traditional_British_counties_to_Category:Wikipedians_who_advocate_traditional_British_counties.

* Note To random admin wandering by. We're stil ltrying to reach consensus, do not close this CFD yet. -- Drini 17:32, 29 June 2006 (UTC), Looks like we are ready to close, per nominator (see bottom of page) -- Samuel Wantman 06:15, 1 July 2006 (UTC) -That's your opinion. I think there is still enough debate about this. Larix 22:29, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No encyclopedic value, possible votestacking use Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note - when I get access to AWB, I will mark all of the categories individually.

Note: This is not a discussions about userboxes. No userboxes will deleted whatever the outcome of this. This is about the categories -- Drini 20:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This category was kept twice as a result of two earlier Cfd debates. January 4 2006 and December 18 2005 --Facto 20:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC) NOTE On december, these categories were closed as KEEP while on January they were closed as No consensus. It's been over 6 months since then, it's valid to CFD again to gauge consensus. -- Drini 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support These contribute to factionalization, assuming bad faith (when seen by an oppponent) and vote-stacking. Any need for expertise on a partisan view can be better addressed by listing the request on the talk page of the relevant party, where it will be seen by those who care about the partisan view, regardless of whether they hold it. GRBerry 18:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Coming back to elaborate. The first sentence puts the problems in decreasing order of importance, per my eyes. Factionalization is worst, making people assume bad faith is next, and vote-stacking is least important. Having a party/faction based category factionalizes us in a way that declaring a bias/POV on our user pages does not. Go take a look at User:GRBerry mine. I have a bias declaration section, using things that are modified from userboxes (not inclusions or even plan subst's of them). What I consider my relevant biases are very visible to anyone that cares to look - but not visible in a category and not reachable by "what links here". So my bias is exposed without being in a reachable faction. As I said initially, any need for expertise (the only encyclopedic value of the categories) can just as readily be filled by asking on the talk page of the article about the relevant party. It can also be obtained, as others have already suggested below, by asking on a relevant Portal Talk page or a relevant Project Talk page.

I understand, and somewhat agree with GTBacchus' belief that this might be to soon for this proposal. But if you look at the full CFD page for 2006 June 19, you'll see two discussions about specific parties. A lot of the opposition to the first listed was of the "all or none would be ok, but not one-by-one" form. And when the first comment to the second listed (mine) was identical, I think the nominator decided to take us at our word and believe that there was signficant support for getting rid of all. GRBerry 17:30, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Shouldn't a deletion notice appear at top of page Category:Wikipedians by politics that reads "This category is being considered for deletion..." before this vote proceeds? JungleCat 19:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Done. All the subcategories should be tagged, too. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Let the voting begin...... JungleCat 19:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um.... ~~voting~~ → discussion -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC) (knocking furiously on wood)[reply]
Discussion? I can't wait to discuss the next Presidential Election. ;-) JungleCat 19:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
GTBacchus is pointing that here on wikipedia, decisisons are not taken because of majority (that is, by vote counting) but by weighing is arguments and building consensus (that is 100 "voters " with weak or no arguments in favor vs 1 sound argument against makes the outcome to be in favor of the 1 sound argument against). Remember Wikipedia is not a democracy -- Drini 21:38, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ (changing suggestion - see waaaay below for explanation with timestamp: 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)) - This had to happen eventually, and although I think this is premature, I'll go ahead and support it. User categories according to political beliefs are a bad way for Wikipedians to network, especially when there are so much better ways to do it. We all have watchlists, there are WikiProjects and Portals, all of which are set up to enable us to find each other and communicate according to our editing interests. Another layer of organization, totally detatched from the article space, according to beliefs that may or may not have anything to do with our Wikipedia editing, is a recipe for abuse, and suggests that Wikipedia is a place of partisan organization and partisan activity. Simply setting an example of not acting in a partisan manner is not sufficient when we cheerfully provide infrastructure for partisan organization. We should stop sending mixed signals, and focus on writing an encyclopedia. We can celebrate our diversity, network with ohther Wikipedians, and build a stronger community that is tightly bound to the project, by networking by means of articles, WikiProjects, and Portals. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRBerry and GTBacchus. Non-encyclopedic, promotes categorization irrelevant to editing, and potential vote-stacking/edit-warring tool. Fireplace 19:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Not really good for anything except vote-stacking, as far as I can see, with respect to building an encyclopedia. So, kill. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't realize it survived CFD as recently as around five months ago. I would preferably wait at least a year or so before trying to renominate; five months is long enough that I'm not going to oppose on the basis of gaming the system, but I can't support a renomination so soon either. So neutral. —Simetrical (talk • contribs) 19:55, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support, categories should not be used to classify users, only articles. Rangeley 19:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, we will have a *lot* more categories to delete than are described here. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongest support possible categories should be used for articles mostly, and user categories should not pose such risk of compromise NPOV by being used as ways to coordinate block efforts (as it Conservative Wikipedians was in the past days (WP:AN/I). So yes, all political user categories shouldn't be welcomed at wikipedia. -- Drini 19:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Support~~ --GTBacchus has a good point. JungleCat 19:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- After some further thought, I Oppose. Please see this section of discussion dealing with userboxes: Wikipedia talk:Userboxes#Why_should_we_tolerate_polemical_userboxes? And YES, political userboxes ARE affected by this. JungleCat 21:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Divisive, inflammatory, unnecessary. --ajn (talk) 20:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support; contributes nothing to Wikipedia as an encyclopedia. Let's spend less time categorising users and more time improving articles. Warrens 20:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I will probably end up voting support, however why do we stop at political affiliations, can't the same be said for religious classifications etc? --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UE, and only lead to further conflict. --Wisd e n17 20:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support - If Category:Wikipedians by religion ever comes up for a vote, someone please notify me. While I think they can be used for good, I am afraid it will create bias. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being that the userbox war appears to be settling down with a compromise I don't mind seeing this go. It was one thing when the politics were broad, general categories (or philosophies), but looking at the subs now things have gotten way to specific and factional. Sadly the only way to handle it is to drop the whole branch. The religion branch should probably go as well as religion and politics tend to go hand in hand. I do think this should have waited a few more weeks as the German compromise is still growing roots and adding more conflict isn't going to help bring the extremists on board. In the end, having Wikipedian by skill or interest is enough for what the community is here for. --StuffOfInterest 21:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
However this is only marginally related to userboxes, which aren't under discussion here. This is about the categories themselves (no matter if they are populated via userbox or not) -- Drini 22:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is distinctly related in terms of people's ability and choices for identifying themselves. --StuffOfInterest 22:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Change my ~~vote~~ view to Keep. On further reflection, and after reading many of the other comments, I'd rather have people's POV clearly visible. If categories are banned then users will find other ways outside of Wikipedia to coordinate activities. At least if it happens on Wikipedia we have a better chance of identifying and dealing with it. Once it moves off site it will become more difficult to monitor and control. --StuffOfInterest 20:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just clarifying that this is not a vote so you cannot "change your vote". You can change your mind however, that's fine and write a new argument, which I see you did -- Drini 21:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What if we just got better at communicating the idea that coordinating by POV is actually a bad way to write an encyclopedia, and there were significant peer pressure to not think that way? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Human nature is too strong. There will always be goups who choose to coordinate their POV. Having categories such as these at least act as a honeypot so we can keep track of those using the technique. If nothing else, the categories can have a warning stating exactly what the categories should not be used for. If someone still goes ahead and spams based on it then there is easy grounds to block on. Driving the communications off site will make it much harder to track and quantify which makes justifying the blocks that much more difficult. --StuffOfInterest 20:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, I have a lot of faith in the ability of subcultures (Wikipedians) to develop their own standards and enforce them, but it requires people getting on board and helping to build momentum. What I think would be ideal would be, not to drive communication offsite, but to draw it into a more intimate connection with article space. Why communicate via an external categorization like user categories, when you could join a relevant WikiProject instead? Then people can communicate and express themselves and network to their heart's content, and they'd be doing it in a way that is quite blatantly encyclopedic, because the networking would take place over the editing of articles. Once a bunch of people are acting that way, newcomers will see that it's the way things are done here, and human nature won't present nearly the problem you imagine. Humans will adapt to the structures that are provided to them - if we provide more encyclopedic ways to network, why not trust people to grow into that, and encourage them into those structures by beginning to remove some of these old, less encyclopedia-oriented structures. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good in principal. Still, is this something which should be done with the "softly, softly" approach or with a big stick? I see the big stick as deleting an entire tree (or trees) of categories. Softly would be trying to educate people that there is a better way to organize and then as the categories depopulate to remove them. As it stands now mass action is more likely to create massive strife within the community. --StuffOfInterest 20:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
sigh... yeah. That's why I began my support for deletion above with "I think this is premature", but once they're nominated, I have to give my very best arguments, whether or not enough Wikipedians are ready for it to happen. This is also why I started a political-themed WikiProject last night, and if it seems to be working out well (which it does, so far), I'll probably help start more, and try to encourage networking that way. I'm an avowed opponent of the "big stick" approach, but I won't argue for keeping something that should go if there's a chance we can jettison it now. At some point, progress is progress. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this doesn't do the project any good. I don't have any opposition to "Wikipedians interested in x" search systems, but this has been repeatedly demonstrated to be a use of Category space that does more harm than good. Jkelly 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.-gadfium 23:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Support: Its fair for all categories to go.Gsingh 00:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support — however, the userboxes must be kept. Deleting userboxes without subst'ing is essentially vandalism. (If the userboxes weren't userified, it would be much easier to do, just by removing the category from the userbox.) I agree that the categories are of very little benefit. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

YES! This is not about the userboxes, the useroxes are fine, just a mean for people to state their beliefs. The categories however are an organizational tool and user categories by beliefs pose huge risks. For instance, today an user was spamming for support using some christianity user-category. -- Drini 23:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Divisive. Chicheley 01:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose this deletion, on the grounds that such categories are useful for community building and having fun, which are important in encouraging participation in the project. If we delete categories like this, we'd have to delete BJAODN too. Deco 02:08, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Um, that doesn't follow. We can delete these categories, and keep BJAODN. None of the arguments I see above, including the ones I made, apply to BJAODN. -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, they don't - I just don't find them very compelling personally. I don't believe these cats elevate conflict in any manner. Deco 06:47, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I feel I've seen it happen, when they're used as mailing lists for XfD discussion spam. "Hi, I see you identify as a Big-endian Wikipedian, so I'm asking you to come to CFD and vote to save Category:Little-endian baby-eaters. Kthx!" Does that seem to you like how the process is supposed to work? -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly oppose per Deco -- also, improperly formatted nomination, late tagging of subcategories, and apparent other process flaws including vote trolling --William Allen Simpson 02:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Vote trolling? Warrens 02:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per GTBacchus and the timestamps above, the tagging was done within 25 minutes of the nomination. With over 100 sub-categories to tag (some have subcategories themselves), 25 minutes doesn't strike me as unreasonable. As to how I could respons so fast, I had tje June 19 page on watch due to prior participation in the nominations of two of the subcategories of this. I endorse the request for you to explain the vote trolling comment.GRBerry 03:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, I tagged the main category within 25 minutes, but the others only just now got done by AWB (thanks Hipocrite). -GTBacchus^(talk) 06:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. I believe these categories help Wikipedia by notifying Wikipedians of their peers' political views. That is beneficial because it tells us something about users' bias, and that's not to say it's divisive or a bad thing. I see liberal Wikipedians all the time (I'm more or less conservative) and I don't get offended; I'm sure it's likewise as well. Эйрон Кинни (t) 05:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. —Khoikhoi 06:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Potentially useful for WikiProjects, no evidence of "wrongdoing". Nor are they "divisive", any more than userboxes saying you eat at McDonald's or drink Pepsi-cola are divisive. Reflects user biases rather than "creates" them, and helps others to know where users are coming from. Sarge Baldy 06:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose per above. We've had this discussion before, and an overwhelming majority voted to KEEP them. Larix 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. I have to admit this CFD has a seductive charm to it. We just get rid of the categories and by doing so help put an end to political bickering. But there are so many reasons why I oppose this:
1. Where do you draw the line? Which other categories of users might have an agenda and could use their category to disrupt Wikipedia? Well obviously Category:Wikipedians by philosophy would have to go, because the communists would find refuge in Category:Marxist Wikipedians, and the Republicans would all reorganize in Category:Capitalist Wikipedians. Next we'd have to remove Category:Wikipedians by sexuality, because the Category:LGBT Wikipedians could use the category to push the "gay agenda". Who knows what those Category:Kurdish Wikipedians might decide to do, so lets get rid of Category:Wikipedians by ethnicity, and while we are at it, we wouldn't want any nationalist associations hijacking the articles like Iraq, or Israel so let's delete all of Category:Wikipedians by location. Likewise, we'd have to get rid of Category:Wikipedians by religion and Category:Wikipedians by organization, because these could be pushing their religious beliefs or organizational objectives. The Category:Unitarian Universalist Wikipedians may be just a front for the liberals, and the conservatives, may all decide to create Category:Baptist Wikipedians and use it to front their agenda. Eventually, we'll just be left with Category:Wikipedians who can solve a Rubik's Cube, and decide that it isn't nice to brag and delete them too. Seriously, I don't think that it is possible to draw a line and say these user categories can be used for POV pushing and others cannot.
2. Removing these categories makes Wikipedia less interesting. There is a social value to having Wikipedia user categories. People use Wikipedia as a social outlet. Associating with editors of similar beliefs makes people feel like they belong here.
3. These categories demonstrate that Wikipedia is a big tent. I often here people rant something like "Wikipedia is run by a group of homosexual marxists..." or some other collection of ideologies. Having these categories lets newbies know that they are welcomed no matter what their beliefs are. They will see that there are others like them here already.
4. Removing these categories will not solve the problem. If people want to organize to disrupt a discussion they will find some other means to do it. They will create noticeboards to create a list of likeminded people. If the noticeboards are banned, they will create a list of users on their own talk pages. If these lists are removed, they will keep an e-mail list in their e-mail program. Having this in the open where it can be watched is better than having it hidden.
5. Freedom of association is a good thing. Nobody likes being told who they can communicate with and associate with. This is a basic democratic value. Freedom of association is not the same as freedom to conspire to disrupt. Yes, Wikipedia is not a democracy. But does that mean we want to turn it into a totalitarian state?
6. People have a need to express themselves. We give people userpages for this reason. It is hard to maintain a constant NPOV outlook on the world. We say that user pages are the place where people can express themselves and the categorization of Wikipedians is an extension of this. If we tell people not to categorize themselves by their beliefs, next thing we will do is tell them not to express their beliefs anywhere in Wikipedia. After all, if you say that you are a Democrat or Republican on your user page, someone can take note of it and contact you when a controversy comes up.
7. These categories are useful. A liberal editor might want a conservative editor to take a look at something for a POV check. I listed myself as an LGBT Wikipedian because I wanted others to know that I may have a bias, and expect to be called on it. I felt that listing myself that way was in a sense a pledge to try and edit in NPOV way, in large part because I was not trying to hide who I was and what my bias may be. When I see people editing a controversial article in an NPOV way and they have stated their personal opinions very clearly on their user pages it adds to my respect and appreciation for them.
8. Deleting these categories does not assume good faith. There are hundreds and hundreds of people who have categorized themselves in these categories. Many may have done so with only the most noble intentions.
9. Draconian measures like this are more disruptive than the problems they are trying to solve. I could have spent the time spent here writing articles about bridges. Deleting these categories is likely to be seen as an over-reaction to a problem which may lead to dissent and disillusionment. Here's an example of how "vote-stacking" can be handled in a much nicer and calmer way. Problems need to be solved with discussion and creative solutions. Draconian measures alienate others, scare off newbies, and escalate confrontation.
10. We should regulate behavior, not speech and association. Let us be clear about how consensus works, it works by building consensus through dialogue. By responding to offenses of "vote-stacking", by removing categories, we tacitly give our approval to the idea of making decisions by voting and encourage people to think that it is reasonable to vote on issues of fact. We shouldn't give the appearance that we are protecting the sanctity of the voting process. There is no vote-stacking because there is NO VOTE, there is just discussion. We should be encouraging admins to make decisions that are only swayed by arguments and not numbers. We should work on coming up with creative solutions to our current scaling problems. There are serious problems to be dealt with. But this CFD is not the solution and may be very harmful to Wikipedia. -- Samuel Wantman 09:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. noone has said other categories can' be used for POV pushing. The point is that this ones ARE BEING USED to compromise NPOV in several ways, and so this is ABOUT POLITICAL CATEGORIES other kind of categories may be deal with later. -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
2. Except that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia If you want a social networking site, go MySpace. The fact that people use wikipedia as a social outlet doens't mean it's a make-friends-site. Priorities first. -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  In support of Drini's point here, please see meatball:DefendAgainstPassion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
3. Users can just write so about on their pages and you can point to them. This point is moot since people will rant anyway for any reason. We don not need to disprove what is not true. -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
4. Be it so. Let's not facilitate the wrong behaviour by rationalizing it's inevitable -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
5. Wikipedia is not a state so it cannot become a totalitarian state. Use better arguments, you can communicate with other peopl, noone is forbidding so, this is just about categorizing people, not forbidding communication -- Drini 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
6. There are plenty of expressing outlets there. We didn't give userpages for that reason. We gave userpages so people could coordinate their wikiwork not for socializing or expressing themselves. People doing that doesn't change the fact it's a misuse. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
7. And These categories are hurtful as welll And the FACT is that they're not being the way you propose but the other ways, with liberal/conservatives/whatever contacting only their political friends in order to support their views and shut off the others. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
8. It does after examples of misuses. People may have categorized with good intentions, uncategorization isn't going to hurt them. This is just a point to divert the attention on what is on focus. There's nothing about good faith being dealt here. (In fact you're assuming bad faith by assuming this was done for some censorship prupose instead of helping the encyclopedia) -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
9. A draconian measure is not the same as a non trivial measure. There is no confrontation, you're the only one making it look that way this was a proposal, and people are giving their comments. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
10. We are not regulating speech, noone is forbidding you to write you're a conservative on your page Yyou are being misleading. There's no issue abotu speech. This is just about disbanding categories with a high potential of rish that have in fact being already used in ways they shouldn't be. People can express themselves, noone is forbidding speech. And as you rightfully point consensus doesn't mean majority since these are votes. So I HOPE the admin closing this CFD wil l consider the ARGUMENTS instead just votecounting. Here we agree. -- Drini 18:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
SamuelWantman, that was a very thorough explanation. Point by point, now:
1. Where will it end - you suggest that we may end up losing almost all non-encylcopedic user categories. I think that would be a good thing. Wouldn't it be great if Wikipedians were to network according to their encyclopedic activities, rather than according to something independent of the encyclopedia? (Intratextual comment: That would be "great" if the encyclopedia weren't about the outside (nonWikipedia) world. These user categories are one of many ways by which editors acting in good faith may contact other editors who have voiced interest in the topic. While bad faith uses are possible (and have occurred), I don't see how the project benefits by moving the scheming/votestacking off-site to a stealthier location. Isn't it good for the project to be able to see when folks are gaming the system, etc.? Dick Clark 21:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
2. This argument seems to be based on the misconception that Wikipedians can't associate with like-minded Wikipedians without user categories. You have not addressed that ample other, better means available for association, which are not opposed, but encouraged. Clearly this is not about "freedom of association".
3. This argument is reasonable, but the fact that Wikipedia is built by all kinds should be apparent from working on articles.
4. This is based on a misundersanding of what "the problem" is. This is about a deeper cultural issue than "vote-stacking".
5. Nobody is suggesting limits on who people can communicate with. You have not addressed the ample, better means available for association, which are not opposed, but encouraged.
6. This arguemnt suggests that unencyclopedic user categories are necessary for self-expression, and ignores the ample, and better means for self-expression available here.
7. A better way to find an editor knowledgable about a certain topic is via articles, projects and portals. You have not addressed this clearly encyclopedic means of networking; in fact some of your arguments rely for their strength on the assumption that encyclopedic means of networking don't exist.
8. This deletion proposal has nothing to do with anyone's good faith. If the categories are a bad idea, people could have joined them for the best of reasons, and they still have to go.
9. This arguments seems to assume that "vote-stacking" is the problem this deletion is trying to solve. It isn't; it's one small facet of the problem.
10. Again, this is not about vote-stacking, and you seem to be ignoring the arguments that have been presented (not in this thread yet) about how so-called "vote-stacking" is actually discussion disruption, and is disruptive regardless of the fact that we don't do votes.
In summary, I'm not buying it. I suspect your intentions are as good as can be, but you seem to be largely misunderstanding the arguments for deletion, as you're responding to what I consider to be straw-men. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep, per SamuelWantman's points (except 10, the implications of such a change in policy would be tremendous, raise it up on the Village Pump or soemthing, not at CfD.). +Hexagon1 ^(t) 12:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a vote, I invite you to elaborate further, maybe on the counterpoints raised to waltman's ones? -- Drini 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all It is not true that there is no voting, that is merely idealistic rhetoric. Numbers are inevitably a crucial part of the discussion process. Making a blanket assumption of good faith in in the face of such widespread temptation to act in bad faith is also unrealistic: such a policy is only viable if reasonable steps are taken to control abuse. Osomec 13:33, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support -- per GTBacchus - TexasAndroid 14:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per GRBerry and GTBacchus. CovenantD 14:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per Samuel Wantman - couldn't have put it better myself. --gbambino 14:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since this is not a vote, I invite you to elaborate further, maybe on the counterpoints raised to waltman's ones? -- Drini 20:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep these categories like all other categories of Wikipedian's are helpful to the community, they emphesize Wikipedia's deiversity and pluralism and thus help everyone find his/her own place. In addition, as commented above it can allow to help make the articles NPOV by making people aware of each others biases instead of bluntly ignoring their existance. In other words these categories help this community deal with its diversity intead of trying to eliminate it, which is both impossible, since people naturaly have a POV and are not machines, and unworthy since diversity can be helpful. Also, I think categories make Wikipedia more fun and help attract new members who contribute a lot and thus have also an indirect positive influence. If there is a SPECIFIC category used for vandelism or for imposing a certain POV then maybe such a specific category should be deleted instead of just deleting all of these categories altogether, although most of them are harmless. Such a draconian measure may also make many members who worked on these lists or joined them feel unwelcome and such a measure will seem more like an aggresive compulsion rather than a cosensus based decision.
I also strongly advise to read Samuel Wantman's 10 points listed above which better explain why deleting these categories is outrageous. In addition I have a question for those people thinking that categories "devide" the community and show members' POV and should therefore be deleted, doesn't this very voting/discussion "devide" the community in the exact same way that categories do? Should it then also be deleted?Tal :) 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User has advocated spamming user-talk pages to garner outside support for his position, in addition to posting a not-neutral notice to a wikiproject (a wikiproject I founded, none the less.) Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly I did not "spam" any user talk page but my own. Secondly there is nothing wrong with discussing stuff with other people (isn't that what talk pages are for?) and trying to "garner" "outside support" as I see it is trying to tell other people of what's going on so this voting will reflect Wikipedia's community's opinion and won't consist only of people who happened to notice it on the log... Thirdly, I did leave a message on the Wikiproject wikipedians against censorship, according to the project's own policy: "This notice board is intended to inform project members of current Wikipedia events related to censorship. Please list articles in need of attention...votes for deletion..." and I did add my own POV arguments so people will understand what I'm talking about and why I think it is important and worth mentioning on the noticeboard (specifically created, if i'm not mistaken, for these kinds of messages), BUT I also encouraged them to read this discussion and form their OWN opinion. Lastly, I believe that by your comment, intended to delegitimise my opinion, you have answerd my above question... Tal :) 16:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Tal, regarding your "I see it is trying to tell other people of what's going on so this voting will reflect Wikipedia's community's opinion", I have a reply. Since these discussions aren't votes, but they look like votes, it's actually damaging to act as if they are, and act as if trying to get a "representative sample" is a good idea. In a vote, that would make sense, and if Wikipedia were a democracy, we might have mechanisms in place to try to guarantee representative samples. Since it isn't, we don't pretend that rallying up a larger sample would necessarily have a positive effect on a discussion. To an extent, bringing in more opinions helps, but once the major opinions are represented, it's down to the arguments, not the numbers. It's a fact that discussions scale poorly (the density of one-to-one interactions goes down as the square of the group size), and at some point, more cooks really do ruin the cake. Worst of all, running around doing things to ensure that the "vote" is fair strongly reinforces the idea that decisions are made by votes here, and that's a destructive idea. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wantman. BoojiBoy 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since this is not a vote, I invite you to elaborate further, maybe on the counterpoints raised to waltman's ones? -- Drini 23:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wantman and others. Especially agreed that being open about potential bias helps achieve NPOV. Kestenbaum 16:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Good, I fully support being open about potential bias. That's not what this deletion proposal is about though; it's a red herring. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Blatant invitations to abuse. The idea that being open about bias helps to achieve NPOV is comical. It doesn't work in any other media and it won't work here. CalJW 19:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
User:CalJW is wrong -- being open about bias is virtually the only way to achieve NPOV. However, the categories are primarily used for spamming, even though they may have appropriate uses. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If that's your opinion then you must have a fundamentally different concept of NPOV to me. --Cherry blossom tree 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. Used for vote-stacking. --Carnildo 20:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strongly divisive, useless in creating an encyclopedia, devastatingly effective as a means of subverting consensus. They must die. --Tony Sidaway 20:29, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Folks, take Tony's word for this one...he's Wikipedia's expert at subverting consensus. Jay Maynard 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  What? No personal attacks, please. Can we all act kind of adult here, maybe? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - They encourage divisions and only hinder writing an encyclopaedia.--Cherry blossom tree 20:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep--Openness about your POV (in user space) is crucial to the collaborative process, and can often help editors understand whether a difficult contributor is acting in bad faith or is just being unintentionally obtuse. Dick Clark 21:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. That's scary, if you're willing to conclude bad faith based on what you see written in a userbox. Please read Wikipedia:Assume good faith carefully, and try not to think of difficult contributors as "bad faith" contributors. That said, I agree that openness about one's potential biases is a good thing, and yet I want to see these categories deleted. I guess disclosure of bias isn't the issue at stake after all. -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Umm, I never even hinted at a userbox or any combination of userboxen being sufficient evidence for such a belief. In fact, I specifically made the point that not all "difficult contributors" are acting in badfaith. That was indeed crucial to my assertion. Also, your assertion that this category deletion and bias disclosure are complimentary is what I am disputing. I know that you claim that to be so—that's why I'm saying that you are wrong. Let me get this straight: You claim that 1)GTBacchus thinks that bias disclosure is a "good thing"; 2) GTBacchus thinks that the categories should be deleted; 3)Therefore, bias disclosure and this cat deletion are compatible. I'm sorry, but that argument form seems pretty specious to me. Dick Clark 16:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if I misunderstood you. When you said "Openness about your POV (in user space)... can often help editors understand whether a difficult contributor is acting in bad faith or is just being unintentionally obtuse." So, it sounds like you're saying that there's something someone can say in their userspace that would enable us to conclude that they're a bad-faith editor. I see nothing to be gained from thinking that way, but perhaps I'm misunderstanding you. If so, I'm sorry about that; it wasn't intentional.

As for the disclosure of bias and category deletion being compatible or not, I guess they wouldn't be if user categories were the only way, or even the best way, to disclose bias, but they're not. I'm strongly in favor of disclosure of bias in appropriate ways, and strongly opposed to doing it in inappropriate ways. I hope that clarifies my point; I apologize for any confusion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 16:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest possible delete, kill, destroy all these categories which are bound to encourage POV massing and organised campaigns. David | Talk 21:24, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No use for them, other than being divisive. Also could very easily be used as a vote stacking tool. Garion96 ^(talk) 22:11, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No harm in finding out who has the same political ideaology as you.--GorillazFan Adam 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Nobody has addressed my first point. Where do we draw the line? If these categories are removed, we in all fairness must remove categories of Wikipedians related to location and religion, because those have also been used for "vote-stacking", and with the abolution of these categories likely to be used even more. I find this to be a proposal without a workable future. -- Samuel Wantman 22:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Textbook Questionable cause fallacy Hipocrite - «Talk» 23:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I believe the religions ones should also go away, but instead of wondering what about the others I believe the practical approach is better. Deal first with this kind. Then deal with the other and so on, given that trying to delete both kind of categories is a change so large that would make the decission taking much more complicated than handling them separatedly. -- Drini 23:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- I will give the answer Samuel Wantman was asking here: You will not draw the line until every category that alienates an opinion is eliminated. That’s it. Userboxes are targets here too, and I’ll tell you why. You see, Samuel Wantman was right when he pointed out that there will be other ways to form alliances, identify who does what, etc. For example, I could create a cute little userbox (let’s call it “Tacobell eaters who are conservative”) and I share it with my good WIKI friends who put it on their userpage. That userbox will have a link to a sub-page under my user page. All I have to do is go to that sub-page and hit What links here?. And – Whala! I have a my own user "category". There is more than one way to “skin a cat” (no pun intended).Samuel Wantman has some other good points, one of which was how to handle “vote stacking” in a friendly way: An example. One more point: ‘’Wikipedia is not a democracy’’ - OK, then some of you might want to look at your userpage. Does it conform to Wiki standards? Do you put things not related to work that you are doing on the articles in Wikipedia? Do you have a bias spelled out of who you are? Remember, this is not a democracy. POV’s are not allowed. GTBacchus has good points. That is why initialy supported this idea. Now, after thinking about the future effect this will have, I am now pulling a John Kerry and opposing this. JungleCat 13:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand this part: "Remember, this is not a democracy. POV’s are not allowed." Who's saying that POVs are not allowed? Do you realize that POV stands for "point of view", and that everybody's got one? How could they not be allowed? Do you really think that's the argument at stake here? -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:46, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe this section will shed light on what I am addressing: Wikipedia talk:Userboxes# Why should we tolerate polemical userboxes? (see my entry at bottom of page) JungleCat 18:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - If used properly, they do no harm. Why punish everyone for the mistakes of a few? - pm_shef 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Because they're being improperly used. But the main point is that nobody is being punished, nro censored, etc. You can write about your POVs on your page if you feel the need. Having a techcnical tool to facilitat networking with high risk for abuse (which has been done in the past) is not good. But this is not punishment to nay user. Please, keep the facts straight. -- Drini 23:20, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Inappropriately used by who? I can't recall every having got a message saying "help me stack the vote going on over here". Honestly I can't see that happens much at all. If it does, the 2 users doing it should be implored to stop, or otherwise made to stop. Sarge Baldy 00:23, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If I'm not mistaken, it's happened three times in the last week, twice with Category:Conservative Wikipedians, and according to Drini, once with some Christian category. I've seen way too many messages that say things like "Hi, I see you identify yourself as a Big-endian Wikipedian; please come to CfD and vote to save Category:Little-endian baby-eaters. Kthkx!" You only have to see that a few times before becoming convinced it's a problem. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:29, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A suggestion- correct me if I'm mistaken, but I get the feeling from reading the arguments for deletion that the main issue here is vote stacking (essentialy internal spamming). Unlike what people argued above, I believe that most vote stacking comes not from outright meaness and a conscious violation of Wikipedia's policies but rather out of ignorance of policies and of the concept of internal spamming, and confusion about the correct use of political categories, resulting from lack of clear guidelines. Thus, I suggest the following motion, which I believe will adress the problem of dealing with vote stacking in a much more effective and less offensive way:

Firstly, a warning will be posted on all user categories and subcategories (not only political ones) explaining briefly what internal spamming is, that it violets WP:SPAM and that it is a blockable offence. I believe this will significantly reduce the ignorance-based vote stacking and will make vote stacking much rarer.
Secondly, an on going discussion should start to create clear guidelines and objectives of user categories defining what's right and what's wrong.
Violators of such guidelines, or of existing Wikipedia policy, especially vote stackers, will be blocked.
A few months after this motion is put into pracitce its results will be assesed and IF it turns out vote stacking was not reduced significantly then a new proposal for deletion will take place. Only this time it will be different from now since members (like me) might get the feeling that there is indeed no other "softer" solution possible and that this proposal really deals with a serious problem and is not just a way to try and do away with individuality and pluralism on Wikipeida.

The benefits of this solution are:

It will make the objective of deletion (if it will be decided to repropose it in a few months) much clearer and thus the deletion,if put in practice, will be better accepted and people will not be encouraged to form outside potential vote stacking places, a problem mentioned by many people here, which will make vote stacking harder to track and monitor and may evetually increase the problem instead of reducing it.
It may allow the benefits of user categories, mentioned by many users int this dicussion, and reduce their disadvatages.
Members "voting" against deletion (like me) may change their view after the results of this solution be assesd, or if my solution will be succesful in reducing vote stacking significantly, members currently spporting the deletion may change their views. Thus this motion will help achieve consensus and make this issue less devisive.
The current proposal, without the neccessary assesment suggested, will be considered by many as a collective punishment and an unneccessary draconian measure, and it will ultimately create bad faith between members in the community, many of whom worked hard on making these lists without intending harm, and will probably feel oppressed by their outright and aggresive deletion.

So, this is my proposal, and I suggest that it will be put in practice and that in the meantime we keep all user categories, block all spammers according to Wikipeida's policies and reasses the situation in a few months, after analyzing this solution's outcomes Tal :) 07:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tal, I would dispute your starting assumption, that the main problem is vote-stacking. It isn't. The main problem is the Wikipedia has gotten into the habit of categorizing ourseves in a way that's separate from the articles we work on. That's a bad habit and we're trying to break it. The solution is for people to network via articles, projects, and portals, which will allow for just as much community as user categories, and in a way that is fundamenatally related and not at odds with our basic goal of writing an encyclopedia. Your proposal seems to be based on the idea that user categorization by belief is basically an ok thing, with only the problem of vote-stacking. The problem is the user categorization by belief is basically misguided. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete category and all its subcats. I don't think it's inherently a bad thing (and it may even be helpful) to disclose one's own beliefs and/or biases on a user page, but this doesn't require the use of categories. The existence of a single, centralized categorization system of users based on these beliefs does facilitate harmful vote-stacking and factionalization. We ought to err on the side of preventing harm by ridding the project of these centralized belief-based categories. — Jeff | (talk) | 00:45, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GTBacchus. —Mi r a 03:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support...while I fully support the concept of using a limited number of categories to help wikipedians link with each other to grow articles based on common interest, the political ideology/identification categories, have, at least as far as I've observed, served no purpose other than to provide ripe recruiting grounds for people with similar ideologies on XfD's. This is not "community building", it's nothing more than an inline tool for politicized bludgeoneering of serious discussion. I have no problem seeking comment from people who have demonstrated interest in a subject, don't get me wrong...even "spamming" 50 talk pages of people who have edited articles related to whatever particular subject (as long as you don't pick and choose too excessively whom to "spam" based on your preferred outcome), but a category such as this allows for identification of probsible like-minded souls who have never contributed to XYZ coming in out of the blue w/ no real interest other than a shared political identity, and voting whatever way their recruiter does. I don't want to sound like I'm making an assumption of bad faith wrt people who have never contributed to X on an XfD, but when their input is solicited based on something as flimsy as shared political philosophy, red flags start going up for me all over the place. Category:Jewish Wikipedians, Category:Buddhist Wikipedians, fine. (Incidentally, I fully believe that Category:Heterosexual Wikipedians and Category:Gay Wikipedians really need to go away as well... not only do these categories fall under the rubric of this discussion, but they also fall under the rubric of Wikipedia is not a dating service and point up a very clear WP:NPOV problem, as they should either be Straight|Gay (respectively) or Heterosexual|Homosexual (respectively)...) Tom e r ^talk 05:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose as per Wantman. Also, the 'all subcategories' clause is far too broad. This category overlaps with many others, and deleting all its subcategories would get rid of many categories that have more than just a political meaning. Zorblek (talk) 09:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or transform into categories demonstrating interest in a particular field of politics, rather than agreement.--Eloquence * 09:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The ideal that Wikipedians should only act based on their desire to write an encyclopedia, and not on their outside beliefs, is utopian and fundamentally impossible. It sounds good, but people can't check their biases at the door no matter how much people claim they can and should. It's better to get their biases out on the table. The anti-votestacking argument is, fundamentally, an argument that only those who follow *fD closely should participate in those discussions, and is thus inherently itself elitist and divisive. Jay Maynard 11:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Anything that isn't "fundamentally impossible" is utterly worthless, as an ideal. It is only in striving for the impossible that greatness happens. We should strive for NPOV on an individual level while editing here; the degree to which we achieve it at an individial level is not as important as the act of striving.

Furthermore, many of us suggesting these categories be deleted support putting biases on the table, too, so that's a red herring. Vote-stacking is also a minor point at most, which you've managed to mischaracterize as a rather bad straw-man. The main point is that we're networking by to non-encyclopedic means rather than networking by encyclopedic means. If people network the way that's being suggested, they won't be homogenous or lonely, they won't be in denial, and they won't miss out on XfDs. -GTBacchus^(talk) 15:41, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please move all these user-related categories to a separate wiki and redirect the time and effort spent on them (evidenced above) to the encyclopedia's content. David Kernow 13:06, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but that is more because I think the whole thing needs sorting out properly and deleting a category is not going to sort it all out. This is the same sort of discussion as occurs endlessly on POV userboxes and anything that stems from individuals showing their own POV. It would be better to draw-up and agree a policy to cover all this and work from that. Without a consensus on a policy deleting this category will just produce something similar elsewhere. --Mark S (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I wanted to offer an insightful and witty observation, but GTBacchus and Drini have selfishly used up all the good material. All I can do is agree with them. Doc Tropics 15:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment / Weak keep. As others have pointed out, "where does it stop?" For instance, if userboxes for "X is a conservative Wikipedian" are allowed to be kept, all people need to do for vote-stacking purposes is to look at the Template and click "what links here" for the same darn list. Or people could all create infoboxes or the like listing their positions, then search the Talk domain for "Politics:Foo." The only way to stop this is to ban all categories (that aren't "Wikipedia Admins" or "blocked users" and the like) and prohibit lookup in the Talk domain for Templates. Now, as it happens, I am in fact in favor of nuking all the user page personal-website stuff. But half-measures aren't going to do it, and there's already an entrenched community with a lot of work built up this way. So I'd oppose the current proposal as futile and unlikely to actually do much aside from annoy people. I'd support the general nuke... but realistically, that won't be happening. SnowFire 18:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: There is a push to move userboxes out of template space, endorsed by Jimbo Wales, called the Wikipedia:German userbox solution. This is the long-term answer to the issue of using "what links here" to look at templates to get a list of users who believe in a certain thing; removing these (and other similar) categories that allow users to sort themselves by their beliefs and opinions (as opposed to harmless demographic stuff) is the other half of the solution. As to the question of "where it stops", it stops when everyone comes around to the realisation that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a social networking site, and our only purpose here is to write the encyclopedia. Warrens 18:59, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment
First, I'd like to thank everyone for their contributions to this discussion. This is exactly what should happen at xFD. As I read over everyone's comments, I am struck with how much common ground there is, while at the same time there is quite a bit of disagreement. What I'd like to do for the moment is talk about where we agree, because I think we might be able to create a middle path that addresses everyone's concerns.

Believe it or not, I actually would consider removing ALL Wikipedia user categories. As someone who has spent quite a bit of time hanging out at Wikipedia:Categorization (I facilitated and wrote the last overhaul of the page), I too find the notion of categorizing Wikipedia users un-encyclopedic. If removing these categories is undertaken, I would want to have a simple policy or guideline that I could point to. It should explain in a sentence or two why the measure is being taken, and that it is being applied fairly. I can imagine something that says "No user pages should be placed in categories". But this does not work unless we remove user categorizations that are considered to be helpful to the community. There is all the "babel" categories, and Wikipedians by location, or skills. Nobody is finding fault with these categories. I have trouble wording a policy that could be applied fairly which distinguishes between categories which are helpful and which are not. Certainly, even the categories which everyone seems to agree are helpful to the community could be used in ways that people find detrimental to the community. Defenders of Israel or Iraq could start organizng around their babel categories. Many contributors to this discussion (myself included) have pointed out that if someone wants to organize around a POV issue there are many alternative methods to go about it.

The point where there is probably the most agreement is that organizing ourselves around our interests is better than organizing ourselves around beliefs. I would hope that by discussion we could change Category:XXX Wikipedians to Category:Wikipedians working on XXX articles. Through friendly discussion, we would essentially leave things intact, but change the culture around these categories so that they serve a more encyclopedic purpose. Along these lines we can encourage notice boards around topics of interest. Many of these boards already exist. I started the Wikipedia:LGBT notice board over a year ago for the purpose of keeping people interested in the subject informed about what was happening with articles and categories related to LGBT subjects. This I believe is why many others have created user categories. Everyone thinks they are protecting articles they care about from the POVs of other people. Granted, the people who have "signed up" on the LGBT notice board are more likely than not self-identified as LGBT, but in principle they do not have to be, and anyone can watch the page and monitor how NPOV the postings on the page are. So I too think these notice boards would be much better than categories, and I have seen supporters of this CFD point to noticeboards as an alternative. My problem here is that efforts to create NPOV notice boards have been dealt with with a very heavy hand. I'd like to point out the discussion on Wikipedia talk:Politics notice board. This page grew out of the Wikipedia:Conservative notice board which was likely created with a POV agenda in mind. Several people tried shaping it into a NPOV Politics notice board, but that effort was dealt with rather severely by Tony Sidaway and quickly deleted. So if consensus can be reached about allowing notice boards, I'll be willing to sign on to using them as an alternative to categories.

My concerns are not about keeping these categories because I like them. I don't use them, and I don't belong to any of the politics categories. I am not a conservative (I'm anything but). My biggest concern here is about the process of going about this through a CfD and how it will be perceived. I think this action would just antagonize many people who are already upset about userboxes and other recent events. It feels harsh. I'd rather, with persuasion, try to convince people to adjust these categories into something that would be better. I think many of the suggestions just above mine are quite good. I hope we can reach some sort of compromise where we say getting rid of the categories as they are now is a goal, and we won't do it with this CFD. Let's work towards sending the right message and slowly refashion the categories into something more encyclopedic and conducive to consensus through discussion. -- Samuel Wantman 21:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - the categories are divisive and unhelpful. Johntex\^talk 23:44, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - In a perfect world we would slowly convince people of these views and eventually everyone would peacefully agree to remove these largely empty and irrelevant categories... and then the unicorns would all dance in the sunshine. Suspecting that such a solution might take rather a long time to come to fruition I'll settle for a reasoned discussion wherein a strong majority agree that removal is for the best. I think we might be close enough to that for this to succeed and thus I am supporting the motion. The only reason I say >weak< delete is that I think we still have a ways to go before this would be accepted without some disruption, but I'm hoping that any such here will be relatively minor. I would suggest that it might make sense to leave this discussion open a bit longer than usual, widely publicize it, and set high standards for a finding of consensus to remove. Such a major change should be considered as widely as possible and efforts made to prevent it being a surprise if enacted. As to the 'pro' and 'con' arguments; Yes, the categories allow expression of belief and notification of possible biases, but those things are not vitally important and can as easily be accomplished by writing 'I support <whatever>' on your user page. Yes, users will probably shift to religious and other categories if these are deleted... but then, those would be the next to go. The 'vote stacking' bit is a concern, but not to me of primary importance... I really don't think removing these will have much impact there. Even if all user 'ideology' categories and userboxes were removed people would still just go to relevant talk pages to compile lists of like-minded individuals. However, there is a more fundamental issue here: I don't like widgets. People who do like widgets annoy me as they are obviously supporting the unjustified repression of doo-dads and thingamabobs. Widgets get all the best government and collegiate positions and I've got strong disagreements with people who can't see that. When I see a user page with 'Category:Users supporting widgets' it creates a divide between me and those damned widget-lovers. No matter how open-minded and focused on encyclopedia building I try to be it inherently divides Wikipedians from each other on ideological grounds and makes working together in a neutral fashion that little bit more difficult. I have never had such identifiers on my user page... not because I wish to hide them, frankly I think that's largely impossible, but because I don't think we should be defining ourselves in those ways HERE because it gets in the way. Have whatever beliefs you like. Be vocal about them with others if you wish... but don't declare your partisanship in a project devoted to being non-partisan. Obviously most people do so with no ill-intentions, but I think Wikipedia is better served by leaving such ideologies at the door. --CBD 00:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Extreme Keep, per Deco's position. And also because removing this is tantamount to censorship of people's views, as if people are meant to keep their views to themselves (by the way, this anti-free-speech approach is also hurtful to democracy in general). I strongly believe that it's super-helpful to know Wikipedia editors' biases, as I think it keeps _everyone_ on their toes in working toward NPOV and representing as many notable views as possible within encyclopedia articles. Why are we so afraid that we might be different and hold different views? Why all the fear? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 00:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stevietheman, hi. Would it change your mind if you knew that everybody supporting the deletion of these categories wants you to declare all your views that you want to clearly on your userpage, and please let us know what you're interested in and how you feel, just via some means other than user categories, and if we also provided mulitiple ways to facilitate that? I feel that you're arguing against a position that isn't really there. It turns out this is not about fear, and I offer myself as an example - I challenge you to come up with a view that someone could hold that I'm not comfortable with. I'm actually one of the more tolerant guys you'll ever find. I just care a lot about Wikipedia, and honestly believe that there are better ways we can express our individuality and network and build a community, all of which I'm deeply in favor of. Please read the detailed reasons actually being given for deletion, and please reconsider. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:43, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my user talk, my vote is not a response to your individual vote, so there's no need to take it personally. Re: my vote, it's my position that these categories, on top of other methods, is a viable method for identifying bias. It does not "improve" the Wikipedia in any way to remove these categories. I want the best Wikipedia possible as well, and knowing each other's biases (via multiple means) helps us produce as unbiased a work as possible. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Proposal: Per User:Eloquence's suggestion above, Can we change this from a massive deletion to a massive rename and merging of most user categories? The entire collection of categories would be called something like Category:Wikipedians by topic worked on and the individual topics would all be renamed to something more NPOV. Category:Conservative Wikipedians would become Category:Wikipedians working on articles related to Conservatism. Someone who is not a conservative, might find it useful to put themselve in such a category, and doing so would not be seen as being divisive. Each category could also have an associated notice board. This would be much less controversial and promotes better behavior. As part of this, I would merge all user categories related to user's interests, sex, sexuality, age, ethnicity, religion, personal beliefs, physical handicaps, etc... The only excptions would be geographical location and langauges spoken and perhaps a few others if they have a clear and proven value to the project.

Any takers? -- Samuel Wantman 01:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel, hi. I think this suggestion has some merit, but there are some problems. Like, what is an article related to Conservativism? As far as I can tell, you're suggesting that we can make the transition smoother by simply reworking these categories into interest categories rather than position taking ones. I think that's a laudable idea, but I don't see a simple mapping from one set of categories to the other.

You'll notice I began my argument to delete these categories by saying that I think this is premature. I agree that we ought to go ahead and encourage the building of networks along encylcopedic lines, i.e., relating to how we write the encyclopedia. In particular, I think it would be great for more people to set up and join WikiProjects, Portals, and Issue-based noticeboards. That's a slightly larger jump from where we are than just switching to interest based categories, but I think it's where we want to end up. Simply moving from "user who believes X" to "user interested in X" is ok, as far as it goes, but it doesn't really get us where we need to be, and it doesn't address the fact that there are lots of people who are really ready to identify as Big-endians, and "vote" Big-endian if a vote comes up, but who don't actually work on Big-endian related articles.

In other words, I definitely agree with emphasizing Portals, Projects and Noticeboards, but I don't see a direct mapping from where we are to there. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, Here is a map. First we put tags on all the categories affected and explain why and how they are going to be renamed. There would be a time period (two weeks?) before the rename actually happens. In the interim, all the new categories would have to be created. Empty message boards could also be created, like this one. Then we leave messages on every user page linked to one of these categories. We explain that users what is happening and that they are still free to express themselves and their opinions on their userpage and talk pages, while emphasizing the importance of NPOV editing. Users would also be invited to join the appropriate wikiproject and/or noticeboard. This would probably also fit well with the German userbox policy. After two weeks, people would be moved from the old category to the new ones. People would remove themselves from any category they don't want to stay in. This entire proposal would need to be well publicized and discussed before starting. As for the people who are really ready to identify as Big-endians, and "vote" Big-endian if a vote comes up, but who don't actually work on Big-endian related articles, these are not the people we are trying to accomodate. These are the people we want to educate.

Also, Perhaps the conservative category is better named Category:Wikipedians working on articles about Conservative politics. -- Samuel Wantman 02:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I think we're going in a good direction, but I don't like the idea of setting up a bunch of empty, "template" political WikiProjects or noticeboards. Those should arise organically in response to a need. Who's going to know what to do with a bunch of new WikiProjects all of a sudden? That process should be gradual (and should have happened before these categories were brought to CfD). Regarding "articles about conservative politics"... name three. Do you think that people who identify as conservatives are people who really want to work on articles about the philosophy of conservativism? I suspect they're mostly people who hold a rough constellation of ideas that fall under the umbrella of "conservative" - free-market, small government, traditional morals, etc. They're calling themselves conservative in the context of those various issues, not in the context of conservativism in the abstract. Maybe I'm just generalizing really wrong here, but I don't see Category:Conservative Wikipedians translating very well into any particular interest category - more like a dozen or so of them, and individual conservatives would pick and choose which of those they really care about.

It's not a one-to-one mapping, because user categories weren't conceived with the encyclopedia in mind, and the categories that we ought to arrange ourselves into, are. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't have to be a one-to-one mapping. We can let people discuss the renaming on the talk page of each category. They'd all need to be submitted to CFD for discussion about the renaming, but most shouldn't be that controversial. I strongly believe that most people in the categories are not trying to push any agendas. Guidelines should make it clear that the categories should be renamed so that it is obvious that the categories would contain people on both sides of the ideology or subject matter. Another possibility is that we could move everyone into much broader categories, So conservatives, moderates, liberals, fascists and communists might end up with Category:Wikipedians working on articles about politics. People could make more specialized categories if needed, and they could be monitored for any implied bias. I don't see a problem with Category:Wikipedians working on articles about Communism, but would see a problem with Category :Wikipedians working on articles about exploitation of workers. The notice boards don't have to be created, but we can post information about how to make one and show a blank example. -- Samuel Wantman 06:18, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How about something like this: We start a couple of these encyclopedic-style categories as examples. We set up some large infrastructure for them, with well defined limits, but lots of room for people to be creative. Then we let people populate this new category space, according to some guidelines that make it clear that categorization is done according to area of encyclopedic interest or work, and not according to beliefs or opinions. "Editor categories" will derive their legitimacy from having a clear set of articles associated to them that can be worked on in a coherent manner. We'll encourage people to set up, associated with a category, a Noticeboard, or a WikiProject, or even a Portal (and we'll provide good examples of each). This will give people structure they can use to network, express their individuality through participation in their chosen projects, and build a community that is part of the development of, and not ultimately antagonistic to, the encyclopedia we're working on. We could take some time to let people migrate into that new structure, and then, at a predetermined date, go ahead and start clearing out the old categories.

So... I think we're getting closer and closer to saying the same thing... what do you think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are on the same page. I would add that we will decide to close this CFD as Keep for now, but when the new structure is in place and running migrate people into the new categories and eventually Delete all user interest categories. How do we get everyone else to sign on? -- Samuel Wantman 09:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I suspect this conversation is being watched, to some degree. Let's leave this CfD out in the wind for another day or so and see what people think of this compromise – I think our agreeing between the two of us is a good sign, but the tango we're talking about takes more than two... Maybe in the meanwhile, we can rough up some infrastructure for a good user categorization scheme. Any ideas how it should all hang together? -GTBacchus^(talk) 09:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The way to do this is to start making it happen without doing anything that needs community consensus. This could be done by: 1) Creating new replacement categories and a mapping scheme. This should tie in with as many WikiProjects as possible. 2) Creating templates to place on all the old categories explaining why they are not desired, and why the new ones would be better. 3) Recruiting more community support and involvement. 4) Having discussions about modifying existing user boxes so they use the new categories. 5) Notifying the individuals in the categories of what we are doing and asking for voluntary compliance. So it sounds like we need a new WikiProject. Perhaps we can call it something like Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians at work. -- Samuel Wantman 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am starting a new WikiProject. Everyone is welcome to help out. I've decided to call it Wikipedia:WikiProject Wikipedians working (shortcut WP:WWW).--Samuel Wantman 07:17, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(outdenting) I like the concept, but my primary concern would be refinement. If you have a 'Category:Wikipedians working on religion articles' eventually someone IS going to say to themself, 'I only work on articles about faith in the Flying Spaghetti Monster... I should create a sub-category for that to be more specific... and another one for those 'Invisible Pink Unicorn' cultists to be fair'. We could educate and patrol for these, but it would be an ongoing issue. Also, most people opposing deletion are doing so on 'individual expression' / 'free speech' grounds... which this proposal wouldn't really address. These are reasonable categories to have because they focus on what people actually do at Wikipedia without sub-dividing it by ideology. I think they are worthwhile in themselves, but unlikely to be a solution to the issue here. --CBD 10:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I suspect that even very narrow refinements of these user categories could be presented in an NPOV way. The test should be if the category description includes people from both sides of an issue. We can create guidelines that explains this better. Narrow refinements like working on articles abut the Invisible Pink Unicorn Cult would probably be acceptable if they actually call themselves a cult. Also, if challenged with deletion because a category looks like it may have been designed to push an agenda, a reasonable defense would be demonstrating that there are editors from both sides of the debate. -- Samuel Wantman 19:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the categories will derive their legitimacy solely from their relation to actual collections of articles that members work on, to whatever degree. As far as the granularity, I'd rather start with more detailed categories, like "This user works on Hinduism articles" than with coarse grained categories like "This user works on religion articles". The more well-defined the scope of the category and associated project, the better. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also like this idea, instead of having to say you are affiliated with that group, you can simply say you are interested in articles about that group. It seems more appropriate and oddly, rehashing a previous example for keep, if a republican wanted to get an opposing view on an article, he would not have to go to the democrat group, he can simply ask a democrat interested in republican articles. It creates a less bias pool for work.--zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any category "Wikipedians by opinion", keep or create categories "Wikipedians by interest" or "Wikipedians per area of specialized knowledge". Kusma (討論) 01:44, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The last time I checked, a political ideology or opinion was a kind of interest. Just thought I would throw that in. :) — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 02:31, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You can be interested in or knowledgeable about a political ideology without supporting it. I hope we have many Wikipedians interested in Nazi Germany, but not many who support fascism. A category for Wikipedians interested in fascism will probably not consist of fascists. Kusma (討論) 02:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Interest" can be either intellectual inquisitiveness, as you say, or outright support. There are different levels of interest. That's what I'm saying. I would support categories for either level of interest. Nobody thus far has described the harm in keeping these current categories beyond "possible" events. Nobody has ever approached me for votestacking. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:15, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't mean it hasn't happened, Stevie. Three times in the last week or so, there've been vote-stacking attempts using at least two different categories, one political, one religious. We're not just making up problems, it turns out - this is largely a reaction to actual vote-stacking that actually happened on many occasions. Would links help, to examples? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I honestly don't care what these few examples are. Punishing the rest of us who use these categories honorably is absolutely unacceptable, and may very well trigger my leaving Wikipedia. If I cannot have freedom of association here, then what's the effing point of participating? I'm sorry you support this totalitarian effort to remove these categories, but there's nothing you can ever demonstrate that will shake my position. Freedom is paramount. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:28, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you'd actually leave Wikipedia over user-space categorisation issues, you're not really here to write an encyclopedia then, are you? Talk about "freedom" and "totalitarianism" all you like, but we are here for one very specific purpose; anything adjunct to that is a distraction that takes us away from that task. We will always have the choice to associate with other Wikipedians in the context of individual articles, Wikiprojects, Portal work, and so forth... nobody would dare suggest taking that away from us! Such associations are an important part of the collaborative process of writing an encyclopedia, and helps drive the project forward. However, Category:Wikipedians by politics and many of its subcategories have only existed since October 2005; somehow Wikipedia managed to prosper quite nicely without this kind of user-based categorisation for years prior to then, and it certainly could continue to do so in the future. Warrens 22:41, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Warren, take a look at the work I've done here, and then say all that again with a straight face. Give that a try. Also, I'm fully aware why we are here. Don't you dare talk down to me like that. It's just that removing these categories is an extremely gross perversion against free speech, and it holds the level of unacceptability that yes, would make me reconsider my presence here. I refuse to work under conditions where viable helpful mechanisms are being swiped out from under us for no g-d good reason. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:42, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stevie, freedom isn't paramount here. Writing an encyclopedia is. I have a hard time taking seriously the accusation that I'm supporting totalitarian efforts to limit association, when I'm putting in hours and hours creating WikiProjects, trying to get people to associate more and work together more, and building bridges wherever I can. "If I can't have freedom of association here, then what's the point of participating," you ask. How about to write an encyclopedia? We're asking that you use Wikipedia to associate and network in an encyclopedic fashion, and restrict your non-encyclopedic association and networking to, oh, the rest of the internet and the rest of the world. But apparently, if you can't use these servers to set up a clubhouse the way you want to do it, you're going to pick up your toys and go home? Don't let your ass hit the door on the way out. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wow. What a crazy response that was. This is nothing about "setting up a clubhouse." It's about identifying bias, remember? Wake up! I like to say, "You are whatever you compromise with". You are compromising with the agents against appropriate free expression in the Wikipedia. And if you wish me a speedy exit, after the tremendous work I've done, you are a creep. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 01:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok, if posting in frustration when I was obviously hurt by your remarks and should have walked away from the computer instead of hitting "save" makes me a creep, then I'm a creep. I don't think I've called you a name through all of this, because I don't think any particular action of yours is sufficient for me to say what you are. Furthermore, I find labeling people like that to be counterproductive. I'd like it if we could focus on the content of what people say, rather than what kind of people we think they are. If I've managed to insult you personally, then I apologize.

Now, despite your rude implication that I'm not paying attention ("Wake up!"). I've actually explained to you and others at length that this isn't about identifying bias, because there are many other ways to do that. If you think you can't identify your bias except by linking to a category of others who share that bias, then I guess you've lost me, and you'll have to explain that in smaller words. I feel like it's very easy for me to identify that I have some bias, for example by saying so, even if I never join a category of others who share it. What am I missing?

One more point - your position seems to be shifting under your feet. First you were certain that vote-stacking never happens, then when offered examples that it happens regularly, and is disruptive, you didn't care to see the evidence (very constructive!), you just didn't care because "freedom is paramount" (more paramount than writing an encyclopedia?). Which freedom though? Well, first it was freedom of association, but when those who would delete these categories are actually working to create infrastructure for better, more encyclopedic association, you claim that it's about freedom of expression, which really doesn't make sense, unless you forgot we're talking about categories here, and not about userboxes. What will you argue when it's made clear that the people supporting deletion also support revelation of bias, and encourage association among editors? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:04, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to stick up for Stevie. I have also been thinking about whether I would want to stay in a project where free association gets harder and harder. The way to respond to these concerns is to hear them and try to respond to the real concerns. I think my concerns are being heard with my discussion with GT above. It is Stevie's concern that makes me feel so strongly that wholesale deletion is a very bad idea. There will be many valuable contributors, who do not abuse these categories, or even like myself, don't even look at these categories, that will be upset about their deletion for reasons of principle. It is for this reason that I am trying to work out a solution that doesn't delete them and instead creates a better alternative. Hopefully these categories will wither and die a natural death. To force that death is asking for trouble. -- Samuel Wantman 04:43, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand why one needs a category to associate themselves with being a democrat or republican. The categories themselves are being abused, noone is saying you cannot say you are a republican, or that your userbox will be deleted to identify you as such, the categories themselves are being used to vote stack however. The original intent of such categories has been abused and manipulated. I would even go as far as to question some of the defenses here. Some people states they groups are good because a republican can look up a democrat through the category to seek an opposing view ... Has that happened in the 6+ months these categories have been in place? Lots of vote stacking has occured, I wonder if many of the defenses here of "what ifs" has actually happened or they are just utopic ideas of what these categories could have been. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 11:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Samuel Wantman. I hate to think that this will cause some users to leave. I was thinking of "throwing in the towel" myself (I am somewhat new to Wikipedia). I went back to editing to get my mind off of this heated fight. Sure doesn't seem like a discussion right now. JungleCat 21:42, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the way to address the concerns Samuel's expressing here is to directly work to provide affirmative means of association to replace and supersede the current user categories. If people really need to network according to personal belief, as opposed to encyclopedic interest, I would question the encyclopedic value of that type of networking. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:32, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I cannot shake the idea, and have seen very little evidence to the contrary, that the traditional Wikipedia admin tends to lean leftward. I have considered the fact that it seems clear that anything conservative is speedily deleted while other less-conservative notice boards and categories are left in place. Frankly, I have seen absurd bias paraded as NPOV in articles and those who worked to try to balance this by involving other users to be accused of spamming. Now I am told that using categories and userboxes to try to have some sort of voice of relevence in this sea of POV biased editors is not allowed, when I sometimes feel it is the only way to try to retain some sort of a shred of identity and community in a great sea of dissention. I have never used these categories to "vote stack". I have often thought about putting messages on other users pages to call for help against a strong leftist bias on some articles, but frankly, have been intimidated from doing so because I have seen users blasted by admins as being spammers and vote stackers for doing so. The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous. The idea that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased is ridiculous. The idea that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV article writing and editing is ridiculous. The idea of being a lone voice that will be taken seriously in a consensus debate is ridiculous. The idea that asking for additional assistance from those who view a perspective in a similar way is not by definition vote stacking. If it is decided by the powers that be that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I feel the entire premise of Wikipedia is flawed, and I must exit it and anything like it, or find one that is more transparent and accepting of human qualities. DavidBailey 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DavidBailey, I get this weird feeling in this discussion... it's like, if I were to say to my wife (suppose I'm married), "Honey, let's build a deck in the back yard," and she says "Why do you hate America so much?" I say to her, "I don't hate America, in fact, I love America, I just think we should build a deck in the back yard." Then she says, "I just don't understand why you deck-builders hate America so much." In particular, nobody has said that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else. If someone said that, please point them out. Nobody has said that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased. If someone said that, please point them out. I think one or two people have said that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV editing, but those certainly aren't the strong or popular arguments; I think the idea that disclosure of bias is a bad idea is mad. As for being a lone voice in a consensus debate, I don't think those of us asking for deletion of these categories oppose bringing more eyes to a debate. The only issue you're identifying that I see as real is the idea that asking for assistance from those with a similar perspective is good or bad, and that's not even the central issue in this deletion discussion. If you think that anyone is suggesting that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I'd like to know who that is. I really feel like you're asking me why I hate America so much, and I don't, and it's hard to shake the idea that you haven't read my arguments here, or that you choose to ignore them in favor of the ones that are easy to tear apart, namely the strawman arguments that hardly anybody's making. Can you say something in response to the reasonable arguments being made, or do you not think those exist? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

GT, I'm glad you feel that Wikipedia is so tolerant and accepting of all viewpoints and that the current system favors only those who support all of the Wikipedia policies, but my experience has been otherwise. I also know that you've shot down my views before and apparently feel the need to do so again with statements like "can you say something in response to the reasonable arguments being made, or do you not think those exist?" Since you think my views are all strawmen and so easily dismissable, feel free to do so. DavidBailey 03:42, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please, DavidBailey, I'm not trying to be rude. I apologize for any discourtesy I've shown you, please forgive me. I didn't call your views strawmen; I suggested that you were responding to strawmen in lieu of responding to what I feel are the good arguments being advanced. I don't know how to react when you say "The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous." That statement is certainly true, and I don't see its relevance. Is that the reason being given for deletion of Category:Liberal Wikipedians, because that one's just as much up for deletion here, you know. I think the strong reasons people are giving for getting rid of these categories is that they promote factionalism, and that they're inferior to a better, more encyclopedic way to foster association. Despite this, most people arguing for keeping the categories are using arguments like "if the categories are used for vote-stacking, punish the perpetrators, not everyone" and "revealing bias is a good thing, not a bad thing". I fail to see how these arguments for keeping are at all addressing the arguments for deletion. They seem to be addressing some other arguments instead. Am I making sense here, or just managing to come across as some kind of dick? -GTBacchus^(talk) 03:54, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to have to not participate in these discussions until I can find the time to read the pages and pages of history (I've read many of them), and the many more pages of similar discussions having been had all across Wikipedia on related topics. Perhaps then I can pose relevant points to discussion. Perhaps I was venting because it seems that one way to encourage increased participation is to let users know, "hey, there are others like you that have similar interests and views." Since I have started over six months ago with Wikipedia, everything has seemed like an uphill battle. I have found seemingly few to express perspectives similar to mine on the scope and thrust of articles, and POV matters when it comes to what is important in an article and what isn't, even if you're attempting to be NPOV. Also, I'm tired of those many editors who seem to think that if they can out-vote you, they have a consensus that can ignore your perspective and views. (Yes, I've quoted the policies to them, what little good that does.) It seems to me that there are minorities on Wikipedia, and frankly, conservatives fall into this category. Encouraging more conservatives to join, interact, and participate should not cause existing admins to cringe, it should be reason to celebrate, if the goals of Wikipedia are truly NPOV. By forcing these categories, both liberal and conservative, to go away, you are forcing users to stumble across articles largely at random to find others with similar interests. Orienting themselves around specific interests instead of broader categories is a good way to ensure that fewer, not more, editors participate in a discussion. It is far more convenient (read "takes less time") and encouraging when users are allowed to group into communities in which they feel comfortable to collaborate, share ideas, and work together on articles. I reject the idea that more editors, not less, make a better article. This is especially true when it comes to controversial articles. However, everyone has to want to collaborate and those who just want to argue need to have administrative action taken against them. I have no problems with there being liberal categories (heavens knows they're out there now) and I think conservative categories should be given the opportunity to increase the amount of conservative participation. I think factionalism can be dealt with directly to the individuals that misuse Wikipedia. Perhaps there are too few admins and too many editors. Perhaps it would be useful to create a new admin category. That is someone who has an interest in a category that can crack the whip only within the category (IE- implement admin controls on the category to those who break the category rules of NPOV, cooperation, etc.) and even expell some from it who repeatedly violate Wikipedia rules. Whatever it takes, I feel strongly that these categories should be allowed to exist, side-by-side with notice boards, and perhaps, although I am less concerned with, user boxes. DavidBailey 02:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Kusma abakharev 05:05, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all political user categories. Divisive, inflammatory, unnecessary. Doesn't help build an encyclopedia but does help vote-stack. -- Mr. Tibbs 07:37, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as I see no problem with identifying one's self politically in the userspace, and having categories intended for use in the userspace to that end. SchuminWeb (Talk) 09:50, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete political categories (Category:Foo-Endian Wikipedians) as disruptive and unhelpful, keep interest-based categories (Category:Wikipedians interested in Foo-Endism) as useful. I see no problem with identifying one's self politically in userspace, not category space. Also remember, the number of Foo-Endians absolutely dwarfs the number of people who edit Foo-Endian-related articles, for all values of Foo-Endian that I'm aware of. --CComMack 14:08, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep please, user categorization may be a little bit of a catalyst, but is not the cause of any abuse. There must be a less destructive way to curb abuse. --Snarius 05:49, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose deletion and nomination for deletion. This category was kept twice as a result of two earlier Cfd debates. January 4 2006 and December 18 2005 Nominator is wasting time by renominating and repeating the rejected arguments used in the earlier debates. --Facto 06:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE On december, these categories were closed as KEEP while on January they were closed as No consensus. It's been over 6 months since then, it's valid to CFD again to gauge consensus. -- Drini 13:53, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's still radical to keep bringing them up for deletion, when they were kept twice. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 13:52, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep Travb (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no valid reason to remove the categories. Should somebody use them for vote stacking, then punish the user, don't remove the category. (And, after all, if somebody wanted to engage in vote stacking, then linking to a bogus page in user space would have worked just as well - or are you going to prohibit that, too?) Keep. - Mike Rosoft 14:49, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. The proponents of removing these categories are punishing free association and transparence to go after very few rules breakers. It's like punishing a city for the crimes of a small group of its citizens. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work}
Careful whose mouth you put words into, Stevie. You're incorrect about what "the proponents of removing these categories" want, but I guess that's what happens when you get into the habit of identifying people in terms of simple categories - "This user is a democrat", "this user is a creep", "this user is a proponent of political category removal". Why listen, when you already know what someone thinks? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose My comment: Punishing? By what do you mean? Your anology is only half right. Sometimes the entire city are punished or a platoon, in the military, is punished for one's goof up. Sometimes, life isn't fair and I believe that this could be use for malicious reasons that can potentially grow out-of-control. --Moreau36 14:11, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There's a lot of things that could be used for malicious reasons, and generally, when they are, we go after the individual perpetrators. Just because there are examples of unfairness in the real world, that doesn't mean that it's all right to be unfair. And these categories in and of themselves do no damage to and indeed create benefits (greater tranparence) for the Wikipedia. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 15:31, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's pretty brazen of you to say they do no damage when you said, "I don't care," when offered examples of the damage they do. Did you forget saying that, Stevie? Is that the best you've got? Also, do you have any replies to the other, stronger arguments for deletion, besides the "vote-stacking" argument? -GTBacchus^(talk) 21:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Insofaras many Categories I have investigated seem to have no encyclopædic value (Category:things which occured on Wednesday which is false, Category:N Sync Songs which is real), destroy them all (retaining only categories for wiki house keeping ie. stubs, style). However considering the ability for wikipedia to expand far beyond the possibility of print documents I believe that the rash deletion of almost every thing by some is insane and a grave danger to wikipedia, therefore keep everything and refine, say 'user categories' with all categories pertaining only to users as sub-categories. This deletion process is one of the most profoundly factional things I have seen on wikipedia and seems to have been initiated by like minded persons in close geographic proximity without the aid of categories. Keep I just cannot understand why categories are so contentious, they are not THAT powerful and NPOV is not an achivable meatspace possibility, it is an abstracted ideal toward which we here work. That is not to say it has no value, only that no person can ever actually percieve/concieve without inherent bias.—Dananimal 23:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Here you're mischaracterizing the arguments of people saying delete, or at least choosing the poorest and easiest to tear up of those arguments. In particular, when you say that no person can ever actually perceive/conceive without inherent bias, you seem to be suggesting that anybody is making an argument for deletion that sounds something like "if we delete categories, people will be able to edit without bias". In fact, nobody is saying that, and your responding to that argument instead of the intelligent ones being made strikes me as somewhat prejudicial, as if ignoring the more difficult arguments will make everyone forget that they exist. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep [Copied from above] I cannot shake the idea, and have seen very little evidence to the contrary, that the traditional Wikipedia admin tends to lean leftward. I have considered the fact that it seems clear that anything conservative is speedily deleted while other less-conservative notice boards and categories are left in place. Frankly, I have seen absurd bias paraded as NPOV in articles and those who worked to try to balance this by involving other users to be accused of spamming. Now I am told that using categories and userboxes to try to have some sort of voice of relevence in this sea of POV biased editors is not allowed, when I sometimes feel it is the only way to try to retain some sort of a shred of identity and community in a great sea of dissention. I have never used these categories to "vote stack". I have often thought about putting messages on other users pages to call for help against a strong leftist bias on some articles, but frankly, have been intimidated from doing so because I have seen users blasted by admins as being spammers and vote stackers for doing so. The idea that a conservative cannot be as NPOV as anyone else is ridiculous. The idea that identifying yourself as a conservative means you are POV-biased is ridiculous. The idea that not identifying your perspectives will increase NPOV article writing and editing is ridiculous. The idea of being a lone voice that will be taken seriously in a consensus debate is ridiculous. The idea that asking for additional assistance from those who view a perspective in a similar way is not by definition vote stacking. If it is decided by the powers that be that all people who freely disclose their POV cannot work in a neutral fashion, I feel the entire premise of Wikipedia is flawed, and I must exit it and anything like it, or find one that is more transparent and accepting of human qualities. DavidBailey 02:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Please see my reply above. I think you're badly mischaracterizing the arguments for deletion in terms of the silliest and easiest to refute arguments imaginable, and ignoring the good arguments. -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:36, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin - I think it's significant that a third option came to light over the course of this discussion. Not many people have commented on the third option (which is what Samuel and I have discussed - migrating belief categories to encyclopedic interest categories), and I think it could be less than productive to close this CfD as a delete without acknowledging that some people are working to make the transition less disruptive. I'd also like to directly ask for feedback on this "third way" solution, would some kind of RfC be appropriate? Or a policy proposal page? -GTBacchus^(talk) 02:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. In the fine tradition of descriptive policy making, I consider a policy proposal on this issue to be "premature." An RfC and/or straw poll approach laying out a range of viable alternatives most likely would be more productive at this stage. Rfrisbie^talk 04:50, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Descriptive policy making also means that people can start creating an alternative (within existing guidelines) without having to get approval of the community. What GTBacchus and I have been discussing does not require any official proposal or approval. I've created the beginnings of a WikiProject to coordinate working on the "third way". It is based on the idea that this would all be voluntary. I hope people will help in this effort. It does imply that this CfD would be closed as a "Keep and see what happens with a voluntary approach". -- Samuel Wantman 05:10, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I fully agree with Rfrisbie and SamuelWantman here. Perhaps it would help ensure a proper closure if we can get a few of the "delete" supporters to change their support to "keep and allow some Wikipedians to try a more organic approach," perhaps with an understanding that we'll reconsider in 6 months, or something like that? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:14, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  To be frank, I don't think it is possible to close this in any way but "Keep". I just looked at some of the subcategories and noticed that they have not been properly linked to this page. Doesn't that means that this CFD is fatally flawed and must be closed as "Keep"? If that is the case. I hope it doesn't get reopened, as I would rather not go through this again! -- Samuel Wantman
  To be frank, there are more than two ways to close a CfD. If a few categories didn't get tagged, that doesn't prevent us from doing the right thing. In this case, I think that means closing this as a "keep while a third way solution is implemented, and then talk about deleting." It's never the case that an XfD must be closed in a particular way because of a technicality, hence Hipocrite's Wikilawyering comment below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
  WP:Wikilawyering applies. I tagged every category that existed when I did my mass tagging. Someone adding a new category does not invalidate an RFC. To the parent, I believe that your cause would be better fufilled by a "delete" result, as the vast majoirty of the categories do not include people interested in their political persuasion except to edit war with people who disagree with them. Hipocrite - «Talk» 13:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hipocrite, you have no idea whether or not that's true. Stevie's reply below is unproductive, but let's try this: if someone closes this CfD as a "delete", they'll start a huge shitstorm that will make the "userbox wars" look like a picnic in the park, and it will be entirely that person's responsibility, because they had every reason to know better. It shouldn't take much Wiki-smarts to realize that this isn't the kind of change you force through with a crowbar. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- A hypothesis that is certainly interesting but not proven. Yeah, let's delete the whole Wikipedia due to the fear of a few disruptions by a few people. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 14:45, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Yep, let's wipe em all out (my sarcasm bigtime here). Especially when there is no "vote stacking" policy clearly defined for Wikipedia. Search for vote stacking and see what is there. And yet, this is interesting. Stevietheman and I are totally opposite in politics (lib vs con), and yet we both agree on this issue. Can't get more NPOV than that. Without user categories & cute little userboxes you wouldn't know it. JungleCat 17:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Um... are you for real, about "no clearly defined vote-stacking policy"? I guess Wikipedia:Spam#Internal spamming is a guideline, not a policy, but you don't have to spend too much time around too many parts of Wikipedia to realize that the bulk of the community is quite firmly of the mind that "vote-stacking = bad". Do you not believe it unless it's written down on a page labelled "policy", or what? After that I think I'm lost in your irony. You can't be seriously asserting that if a liberal and a conservative agree on something, that makes it NPOV, can you? Or are you arguing against the idea that only conservatives want user categorization by political belief, an argument that nobody's making anyway? -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Well gee, I never really took the time to read detail-by-detail all 65 pages of "Wikipedia guidelines" and memorized the clearly defined vote-stacking policy named spamming. I noticed it doesn’t address what action will be taken against someone who does it. Do you honestly think you will stop an experienced user from getting around the loss of user cats? How will you track it? I and others have shown in clever examples of how to do it. Why not go after the few doing it? BTW, how will you prove NPOV in the future - Especially dealing with political articles? Will you just discuss it and then let one person rule since this is not a democracy?JungleCat 18:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Junglecat, there's no need to get defensive, I don't think there's anything wrong with you not having all WP guidelines at your fingertips. No, I don't think that eliminating user cats will stop vote-stacking, and I've never made that argument, because it would be a silly one. (This is exactly what I'm complaining about with people responsing to arguments other than the ones being made.) As for "why not go after the few doing it?", that question would make a lot more sense if vote-stacking were the issue being discussed. Then you might find that we do "go after" the people who do it. Eliminating user categories by belief will at least remove the tacit encouragement to spam which is implied by having the things around - I've actually seen someone say "I noticed this category existed, so I figured, why not use it to gather support?" The existence of these categories sends a message that this is a good way to think of Wikipedians, as belonging to factions which they may be called upon to support. I think that's a terrible way to think of Wikipedians; I think of us as being a bunch of individuals who share the goal of writing an excellent, accurate, fair and neutral encyclopedia - I think of that as assuming good faith.
  
  Finally, "how will you prove NPOV in the future? I really don't understand this question. Do you think we "prove NPOV" now in a way that involves user categories? The way to achieve NPOV is two-fold: on an individual level, each of us strives to write from a neutral point of view; on a group level, we strive for consensus. If a bunch of people, each shooting for NPOV, can agree on something, then it's probably pretty close, and if it isn't, someone will probably come along and say so. Is there something wrong with that system? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  I wouldn't have a problem with "a bunch of people, each shooting for NPOV, can agree..." provided I knew that "both sides of the coin" of a debated topic was represented. This is why I oppose the removal. This is just my opinion. And yes, GTBacchus, you do have valid points also, and I respect your view. Sorry if I get on a soapbox. Best regards. JungleCat 18:39, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Isn't it far easier to tell if both sides are represented by reading the discussion than by chasing down every user page of every contributor to the discussion and checking whether some of them categorized themselves in a relevant way? I mean, if it's at all a controversial topic, people in the discussion will go out of their way to label their opponent's point of view - it's very convenient for readers. It's also much more reliable - what someone argues for passionately is a much better indicator of their POV than the categories they choose to include themselves in. As for your apology at the end of your post, I don't feel you've been dismissive of my opinions, and I hope I haven't been dismissive of yours. Either way makes for a poor discussion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I'm sorry I wasn't clearer with my last comment. I was not claiming that some of the subcategories were not tagged. I was saying that ALL of the subcategories were not tagged correctly. If you click on the link that says "this categories entry" you don't end up on this page. Instead the link takes you to the top of the CFD page. This is true for ALL the subcategories. To find this discussion, you would then have to look for the parent category, yet that is not what you would likely look for. This means that anyone concerned about the deletion of one of the subcategories might not find this discussion. --Samuel Wantman 19:56, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Huh... that is a bit awkward. I wonder how many people have looked for this discussion and failed to find it. At any rate, I suspect we're not done talking about this. We need more people contributing and a broader audience for a big decision like totally revamping the way users are categorized here. What kind of page can we advertise at Village pump to get as much productive discussion as possible on the topic of user categorization? -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  ~~It's hard to see how they could miss it — it's over half of CfD.~~ — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  OOPS, it's no longer linked from CfD at all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:12, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  That's because it was sent to completed discussions 2 days ago. Untill then, the links worked perfectly. Hipocrite - «Talk» 00:55, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  Hmmm. Doesn't look completed to me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate/Rename to Category:Wikipedians by interest/Category:Wikipedians interested in writing the best darn encyclopedic articles about contriversial and potentially divisive political topics such as this one! per Samuel & GTB. Please paraphrase as needed. Rfrisbie^talk 04:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate/Rename - Changing my support from "delete" to this. If there's a reasonable way to rename and repurpose these categories in an encyclopedic fashion then I support it, and it shouldn't need any red tape for it to happen. A sudden deletion of all political categories will cause way too much grief in the short run to be worth it. Let's be the kind of Wiki that learns from experience, and let's not repeat a "userbox wars"-type scenario. I request that we suspend judgement on this matter until Samuel and I and anybody else interested in helping have had a chance to try a less confrontational alternative to simple deletion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -Lady Aleena @ 19:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
1. These will never be kept down permanently. Delete them today, they will be recreated tomorrow by those who were proud of their association with a political mindset or association and want to categorize themselves accordingly.
2. It has been said before, but user categories are useful in finding people who are sympathetic or hostile to one's views.
3. User pages and the attached categories are mostly POV at the start. How can one keep POV out of the User area of Wikipedia? People who receive Barnstars on their user pages have POV on their user pages, even if it is the POV of someone else.
4. A userbox without a user category is pointless. The only use I have for a userbox is to categorize myself, if I use a box at all. If the categories are deleted, then the userboxes should be too since they would now have no function other than to take up space.
- - I disagree with Lady Aleena again:
  - Point 2: I used to think that, but it seems they're only being used for ~~vote~~comment spamming.
  - Point 4: A userbox without a user category is quite useful — it allows users to self-identify (as in your point 1).
  - — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I support most of Lady Aleena's comments. A userbox without a cat does advertise one's views, but isn't useful for community building. If the idea is to thwart votestackers, then apparently you think votestackers aren't able to Google Wikipedia for a quoted phrase. We undervalue categories that don't seem to contribute directly to the encyclopedia, but without this kind of community engagement, Wikipedia just wouldn't have as many active participants and good articles. You might as well build a city with no parks or stadiums because they don't contribute to industry. Deco 23:27, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I can't speak for all advocates of deletion, but from where I'm standing, the idea is not to thwart vote-stackers. It's true that the categories, as they exist, actively encourage vote-stacking, but that's a minor point. The main point is to set a less partisan, more encyclopedic tone, in keeping with WP:UP. The point is that this is a bad way to categorize ourselves relative to this project. The point is that we could be associating in a way that dovetails much more fully with our goal of writing an encyclopedia, rather than in a way that's orthogonal to that goal (this is why I favor migration over deletion - remember there are many more than two choices). The point is that these categories encourage factionalism, and the idea that it's appropriate to edit Wikipedia as a member of some faction. This is where I usually hear two replies - (1) It's impossible to check all our biases at the door, so why pretend we can be neutral when we can't, and (2) Disclosure of bias is a good thing, and leads to better NPOV editing. To the first, the response is that it doesn't matter whether you can attain it, the point is that you strive for it, and encourage others to do so as well, rather than just planting your flag in a specific prejudice and essentially saying "I think within these lines, which lines do you think within?" That way we get a bunch of lines drawn, and Wikipedia is a battlefield instead of an encyclopedia. It doesn't have to be that way. To the second point, the response is that disclosure of bias is indeed a very good thing, but user categories are a piss-poor way to go about doing it. There's a world of difference between "I feel this way" and "Here's a link to a list of 40 people who feel this way." The first is honest disclosure of bias; the second is an invitation to network along partisan lines. Please let's not network along partisan lines. -GTBacchus^(talk) 00:00, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - this debate is rather complicated. There are a lot of arguments being thrown around, some of which are responses to others, many of which are relevant, and all of which have been repeated thrice by now, I'll bet. I just started an outline at our talk page here, attempting to get a kind of bird's eye view of the main arguments going around, for the benefit of all of us. Please feel free to help out with that; I think it could be useful. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Migrate/Rename - As per Samuel & GTB. I hope that voices of Wikipedians who've joined within the past 6 months are welcome in this discussion? ~ Chimaeridae 21:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now, continue discussion elsewhere- I'm giving my conditional support for the "third way" proposed here. I think it will be a good idea to keep the categories for now and open various Wikiprojects, alternatively phrased categories (belief->interest) etc. and to encourage people to rename/move the exisitng cats. In addition,I don't remmeber if it was suggested before (so excuse me for possible reduduncy) but I think there should be opened a new place for long term discussion about the whole user categories debate where people can inform the community about new alternatives and intiatives taking place and explain why they think they are better than the currently existing categories. I think the current discussion should be closed at "keep for now" and that it shoul continue and move, as explained above, outside the deletion log which is time pressured (we already went past the 7 days and this log might be closed down any minute).I want to clarify that I do not give suport for future deletion or any compulsion-based measures in advance by supporting the above stated solutions, I still only support positive means. Also, I think we should agree that no new cfd regarding these categories be posted for a long period of time, necessary for the new solution to form and become successful, lets say +-10 months? Does this suggestion sound reasonable? Tal :) 10:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Concur with Tal, and recommend the culture be improved by dealing with the nationalism and defiance of policy visible on Talk:Mustafa Kemal Atatürk and Talk:Imbros and Tenedos (note: I choose two examples where two groups are at fault, although it is the same two groups.) Septentrionalis 17:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest change of venue to Category talk:Wikipedians by politics, which hasn't stirred a bit this whole time. That seems like a fitting place to discuss the fate of these categories in a more leisurely fashion. -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all - give me a break. First, no political userboxes, now this. This is pure bullshit. (Ibaranoff24 05:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Delete - divisive. --Aldux 17:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Call for consensus

Would anyone object to closing this debate as "Keep for now and wait to see what happens"? -- Samuel Wantman 23:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with this phrasing and further suggest, like GT, to move this discussion to Category talk:Wikipedians by politics.However, I think it may be a good idea to agree on a certain minimum time frame during which no cfd will be proposed, as I explained somewhere above...

So, on second thought, maybe the closing should be ""Keep for now and wait to see what happens, for at least (10) months" (the exact period of time, of course, can be different than the one in the example).Tal :) 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. There is clear consensus among people who care about the encyclopedia enough to read and respond to the arguments of the other that this is a Delete result, and I do not support a strong proponent of one side of this discussion closing it to their side. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:55, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to your implication that people like me, Lady Aleena, and others, some of whom wrote detailed arguments detailing their position, don't "care about the encyclopedia". I've read the arguments of those favouring deletion and already explained that I don't find them compelling, and I don't think I should have to supply a point-by-point rebuttal. It is clear to me from the length of the debate alone that this is a contentious issue with no consensus at this time. Deco 14:09, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also object and rebuke this stubborn attitude that "people who care" are necessarily pro deletion. The lengh of this debate and the genuine efforts of many users here to reach compromise, rather than to compell a solution, proves they care A LOT. Also, it seems to me that although there is no complete consensus, te fact that many people who initaily supported deletion now tend to prefer comprimise (GTbacchus, stuffofinterest, and others), proves that we made significant progress. Additionally, it seems to me that the attitude that deletion is the only way and that any other way is not only wrong but proves that people don't care or want to cause harm, ignores and does ill justice to those users who spent so much time on trying to approach a solution through other methods, and also seems to ignore this whole discussion as being worthless. In other words, the fact that one ignores this discussion believing consensus is on his side whatever happens, doesn't mean that this is actually the case, and the fact that one makes such offensive statements instead of constructively trying to reach consesus and commenting on what people say, is both ineffective and rude.Tal :) 14:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize to the 4 individuals who voted to keep the categories and also participated meaningfully in the discussion. You are overshadowed by the horde of people who voted to delete and participated meaningfully. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into argument about "how much" people "voted" for each side, and I don't claim to know why you think the people arguing for deletion were more "meaningful" but I do know that the amount of people is irrelevant compared to the strength of the arguments. I think that many of the dominant people in this conversation reached a certain compromise, that may be acceptable to the community as a whole. The question is whether or not this solution is acceptable, and the answer can't just be "no" but should be explained.Tal :) 15:01, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wow! I thought this wasn't a vote. BTW, am I one of the 4? It seems your comment here is more sarcastic than anything else. JungleCat 14:57, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No sarcasm at all. If I were the closing admin, I would disregard all of the keep voters who said we were trying to take away their ability to call themselves liberal wikipedians, or that we were going to take this decision to delete categories and say that no more discussion was needed, and that all userboxes were done. This is probably why I don't want to close anything, ever, but I certainly don't propose to allow partisans from one side of this discussion or the other to close the debate. The category migrators can get right on their migration - have you had any success yet? Perhaps you could start with your own project members? Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:06, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the person who proposed and started the "migration" project, I have been waiting for the result of this CFD before putting much work into getting it going. The effort, while still worthwhile has much less urgency if this CFD closes as a "delete". That is why I am asking to close this debate. As soon as it does, everyone on this page can expect a personal invitation to join, and notice about this project will go out to the broader community. I find this CFD encouraging, because I find that people from both sides of the issue were willing to hear each other and find some commonality. I'm sorry to hear that Hipocrite does not see it that way. -- Samuel Wantman 20:19, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the notion that those who voted "keep" for the reason you explained was somehow illegitimate just because you declare it so. It's not just about "liberal" Wikipedians... it's about all partisans and knowing the biases of contributors for the sake of transparency. Your reduction of this meaningful argument to nothing for the sake of some sort of expediency is nauseous to behold. It's anti-wikicratic and a denigration of what is really a powerful argument. Again, how dare you talk down to those of us who are making legitimate arguments! — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:34, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I object to the idea that there is ever a requirement for anyone to go beyond explaining their vote. I, for instance, had no obligation to argue my point against others (ad nauseum) but only to make it ONCE. My vote is equal to all others who voted, and if it's not viewed that way, this whole process is a sham. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:27, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hipocrite, I'm finding some irony in your statements here. You say that most keep voters disregarded the delete arguments, but you're disregarding the arguments advanced against quick deletion. I haven't seen you reply to that, so how does that make you any different from the people who failed to reply to deletion arguments? Remember this isn't a vote, it's based on strenth of arguments. Right now the strongest unanswered arguments on the table are for slow deletion accompanied by migration and careful education, with lots of careful and attentive dialogue, just the way Jimbo's always suggested. I see no argument on the table for brashness or immediate deletion, certainly no refutation of the point that this would cause a rather large disruption, or any argument that the ends would justify those short-sighted means. -GTBacchus^(talk) 20:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The arguments against quick deletion have not yet justified the existance of the categories. "Don't delete these because people will be angry you stopped them from damaging the encyclopedia and might leave" is an argument for deletion, not against it. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:45, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But look, if you can get it done, get it done. I've close it as keep. Hipocrite - «Talk» 03:50, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with keeping it now and seeking a similar system for identifying bias for transparency purposes. A total deletion without a replacement is unacceptable. Transparency of contributions is extremely important to the future vitality of the Wikipedia. I don't care too much about how transparency is achieved as long as it is achieved. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 18:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you support requiring people to state their biases? How do you achieve "transparency" when people don't just come out and tell you (honestly) where they're coming from? I'm interested in this transparency idea... -GTBacchus^(talk) 22:39, 1 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Two prerequisites of stating a bias are awareness and willingness. The latter is hard enough to come by. The former all too often if off the radar. Enculturation, among other factors, sees to that. Just ask a fish to tell you about how water affects it some time. Besides, a "requirement" is unenforceable. Rfrisbie^talk 03:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I rather agree. I'm just trying to figure out where Stevie's coming from. Maybe he'll tell us. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:35, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what we have now with this set of categories (whether liked or not) is a form of voluntary transparence. In my view, when enough people volunteer to do something, a kind of social encouragement for that naturally forms. I don't favor any requirements, as I believe that would scare away participants unnecessarily. It's also hard to ponder why anyone thought I meant it should be required when it was never required before. I support these categories because they encourage transparence. Transparence is a good thing, no? — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 22:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Careful with the second guessing, Stevie. I didn't "think you meant" it should be required. I introduced a new question, to see what your answer would be. I wouldn't give you very good odds at guessing my intentions; better to stick with the literal words. You kind of neglected my second question. Going from "transparency = good", how is transparency acheived in cases where people choose not to state their relevant biases, or are those cases just less transparent and that's ok too, or what? Please don't suppose that I'm trying to pin you down to some corner; I'm actually trying to understand your perspective better. Any explanation you choose to share is appreciated. -GTBacchus^(talk) 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My second guessing was natural given what has happened on both sides of this debate (and yes, it has become a debate). Anyway, my answer to your question is... I don't know. The only point I had ever meant to make on this subject was that these categories provide one way of helping to achieve transparence. Perhaps later on, somebody will come up with another way of helping with that. I don't have any answers now (I never proposed to know any alternatives). But I will certainly stand up for an approach that already exists, and I insist that the damage from them is extremely low compared to their benefit. If these categories are vote stacking bait, then the Wikipedia is link spamming bait. We should go after the perpetrators, not the good citizens. — Stevie is the man! ^{Talk | Work} 04:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Liberal Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Superseded by umbrella nomination --William Allen Simpson 01:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no encyclopedic value, possible votestacking use Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose I could support the deletion of all one hundred subcategories (and their subcategories) of Category:Wikipedians by politics, but one by one deletion weakens the encyclopedia by allowing selective bias. GRBerry 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Void this CfD in favor of the above one, without which this one is absurd, just like the Conservative Wikipedians one, below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose There are many other categories that are worse than this one, but if we agree to delete all political categories than I will support, specifically the Conservative wikipedians below. Vote withdrawn.Gsingh 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories are now nominated for deletion above.-- Drini 19:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OPPOSE Larix 23:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Evolution polls

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, unused for months, was described on talk page as "temporary". Warrens 18:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as name seems vague, otherwise populate and rename. David Kernow 01:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Rock and Roll Musicians For The Political Left

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reads like some sort of enemies list. Extremely prejudicial. waffle iron ^talk 18:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Hopelessly vague, invites speculative inclusions, and cat name implies some sort of soviet monolith.--M @r ē ino 18:14, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What the hell is this based on???--Childzy ^{(Talk|Contribs)} 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mareino's thoughts above. --Wisd e n17 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Argh! Kukini 02:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unsourced POV magnet. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If this category is to be deleted, then it is only fair that the category "Rock Musicians of the Political Right" be deleted as well. - Anonymous —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.203.207.247 (talk • contribs) .

It has been nominated as well: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 20#Category:Rock Musicians of the Political Right --waffle iron ^talk 22:49, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because it's pointless 132.241.246.111 22:36, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A lot of musicians do very deliberately align themselves with left-wing politics - the objections to this category seem to be concerned with "left wing" being some kind of unspeakable concept that it would be libelous to imply anyone had anything to do with. (As a non-American I get the impression that in the USA "left wing" is considered a slur approximately on a par with "rapes babies".) I would actually prefer to populate this category more, by making it and the corresponding Category:Rock Musicians of the Political Right into subcategories of Category:Musical activists and moving people from what would then be the parent category. --Bonalaw 07:49, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Mareino...and Childzy. Postdlf 07:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Bonalaw. I know he voted keep, but his reasoning is exactly why this needs to be deleted... it'll be a POV nightmare. -M^ask 21:47, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless. And artists don't fall neatly on the political spectrum anyway. Wasted Time R 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Doesn't really repeat the "musical activists" category, in my opinion, since there are also a number of right-leaning musicans (largely country artists like Toby Keith, etc., one would suppose), who could perhaps be referred to as "activists", but are not leftist by any means. There is a difference, also, between an activitst (e.g. someone like, say, Joan Baez, who spends huge amounts of their time involved in political activisim), and a performer who simply lets it be known that they are a registered Democrat. I would however favor changing the name of the article to "musicians from the political left", however, since a number of folk and also soul or R&B artists (Stevie Wonder, etc.) would fit. --Markt3 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Marine life

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Category redirect --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, and a poor means of classifying organisms should have been deleted a while ago, but seemingly never got listed. Stemonitis 16:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – we have Category:Aquatic organisms. ×Meegs 16:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and delete per Meegs.--M @r ē ino 18:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to redirect per above. David Kernow 01:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have converted it to a "soft" redirect, using {{Category redirect}}. --Stemonitis 09:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Articles containing fair use images

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: too broad to be useful, and currently too underpopulated to be effective.--Lkjhgfdsa 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – If this gigantic set is ever needed, it can be generated by machine. ×Meegs 16:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete w/o prejudice per Meegs.--M @r ē ino 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 14:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Billy Meier Categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Among these 2 categories are a grand total of 4 unique pages, 1 of which shouldn't really belong (Immanuel). Of the three that are relevant, 2 of them have the same name as the category itself, and all are linked from the main Billy Meier article. I don't think these categories help much in the way of navigation or sorting. Unless a large amount of Billy Meier-theology related material is expected on Wikipedia, these categories seem hopelessly doomed to tininess. I propose deletion, but if this is seen as too strong, I would recommend as an alternative renaming and combining the categories into something more general, such as "UFOs in Religion." Something like that could conceievably be expanded to other pages and have some breadth. SnowFire 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete These topics are nowhere close to meriting categories. Osomec 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Billy Meier category. I agree with the above. I haven't looked at the other category. Bubba73 (talk), 18:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Osomec. --Wisd e n17 20:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Jayjg ^(talk) 14:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States state case law

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 06:25, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename subcategories but leave this category the same. For example, Category:California state case law is reundant, it only needs to be Category:California case law. Same with the other states.—Markles 15:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose; "state" helps clarify that these are categories for articles about state court decisions only; otherwise decisions by federal courts sitting in the particular state might be inadvertently included. Postdlf 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak oppose per Postdlf. Even if redundant, the verbiage is very common and is a useful reminder. ×Meegs 16:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Postdlf; every state has state and federal courts, and in some instances a federal case can be referred to as "a California case", but not as "a California state case". That's the burden of dual sovereignty! BD2412 T 19:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

In support. I counter your arguments thusly…

A federal case in California would not be a "California case." It would be a "federal case" or a "United States case" or some such thing. I admit that a "United States case" could refer to a case in the United States, not of the United States. But a California case is very clearly a case of California.
It is not "very common" to refer to them as "California state cases." If a category were called "Category:California case law" there's no doubt in my mind what kind of cases they would be.

—Markles 19:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting, my experience is the opposite; most people tend to use the qualifier of "state" because it's confusing otherwise. Perhaps it's a regional thing—where do you practice and/or study law? Postdlf 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about colloquialisms; rather, it's about accuracy. I'll grant that redundancy does not imply inaccuracy, but if the category had originally been called "California case law" would anyone have suggested changing it to add "state"? —Markles 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. As a non-legal person, I'll just say that at least for me, adding "State" is a useful clarifier and reminder. Even if in law the "State" is technically unnecessary (a proposition I am unqualified to judge), it still is reasonable to add it in a general-use encylopedia. SnowFire 20:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is a useful clarifier and reminder, but it is not precise. Compare it to "New York State Governor." That might clarify the position held by George Pataki (Governor of New York) instead of the one held by Kevin M. Warsh (a New Yorker who serves as Governor of the Federal Reserve.—Markles 21:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Martial Arts Styles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 10:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Option 1: merge into Category:Martial arts. Option 2: rename as Category:Martial arts styles -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per option1. MakeRocketGoNow 19:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:C class destroyers to Category:C class destroyers (1943)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Royal Navy had several different classes of destroyers called the "C class". This category contains members of the 1943 class, and the category should be renamed to make that clear. TomTheHand 14:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 16:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Low Germanic languages

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages. Conscious 10:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non-existant term, original research, invention of Wikipedia user. The scientific term, used in all sources and all other Wikipedia editions, is Low German languages. //83 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Oppose -- Accepted term, even by certain linguists, used to avoid confusion and provide more and better understandable information. --

Rex Germanus Tesi samanunga is edele unde scona 14:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Not a single source is provided. The term is not used by any other encyclopedia or established reference work, and not by any other Wikipedia either. The term was invented by a English Wikipedia user on November 12, 2005. Hence, the category is a violation of two Wikipedia policies: Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Verifiability. Anyway, those insisting on moving all things Low German to "Low Germanic" seems to be a weird sort of Dutch nationalists (just like claiming American is unrelated to English for nationalist purposes). //83 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; Low German article suggests that German and Germanic might be both terms that would be used to mean the same thing.--M@rēino 18:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Be aware that the same POV pushers have made changes to a large number of articles related to this since November last year. A Wikipedia article cannot be used a reference. Until we have seen other evidence, we must assume that the term was invented last year by a Wikipedia editor.
Keep, possibly rename - When I organized these categories, I went along with the terminology already in place in the articles. However, it was my understanding that "Low German" is (as is cited in this CFD) the name of the family that includes Low Franconian, and that the family that was named "Low German" here in Wikipedia is actually called "Low Saxon". Rename Category:Low German languages to Category:Low Saxon languages, and rename Category:Low Germanic languages to Category:Low German languages or to Category:Low Saxon-Low Franconian languages (more neutral term used by Ethnologue). - Keep in mind that the Dutch distaste of being called "German" and of Germans not being called "Dutch" in English congealed only in recent centuries. Nationalisms and politics aside, it is indisputable that Dutch and Low Saxon are closer to each other than either of them is to Standard German. Also keep in mind that Low Saxon, which is also spoken in some parts of the Netherlands, would be under "Low German" somewhere along the classification tree either way, even if the classification Low Franconian languages weren't also so named. It may be politically correct to say "Low Germanic", but "Low German" is both historically and genetically the more correct term (purely in a linguistic sense, mind you—once again, nationalisms and politics both being set aside). The category structures as they had been set really should be kept intact—if "Low Germanic" is not a valid term, then rename the category, don't delete it. - Gilgamesh 08:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. I like the Gilgamesh's proposition of adopting the ethnologue solution by moving this category to Category:Low Franconian-Low Saxon languages (I'd however prefer the alphabetical ordering of the components, which also corresponds to the ordering by number of active speakers or by number of Ausbausprachen). I've requested the move of the corresponding articles, see Talk:Low Germanic languages#Requested moves. In any case, the articles should keep the same names as the corresponding categories. ― j. 'mach' wust | ⚖ 15:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Actually they use "Low Saxon-Low Franconian", but I realize that's splitting hairs. - Gilgamesh 17:25, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Additional comment It occurred to me that perhaps it really is genuinely more proper to use "Low Saxon-Low Franconian" instead of "Low Franconian-Low Saxon", because it's established terminology in the linguistic field. Similarly, we tend to say "Indo-European" or "Tibeto-Burman" rather than "Euro-Indian" or "Burmo-Tibetan". If it is the majority's choice that "Low Franconian-Low Saxon" is more acceptable, then I wouldn't dispute it, and I really don't consider this a dispute now. But please think about it. - Gilgamesh 22:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as appropriate. I believe what this is referring to, without digging into it too deeply, is Low West-Germanic non-Anglo-Frisian dialects/languages, which variously include Afrikaans, Nederlands, Vlaams, Plattdüütsch, Niederfränkisch, Niedersächsisch, [etc.], [how ever you like to split them up and group them together], possibly Lëtzebürgesch, and a number of now-extinct dialects or languages such as then plattdeutschen Dialects that supplanted the Lechitic Pomeranian language[s]. For now tho, I think it would be entirely appropriate to remove this discussion from CfD and take it to the category talk page where it should have been to begin with... Tom e r ^talk 05:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Translated in Dutch the differences will be much clearer: Germanic = Germaans, German = Duits, which would make German the languages spoken in Germany, and Germanic the 'Germanic family', which would include German, Dutch, Danish, etc. Bryan 20:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Politicians of the District of Columbia to Category:District of Columbia politicians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 10:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. To correspond to all the other subcategories of Category:American politicians by state. Yes, I know it's not a state, but it should be included here until/unless the higher category's name is corrected. —Markles 13:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match siblings. ×Meegs 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No opinion. ×Meegs 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Markles. DC should follow the same linguistic format as if it were a state. --M @r ē ino 18:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- We just decided this a few weeks ago in the other direction! Stop category thrashing! This is not a state, this is a local government, and follows Category:Local government in the United States. Markles just added it to Category:American politicians by state, solely to create the conflict, and then nominated CfR 5 minutes later. I am very close to thinking this a bad faith nomination. (And Markles should use the official {{cfr2}}, I'm tired of having to fix his entries.) --William Allen Simpson 00:54, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- My apologies. I certainly did not do this in bad faith. Creating a category then nominating a similar one for CFR is a regular part of category maintenance and if I did something wrong in Wikipedia procedure, please accept my apologies.—Markles 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It looks like the previous discussion concluded that there should be a single cat titled "District of Columbia", not "Washington, D.C." Only you expressed a preference for "Politicians of —" over "— politicians", and you did not give a specific reason. I really believe this is a good-faith nomination. ×Meegs 01:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - In that previous discussion, it was 3 in favor and 2 opposed, which was hardly a consensus. It is fair to debate the issue anew. —Markles 19:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename previous discussion did not reach consensus, and should follow state conventions. -M^ask 21:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Conservative Wikipedians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Superseded by umbrella nomination - TexasAndroid 14:09, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category designed and used to votestack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- survived CfD of 2005 December 18. No evidence presented of "design" or "use" related to votestacking. --William Allen Simpson 12:37, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category designed by User:Gator1 during his pre-responsible phase, in defence of banned user User:BigDaddy777. Review recent user-talk contributions of User:Rangeley for use in vote-stacking. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ¿Evidence? > http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&oldid=59500451#Vote-Stacking.3F -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Unless at least Category:Liberal Wikipedians and Category:Moderate Wikipedians are also nominated for deletion, and possibly Category:Leftist Wikipedians, Category:Rightist Wikipedians, Category:Green Wikipedians, Category:Libertarian Wikipedians, and likely many more from Category:Wikipedians by politics. If users are to be allowed to declare their political leanings in this way at all, then we cannot single out just one of these categories and remove it, denying that ability to one segment of the users, while still allowing the ability to others. Either all this type need to go, or they all need to stay. - TexasAndroid 14:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I support the deletion of all of the subcategories except the ones for small minority views (i.e. "Users who support the Bharatiya Janata Party"). The large ones have no conceivable encyclopedic use. The BJP category might assist in finding someone that can help us researhc the BJP. This is not necessary for conservatives. When I get home and have access to AWB, I will do a mass nomination. I look foward to your strong and continued support to make an encyclopedia as opposed to argue about politics. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Removing all one hundred categories and user boxes may force users to remain more anonymous and have blander user pages, but I guarantee you that it will encourage external-Wikipedia organizations that can effectively vote-stack and edit war unopposed and unmonitored by interested Wikipedians, if it is not already being done. DavidBailey 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- bad faith nomination. --Facto 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Please retract your personal attack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no personal attack imo. Osomec 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per above. Larix 15:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- Smells like a bad faith nomination. While there has recently been a WP:SPAM to members of the category, I don't believe categories, project pages, userboxes, etc... should be deleted because of an individual's action - the individual should suffer the consequences. I could support the deletion of all one hundred subcategories (and their subcategories) of Category:Wikipedians by politics, but one by one deletion weakens the encyclopedia by allowing selective bias. GRBerry 15:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories But I've seen you've supported already the group CFD -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I support the deletion of all of the subcategories except the ones for small minority views (i.e. "Users who support the Bharatiya Janata Party"). The large ones have no conceivable encyclopedic use. The BJP category might assist in finding someone that can help us researhc the BJP. This is not necessary for conservatives. When I get home and have access to AWB, I will do a mass nomination. I look foward to your strong and continued support to make an encyclopedia as opposed to argue about politics. Please retract your personal attack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 15:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - There is no personal attack imo. Osomec 16:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I won't be able to support keeping those for "small minority views". That in itself introduces selective bias. I'm not a regular at CFD (spotted this on Recent Changes), so I don't know what the etiquette here is when a parent is deleted, do all the kids go to? If so, then just nominate Category:Wikipedians by politics. Otherwise, I think we need a separate and visible discussion about eliminating all of them as a group. GRBerry 18:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - There is encyclopedic value to the rare member of the small minority view - in that they can assist us in finding sources related to their view. There is no encyclopedic value to "conservatives." Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - That could be accomplished just by posting on the talk page of the article about the small minority party. The use of the category is irrelevant to the size of the group. GRBerry 18:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -- JungleCat 15:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Care to elaborate? CFD is not a vote. -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose They should all go, but selective nominations like this are out of order. Osomec 16:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- - Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - They all have to go at once. I can't support the deletion of Category:Conservative Wikipedians while Category:Liberal Wikipedians just sits there. It's true that neither has any encyclopedic value, but they have to be nominated together - I think all categories in Category:Wikipedians by politics should go. -GTBacchus^(talk) 17:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment- Then rescind your vote, and nominate them all. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What vote? ...and who said it had to happen today? -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:18, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Discussing with you in two places gets confusing. My deepest apologies on the mix up. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 18:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No worries! Serves me right for arguing the same issue from two perspectives at the same time. -GTBacchus^(talk) 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - IF you have a problem with these groups, they should all be deleted, pretty selective choice. --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 17:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose per GRBerry. DavidBailey 18:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can I take that to mean "No to selective nominations but yes if applied to all categories (as GrBerry has done) ?-- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, reserving the right to change vote if ALL are nominated, per GTBacchus.--M @r ē ino 18:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All categories you mentioned are being CFD as well: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:CFD#Category:Wikipedians_by_politics_and_all_subcategories So, would you reconsider changing your opinion? -- Drini 20:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-Comment Will the Category:Wikipedians by religion and sub-cats also be targeted for deletion? Will it stop at politics? What about Category:Wikipedians by philosophy? Can these be used to votestack? Sorry for asking dumb questions ;-) JungleCat 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No. I am focusing on politics. You can feel free to deal with other categories used to votestack. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose, all of them or none of them. We cant pick and choose, and if you were truly worried about "vote stacking" (votes dont ever matter by the way) then you would target all groups, not merely this. Rangeley 18:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per GTBacchus et al., most of Category:Wikipedians by politics should be deleted as non-encyclopedic, as promoting categorization irrelevant to editing, and as potential vote-stacking/edit-warring tools. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Fireplace (talk • contribs) 18:33, June 19, 2006 (UTC).
Oppose -- there is no such thing as vote-stacking, so vote-stacking is not possible -- we seek consensus. We have all sorts of categories on Wikipedia -- this seems to be a hate-filled focus on Conservatives, which seems to happen daily, even among Admins. Morton Devonshire^Yo
This is a fallacy. "Vote-stacking" is a misnomer for a disruptive activity that impedes the finding of consensus. Call it what you will; it's real, and it's been done with this category twice in the past week. -GTBacchus^(talk) 07:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Note that Category:Wikipedians by politics and all subcategories are now nominated for deletion above. GRBerry 18:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 18

Singles by genre to Songs by genre

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge all. the wub "?!" 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Less clear than the nomination below, but still worth doing, sez I. The "Songs by genre" categories are much better maintained than these.--Mike Selinker 06:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Musicpvm 06:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 16:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. ×Meegs 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Singles by artist nationality to Songs by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge all. the wub "?!" 10:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the deletion of Singles by artist, these should merge with their category:Songs by nationality counterparts.--Mike Selinker 06:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Musicpvm 06:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 16:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. I wonder if these could be named better though. Songs by Spanish artists? Maybe not. ×Meegs 17:59, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Multiracial people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Multiracial Britons

Category:Multiracial Canadians

The global cateogory is a confused mess. It is a worldwide category, but it is justified on the basis of a U.S. census definition. Everyone is multiracial, so how far back do you go? This isn't a defining characteristic so it is POV category clutter. Hawkestone 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all Hawkestone 23:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Sumahoy 01:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. I have tried, but I can't put it any better than the nom did. Grand master ka 02:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. In case you haven't noticed, we have Category:Italian-Americans, Category:Afro-Brazilians, and dozens upon dozens of other categories that break down wikipedia's biographies by race. Deleting the multiracial categories will not change the fact that multi-racial people exist, and wish to be identified as such. If you really have a problem with the American definition of race being used, then move everything to Category:Multiracial Americans, but don't delete the category. Race is not POV any more than nationality, sexuality, or religious membership are POV. Yes, they are social constructs, but someone's membership in that social construct is a provable, verifiable FACT of life that affects that person's day-to-day life. You may not like it or how it makes you feel, but you cannot wave it away by voting your personal preferences in CFD.--M@rēino 02:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- P.S.: "Currently, the Wikipedia also supports categorizing People by religion and People by race or ethnicity. The placement of people in these categories may be problematic.". So this deletion also violates Wikipedia policy. --M@rēino 03:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Category:Multircial Americans was deleted a while back I believe. Osomec 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- The question is whether the race or ethnicity is notable, an essential part of the article(s), and people wish to be identified as such. Of the few that I checked, not a single article has a verifiable citation about the wishes of the people involved! Moreover, Mareino is mistaken. The relevant policy is Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), which requires "Neutrality", "Occupation", and (optionally) "Residence". S/he cites a guideline, but failed to quote the very next words: Note: Wikipedians are divided about whether categories should be used for such topics, and might propose such categories for deletion. --William Allen Simpson 14:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- CommentI believe that you are intentionally distorting my comments. What matters is that there are a class of people who belong to more than one race, and who take offense to being considered something other than what they are, just the same as how most Canadians don't much like it if you say they're from the US because it's "close enough". Wikipedia is not a fan club site, so we have to report the verifiable truth, even if the people we're reporting about don't make any public statements one way or the other. For example, Bill Clinton is white whether he wants to be or not, and in fact it would be inappropriate to dig up some quote from Clinton just so that we could put him into a "white people" category. If you really do want to read about people who are proud of their multiracial heritage, read Cher and Hines Ward.--M @r ē ino 17:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. Politically correct games. The U.S. Census's policies reflect a PC agenda, but Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral. Osomec 16:12, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

How is pretending that multiracial people don't exist "neutral"? Bearcat 05:18, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No such pretence is being made, but it has been observed that all people are multiracial and any definition of the term is arbitary. Osomec 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the most ridiculous reason for deletion I've heard. This has absolutely nothing to do with "political correctness" (a phrase which I have come to loathe). --Saforrest 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry you find a rigorous application of NPOV to be ridiculous. A fashionable bias is still a bias, but it is less likely to be recognised as such than any other type of bias. The American government does not observe NPOV, so Wikipedia can't always follow its lead. Osomec 04:16, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because the criteria (US Census) is arbitrary and this is unverifiable. Do we really want to get into questions like "how Jewish should he be to be called Jewish-American?" and other such things? --Saforrest 20:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Saforrest, first of all, it is a blantant falsehood that US Census criteria is unverifiable. It's published by the Federal government and discussed on Wikipedia! Also, your "how Jewish" argument is an argument for deleting ALL race, religion, and ethnicity category, it fails to explain how THIS category is less valid. Finally, it is against Wiki rules to delete a page just b/c you don't like the current version. If you can come up with better text for the criteria, that's what the edit button is for. In fact, I'll suggest a different criterion, one that by definition cannot be considered arbitrary: if someone is listed under more than one of Wikipedia's racial categories, they must be listed under the Multiracial category as well. --M @r ē ino 15:45, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category:multiracial people for the US government census definition (rename if necessary). Keep category:Eurasians, category:Hapas, category:coloured South Africans too. — Insta ntnood 14:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

More Singles by artist to Songs by artist

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge/rename all. the wub "?!" 10:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See previous discussion and "Rename" consensus here: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 9#Singles by artist into Songs by artist.

--Musicpvm 23:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/rename and also rename:

Sorry I missed those the first time through.--Mike Selinker 05:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question: as I understand WP:SONG, in most cases, only artists' singles are notable. If these "song" categories were created, wouldn't there be more of an encouragement for fans to come and write articles about track 4 of Get Rich or Die Tryin', etc.? -- getcrunk ? 12:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Getcrunk makes a good point. Also I think there is something about "so and so's songs" that suggests more of a songwriting association, and also implies some kind of "ownership" of the song itself rather than merely being the perpetrator of a particular rendition. Example : Kylie Minogue's version of "Over the Rainbow" can be called a "Kylie Minogue single" but I shudder to think of it as a "Kylie Minogue song" - it ain't. Destiny's Child's "Emotion" could be called a Bee Gees song, and the truth could be stretched to call it a Samantha Sang song but it's certainly not a "Destiny's Child song". It is however a "Destiny's Child" single (though it's not categorised in Category:Destiny's Child singles yet). Steps did more cover versions than originals, and didn't write any of their "original" hits, Westlife same thing. It's almost like giving them a credibility they haven't earned, or am I seeing too much in this subtle shift of nuance? I now realize that a large number of artists have been changed from "X's singles" to "X's songs" but I think it's less accurate, and as Getcrunk says, encourages a free for all in creating articles for nonnotable album tracks. I can see though, that these must be changed because makes consistent with the numerous categories that have already been changed. Rossrs 14:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say that no change lets us off the hook for being vigilant, nor does it remove the power of the AfD. The song should be notable for the artist's version for it to get the category tag. But I disagree that Emotion isn't a Destiny's Child song. I remember when my wife, whose musical tastes were formed in the early 1980s, was surprised to learn years later that Ball of Confusion wasn't originally a Love and Rockets song. Their version became just as strongly notable to her as The Temptations' version was to me. Factually the timeline is Tempts->L&R, but for her time ran backwards. I imagine Emotion's timeline will also run the other way for a lot of young people.--Mike Selinker 14:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm sure it will too, and I'm equally sure that many younger people listening to Westlife or Steps (or many others) have no clue that the songs have been around for years. I've been caught myself - I thought Pearl Jam's "Last Kiss" was an original and I can think of other examples. Point taken. Of all the possibilities for naming these categories, I can't see one that is without some form of ambiguity, but this is probably the best of them. Rossrs 15:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Merge as per nom. Rossrs 21:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yeah, I can't imagine there could be a simple, agreeable method of assigning songs to a single artist given the wide variety of situations. Good lord, think about "All the Young Dudes", written by David Bowie, first recorded by Mott the Hoople, and then later by Bowie. On getcrunk's issue, I reason that some genres — especially in the last few decades — are not driven by the single, and that many non-single articles are appropriate and necessitate the songs categories. The cats may encourage articles about non-notable songs, but I suspect not as much as partially-linked track listings in album articles do, and, as Mike said, there's still AfD. ×Meegs 16:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge / rename all per last week's CfD discussion. ×Meegs 16:20, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Vivendi Universal subsidiaries to Category:Vivendi subsidiaries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently, Vivendi dropped the "Universal" portion of its name. --FuriousFreddy 23:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently they're now called Vivendi SA... so wouldn't Category:Vivendi SA subsidiaries be most correct? --W.marsh 23:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It appears a name change is needed, but I'm not well-versed in naming conventions here, just yet, so I'll bite my tongue on any more specific recommendations for now.. Luna Santin 07:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. SA is not part of the name, but simply a legal designation, like the British plc and they are not normally included. I have moved Vivendi to Vivendi (disambiguation) and requested that Vivendi SA is moved to Vivendi as it is the primary current meaning. Osomec 16:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Publishers to Category:Publishing companies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was postpone until split performed. Conscious 08:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is more a split than a rename, but since it would likely affect many categorizers, I thought I'd bring it here rather than being bold and just doing it. The subcategories of this category mainly use "publishing companies" in the names thereof. The category text says the category is for companies yet it includes some articles and categories that are for the inclusive sense of publisher that also includes people. Thus I propose creating a new category Category:Publishing companies which would take almost all of what is in Category:Publishers and would hold its current place in the hierarchy, while Category:Publishers itself would remain to be a parent of the new category and Category:Publishers (people) as well as a child of Category:Publishing Caerwine Caerwhine 22:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose until implemented. You can just go ahead and do it, but until all articles are moved to subcategories this one cannot be deleted. It would probably need to be kept as a disambiguation page anyway, so it might as well be kept as a parent category. Sumahoy 01:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm perfectly willing to do the work if this change is approved (compared to some of the stub sorting I do, this will be a breeze), and if you look, I already said I planned on keeping the original as a parent. Perhaps rescoping is not usually covered on CFD because of the higher volume of nominations, but it is the usual practice over on SFD. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:30, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support creation of Category:Publishers (people) first, and fill 'er up; then come back for the rename. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose creation of Category:Publishers (people). By definition, we don't do parenthetical disambiguation unless absolutely necessary. Split the companies to Category:Publishing companies. --William Allen Simpson 14:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Publishers (people) was created in January as part of a batch renaming. - EurekaLott 15:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Which it is in this case. Osomec 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support reorganisation, but not immediate deletion. Osomec 16:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment {{publish-bio-stub}}/Category:Publisher (people) stubs has already been created, so if this is incorrect punctuation for a category, the stub should be corrected too. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually that'll be {{publish-company-stub}}/Category:Publisher stubs that will need the correction once Category:Publishing companies is created. Caerwine Caerwhine 02:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since to my eye, the consensus was to create the new category, I've done so and have begun to depopulate Category:Publishers of most of its articles and categories. All the categories that need moving have been moved, but it may be a day or so before the articles are finished. Caerwine Caerwhine 05:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Diet and Food fads

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Already deleted - TexasAndroid 14:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate, see Category:Diet and food fads -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"...fads" seems POV...? David Kernow 01:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Polish-Americans in US politics and policy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty, unique and awkward. category:Polish-American politicians also exists. Chicheley 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Chicheley 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom. Jacek Kendysz 23:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Paul 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. AdamBiswanger1 04:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 16:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:57, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Holders of First Class Honours degrees

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A strange collection of real and fictional people - EurekaLott 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What matters is what people actually achieve later on. Chicheley 21:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a defining characteristic. Not fast the age of twenty-two anyway. Osomec 16:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sibghatullah

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what this means ... inexplicable -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No real context or explanation. Grand master ka 02:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - huh? As suggested, I saw the article about Sabians and am none the wiser. Rossrs 14:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Would recommend holding off until some brave Wikipedian can do more research. User:Sibghatullah started the Godfearers article (probably poorly named), and it seems to be his or her religion (look at the User page). I don't know if this is a personal religion or just a very, very obscure one. The category can probably be deleted, but the two articles referenced might be moved into a proper religious category and wikified some more. SnowFire 19:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Number two draft picks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Horrid naming notwithstanding, this category isn't particularly encyclopedic (it's actually a group of National Hockey Leaguers who were drafted second overall). At a minimum the category needs renaming, but I would prefer a delete since the info is already listified and also covered by the more vast Category:National Hockey League first round draft picks. BoojiBoy 20:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - EurekaLott 20:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not really useful as a category even if named properly. The goal of categories isn't to duplicate every plausible piece of information in the article. --W.marsh 21:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, complete categorycruft, per W.marsh. Grand master ka 02:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. ×Meegs 13:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Waste of space and all the reasons above. --Djsasso 19:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Massachusetts Flags → Category:Massachusetts flags

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Flags and insignia of Massachusetts. the wub "?!" 10:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename To change Flags to flags.—Markles 20:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, suggest speedy rename. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Flags and insignia of Massachusetts or the like, as a coat-of-arms and seal also appear in the category. Regards, David Kernow 01:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC), amended 20:26, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Flags and insignia of Massachusetts -- matches Category:Images of Massachusetts --William Allen Simpson 14:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Flags and insignia of Massachusetts per above. ProveIt ^(talk) 15:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Prominent non-Oscar winners

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category for people who haven't done something would set an interesting precedent. JW 20:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as hopelessly POV. - EurekaLott 20:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Rossrs 20:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Sumahoy 01:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Could see some conceivable use in this, but it could also pose a lot of unnecessary POV problems. Grand master ka 02:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; we have Category:Academy Award nominees and categories for other award nominees. If they're prominent enough, they'll show up somewhere. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Under this definition we could concentrate any prominent figure who has not won an Oscar. From Cyrus the Great to Ali Khamenei and from Homer to Karen Traviss. What would be the point? User:Dimadick
Delete per nom. Chicheley 18:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:U.S. interstate compacts → Category:United States interstate compacts

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename: U.S. → United States. —Markles 20:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, recommend speedy rename. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sumahoy 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Blind Date contestants

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unencyclopedic, Unless that is why they are notable. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. A short list in Blind Date would more than suffice. Rossrs 14:44, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Blind Date contestants (at least in the USA version) are only on for a single episode, and the show is not so popular that someone becomes notable for the rest of time (see Wikipedia:recentism) by a single appearance. I would also oppose a list as Rossrs proposes, b/c there are thousands of constestants by now. --M @r ē ino 18:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I meant about the list I would strongly oppose a full list too, and I said "a short list would suffice". What I meant was in the article it could say something like "Some "Blind Date" contestants such as A, B, C and D went on to establish notable careers in showbusiness". Or "A, B, C and D were contestants on "Blind Date" before starting their showbusiness careers. A list of the "thousands of contestants" would be insane. Rossrs 09:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anime Influenced Animation to Category:Amerime

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Anime-influenced animation. Conscious 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To use common name, see Amerime -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The term "amerime" (or even worse, "americanime") as a coined term is still rather disputed, as from the recent debate for deletion. In any case the term is far from "widely" used. I say keep the category name, it's more immediately clear in its definition. Not to mention this category already includes non-American shows in it. --SevereTireDamage 23:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If no consensus for a new name, rename to Category:Anime-influenced animation. David Kernow 00:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment please rename Amerime to match whatever name the category ends up with. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:58, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:BTCC drivers to Category:British Touring Car Championship drivers

and

Category:WTCC drivers to Category:World Touring Car Championship drivers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:26, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand [both] -- ProveIt ^(talk) 19:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename [both] per nom. Sumahoy 01:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep both per here. Have rephrased sentence at top of Category:BTCC drivers to explain abbreviation; Category:WTCC drivers already does so. David Kernow 17:55, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Member of Pershing Rifles to Category:Members of the Pershing Rifles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:45, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Plural -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Sumahoy 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Retailers of New Zealand to Category:Retailing in New Zealand

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn - EurekaLott 03:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match siblings in Category:Retailing by country -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose It was simply in the wrong place. I have moved it to category:retailers by country. Sumahoy 01:50, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn; You are right. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Washington law and justice → Category:Washington law

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:46, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. All of the other subcategories of Category:State law in the United States use "foo law" as their category name. —Markles 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Small Towns in Durham

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:22, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Villages in County Durham or Category:Towns in County Durham -- ProveIt ^(talk) 18:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete as this category appears to be a joke. The only entry was Sunderland which was at one time the largest town in County Durham, and still would be if it was in modern Durham. But it is now in Tyne and Wear and places in England are categorised by ceremonial county not historical county. It has also had official city status since 1992 (there are only 50 cities in England). I have taken the liberty of removing it as its inclusion is patent nonsense Osomec 16:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Osomec. Possibly a manifestation of Newcastle-Sunderland rivalry and certainly a bad idea. Chicheley 18:53, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:BAMF

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Means Bad Ass Mother Fucker, not widely used. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:51, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic delete and thanks to ProveIt for the nom Paul 23:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ugh... Very emphatic delete for many obvious reasons. The definition of POV. Grand master ka 03:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 16:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Air bearings

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spam for www.airfloatsys.com -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. David Kernow 11:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cannabis portal to Category:Portal:Cannabis

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn. the wub "?!" 10:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into parent, to match other members of Category:Portals. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom; I guess using colons in these category names is accepted...? David Kernow 11:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC), amended 20:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thats a good point, I'm not entirely sure. However, if so we should address all the portal cats at once. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since we recently decided against pseudo double namespaces in the form of Category:Foo, I suspect not. They all need to be done at once, though - I'll make a mass nomination now. These two cats need to be merged whatever the outcome. SeventyThree^(Talk) 19:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Withdrawn in light of mass nomination [here] per above. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 22:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sioux Falls Stampede people to Category:Sioux Falls Stampede players

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sports team, people within the category are players. "People" is too generic. BoojiBoy 14:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Scepticism to Category:Skepticism

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was redirect. Conscious 08:30, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Skepticism" appears to be more widely used on Wikipedia than "scepticism". For example, skepticism is the article that scepticism redirects to. See also: Category:Scientific skepticism, Philosophical skepticism, and Category:Environmental skepticism. Kurieeto 14:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Object. WP:MOS does not dictate a change is necessary and I prefer the "sceptic" spelling. BoojiBoy 16:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect; My dictionary prefers the latter, but notes the former is a variation. Since both are correct, there should be at least one redirect. I slightly prefer the common spelling, see Skeptical Inquirer; -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify what I imagine BoojiBoy realizes, this is a British vs US spelling point and WP:MOS on the subject should be followed. —Blotwell 17:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree with the WP:MOS, I have no problem with local usages in category titles. The reason for the nomination simply stems from the fact that I don't see a reason why the article Skepticism, and its self-category, Category:Scepticism, should have differently spelled titles. As a related example, Category:Organizations is the self-cat of Organization - both use the same usage convention, and it is noted in the first words of organization that "organisation" is an alternate spelling. Sub-categories of Category:Organizations then abide by local usages, such as Category:Organisations based in Australia and Category:Organizations based in Bulgaria. Kurieeto 18:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, an article and its category should have the same spelling. --Musicpvm 02:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Grand master ka 03:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not one for gratuitously changing British/American spellings all over the place, but I'm concerned that a naming discrepancy like this might look unprofessional. WP:MOS does encourage consistency within articles; could that argument perhaps extend to categories relevant to the subject material? Luna Santin 07:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd rename per nom and convert Category:Scepticism to redirect to follow a pattern of using "skeptic*" to ensure no ambiguity with the medical use of "sceptic". Regards, David Kernow 18:03, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep category:scepticism, which was created much earlier, as per Wikipedia:Manual of Style and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (spelling). Turn category:skepticism a {{categoryredirect}}. — Insta ntnood 14:55, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:2000 AD creators to Category:2000AD creators

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no nomination. Conscious 08:37, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that can't be done as the current naming policy stands. As the naming stands it is 2000 AD (comic) and so naming cascades from that. Only a couple of weeks ago the category 2000AD characters was renamed 2000 AD characters [2] so, as things stand the name of the creators' category has to be as it is. That said the comics name is 2000AD and I'd like to get the whole thing renamed without the sapce which would then trickle down to the speedy renaming of the categories. So I don't object to this but it can't actually be done because of a larger issue that needs addressing. I'd suggest we take this to the Talk page see if we can reach a consensus and then return to this issue and get all th e categories fixed. (Emperor 13:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Notorious criminals

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Seems highly subjective, no criteria has even been defined for what "notorious" would mean. We have lots of categories from criminals by type of crime (Category:Serial killers, Category:Rapists, Category:Fraudsters, a etc.) don't really see the need for a subjective one. Presumably if someone has an article in a criminal category, they're "notorious" in some way in the first place. W.marsh 12:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete as per nom, and the lack of definition for the word "notorious" leads to the very disparate group of individuals listed. Categories by type of crime, rather than perception of how "bad" the crime was, makes more sense, and we already have such categories. Rossrs 13:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Landolitan 15:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Yep. Highly subjective. --Woohookitty^(meow) 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per well-reasoned nom. Grand master ka 03:03, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sai Kung

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved to Category:Sai Kung Town. minghong 08:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, forgive me for not knowing better. It looks like Sai Kung is both the name of a city, and of a province or district of some sort, and the Sai Kung article was moved to solve that issue? If that's the case, I'd recommend placing a disambiguation notice at the top of each article (or, if there are more uses, a full disambig page), and I would also support moving the categories to match, I think. Luna Santin 08:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Is everything readily fit into category:Sai Kung Town? If yes, turn it into a {{categoryredirect}}. Don't do so if the content of category:Sai Kung does not readily fit into the new category. By the way, category:Sai Kung was depopulated before this CfR nomination, in violation of normal procedures. — Insta ntnood 14:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Free IRC clients to Category:Free IRC and instant messaging software

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 08:39, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There is no category for instant messaging free software, and if one was made, the majority of articles would overlap with the existing "Free IRC category" category. The technologies are very similar and many modern implementation of either technology implement both technologies. Putting both in one slightly broader category makes more sense than having two smaller categories with large duplication. Gronky 20:42, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 09:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC), removed 20:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Free chat and messaging software -- expanding abbreviations is policy! --William Allen Simpson 13:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisting to see if there is more consensus on this item. Vegaswikian 07:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Free Internet Relay Chat clients matches the article name. IRC is a type of instant messaging software. Vegaswikian 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there any particular reason to list the IRC protocol, but not any others? I like Category:Free chat and messaging software, which could then include an article, Free chat and messaging software, (or "List of") which indexes all of the programs in the category by protocol. Good idea? Luna Santin 08:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - If there is a desire to combine these, then something like Category:Free instant messaging software is probably the best name. However Category:Free Internet Relay Chat clients should be a sub cat in there it already contains 22 articles. It is different and not compatable with many of the others (AIM). Are there categories for other free chat software? Would this category include entries for articles with statements like 'free chat service. With liveHarmony'? Vegaswikian 18:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not rename. I'm sure these categories can be mmore structured than what you're proposing. the IRC client category could be (is?) a subcategory if the free IM client category, or software that implements both techs could be in both categories. --Snarius 00:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mad scientists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 08:41, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Previously deleted by consensus (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 September 27). The same reasons for deletion still apply here: any fictional scientist who has any sort of unconventional mannerisms, techniques, or theories apparently qualifies as 'mad' for the purposes of this category. Are the Ghostbusters mad scientists? What about Seth Brundle from The Fly? At what point does 'mad' become an objective qualifier? Can there ever be accurate and NPOV criteria for inclusion in this category? -Sean Curtin 05:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this per nom, but if any of the articles need it they should be added to Category:Fictional scientists. --W.marsh 12:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The vast majority of these are not members, and would need to be merged to Category:Fictional scientists. ×Meegs 14:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per W.marsh Rossrs 13:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. This is a helpful category that should not be deleted just because there could be some disagreement. Mad scientists are a common stock character, and they normally aren't too difficult to distinguish from the normal kind. --Snarius 03:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Category:Fictional scientists. There is no need for this POV category. --Musicpvm 04:01, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and merge into Category:Fictional scientists. Alan Liefting 05:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, if only for fictional mad scientists - as Snarius notes, there is plenty of those.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 17:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well known stock character, and fictional characters can't sue. Osomec 14:42, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Mad scientists are a stock character that are a specific and disticnt subset of Category:Fictional_scientists and in some cases real scientists. Please note there is also a subset Category of Category:Evil_scientists. A mad scientist may or may not be an evil scientist, just misunderstood. Bdelisle 20:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: well, I see the general rationale for wanting to keep the category, but I would definitely prefer if we can find a more precise term than "mad scientist". I also doubt many people would be mindful of your "evil"/"mad" differences when categorizing articles. Maybe "Category:Fictional antagonistic scientists" or something? Dunno. 24.19.184.243 04:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment There's actually a nice article on Mad scientist. The concept is definately known as that. --Snarius 05:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Mad scientist characters...? (If so, suggest Category:Evil scientists → Category:Evil scientist characters.) Regards, David Kernow 14:44, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Computer game actors to Category:Computer and video game actors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with all CVG-related categories. Pikawil 05:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Tim! 08:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 11:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anime clubs and organizations in Canada

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 04:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably save the subcat, Category:Anime conventions in Canada, but I'm doubting there would be all that many notable clubs on Wikipedia? Luna Santin 08:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:CoverGirl Model to Category:CoverGirls

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 08:43, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I specifically spared this one from the carnage in category:Models because it's the only one that meets the same criterion as category:Victoria's Secret Angels or category:Playboy Playmates: an elite sorority of models (that, not incidentally, can be referred to without the word "models"). But it's still a bad category name, so I suggest a rename.--Mike Selinker 04:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Indifferent to keeping or not (not that we're discussing that here), but definitely rename if kept. If somebody finds an objection to "CoverGirls", I'll switch my vote to "CoverGirl models".Luna Santin 07:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Also not sure about keeping, but if it stays Rename per nom. Vegaswikian 18:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:CoverGirl models if category kept. David Kernow 11:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category: Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology to Category:Lithuanian deities

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 08:45, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate purposes, only Category:Mythic beings in Lithuanian mythology is a really awkward title. Category:Lithuanian deities is consistent with other mythology category trees. — Laura Scudder ☎ 04:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Deaths by apoplexy to Category:Persons who died from stroke

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Deaths by stroke. Conscious 08:46, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Apoplexy" is the outdated term for "stroke". Regardless of when the person died, I believe the use of the modern term "stroke" would maintain consistency throughout the biographies.--Michael David 02:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t know if it’s proper procedure for me to place an additional comment here at this stage, but I felt it was important to say this. I agree with the call for consistency in changing the Category name to “Deaths by stroke”. However, to be linguistically correct, it should be “Deaths from stroke”. In any cause of death statement the correct language is “Death from [the effects of] whatever”.--Michael David 17:57, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think "Death by" is improper English, it's just archaic. Death by strangulation, death by drowning, death by chocolate. It has a legalistic overtone, like the result from a coroner's inquest. --JeffW 23:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strangulation & drowning, as with hanging, etc. are methods. These persons died from asphyxiation, and, in the case of hanging probably (hopefully) a severed spine. In all these cases these persons died from the effects of blood loss to the brain. Michael David 00:16, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. I'm surprised there isn't a category for stroke victims already, but I can't find one. ReeseM 03:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Yeah, good catch -- how many people will even know what apoplexy means? I sure wouldn't have. The closest thing to naming consistency I can find in Category:Deaths by cause is "Deaths by X," which would lead me to propose Category:Deaths by stroke as an alternative. I'm not sure if cause of death is notable as a categorization, but if consensus goes against me there, let's at least give it pretty names (with ribbon!) Luna Santin 12:11, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Luna Santin. Category:Deaths by stroke would maintain consistency with other categories within Category:Deaths by cause. Rossrs 13:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths by stroke per above. David Kernow 11:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Deaths by stroke Osomec 16:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian Baptists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 08:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Category of 1. Pointless categorization by country of transnational denominational structure, by somebody completely ignorant about the actual denominations involved. We already categorize people by country and profession, there's no need for religion and country. --William Allen Simpson 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cut out the abuse can't you? Chicheley 02:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly three (3) of these categories, all now up for deletion, and you created all of them recently. It is best to have folks knowledgable about the subject matter arranging categories. It is not abusive to note actual and admitted ignorance. If you prefer, I'll cite the Talk page admissions. That would be embarassing, but not abusive. -- William Allen Simpson 03:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are many other nationality by religion categories: 10 of Catholics, 7 of Muslims, 46 of Jews and many others. There were probably over a hundred before I created any, rather than none as William Allen Simpson implies. I have nothing to be embarrassed about, so here is the "talk page admission": "So I forgot for a minute that U.S. Baptists are divided into two main streams (but I have read about it before)". Believe it or not, American denominational disputes aren't very important to non-Americans, and you have to be deeply myopic and isolated to assume they are. If you want to know how you look there is an article about it: Ugly American. However, not all Americans are like that. I made the renaming proposal below in response to a polite reminder by youngamerican (talk). Chicheley 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is little different from sub-dividing an occupational category by nationality. It improves access. ReeseM 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. Religion has strong national aspects. This category allows relevant articles to be placed in Category:Religion in Canada in a tidy fashion. Osomec 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Baptists from Canada." Chicheley set me straight on naming conventions, but the possible confusion caused by the existence of American Baptists as a denomination warrants us going to our default option #2 to make the category as clear as possible. If not renamed, however, I would support keeping this category as a useful new path towards sorting overcrowded/eventually overcrowded categories. youngamerican (talk) 01:59, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English Baptists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 08:48, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Category of 2. Pointless categorization by country of transnational denominational structure, by somebody completely ignorant about the actual denominations involved. We already categorize people by country and profession, there's no need for religion and country. --William Allen Simpson 02:10, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Gee thanks for the insult, you're such a nice guy. There are already a good number of these categories and I'm building on that. If you can improve the system, please do so, but can't you cut out the abuse? Chicheley 02:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are exactly three (3) of these categories, all now up for deletion, and you created all of them recently. Note that I did not identify you, but you just identified yourself. --William Allen Simpson 03:03, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anyone could have checked to see who was being abused so that excuse just doesn't wash. You should be civil because you owe it to yourself, not because you might get away with being uncivil. Chicheley 03:21, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is little different from sub-dividing an occupational category by nationality. It improves access. ReeseM 03:31, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and populate. Religion has strong national aspects. This category allows relevant articles to be placed in Category:Religion in England in a tidy fashion. Osomec 16:31, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename "Baptists from England." Chicheley set me straight on naming conventions, but the possible confusion caused by the existence of American Baptists as a denomination warrants us going to our default option #2 to make the category as clear as possible. If not renamed, however, I would support keeping this category as a useful new path towards sorting overcrowded/eventually overcrowded categories. youngamerican (talk) 02:00, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Abolitionists by country to Category:Abolitionists by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Abolitionists. Conscious 08:50, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~"Nationality" is normally used for categories of people.~~ Chicheley 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC). *Rename as nom. Chicheley 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Actually this category is pointless as there are no other subdivisions of category:Abolitionists so please merge into that. Chicheley 02:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- political movements, and their followers, are categorized by country. Category:Abolitionists by country, Category:Abolitionists, Category:Abolitionism, Category:Political movements. However, Category:Abolitionists could be deleted, as all the people in it should be sorted by country. --William Allen Simpson 02:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. If only one of Category:Abolitionists and category:Abolitionists by nationality is kept it has to be the former. ReeseM 03:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Landolitan 15:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 16:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Ice-named rappers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:50, 26 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just plained silly. --FuriousFreddy 01:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Useless. Afonso Silva 12:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Afonso Silva. King rich 13:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete--Urthogie 14:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Who keeps coming up with these categories??--Rockero 15:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Category for nine rappers. And what is its purpose? Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 15:17, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - Plain nonsense. M. Burmy 16:20 CDT 22 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Breast cancer survivors who died from other causes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Breast cancer survivors. Conscious 08:52, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overcategorization. (When are we getting Boolean category searches?) —Centrx→talk 00:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This takes things too far. We all know lots of women have suffered breast cancer. It's very sad and some famous examples can be given in an article, but a category is over the top. Chicheley 01:53, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. On the bright side, the inclusion criteria are nice and clear. But I'm not sure that it's a good category, for two reasons. First, I'm not sure that cause of death is usually a highly notable characteristic (when we think "Walt Disney," we don't remember, "Oh, that guy who died of a heart attack," for instance). Second... wouldn't it be true that most cancer survivors die of other causes, anyway? Certainly mention this in their articles, but I don't think it's a category. Luna Santin 07:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Breast cancer survivors; we don't typically have separate cats for the living and the dead. Category:Breast cancer survivors has its own problems (its body includes a huge list, and the cat contains both articles and wikipedia users), but that is another discussion. ×Meegs 10:18, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both this and Category:Breast cancer survivors. A major life event no doubt, but not an encyclopedic one. Osomec 16:33, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Meegs. I don't support Osomec's suggestion to delete category:Breast cancer survivors, as people are notable for having this while alive. (It's possible that the category name is POV, but I think a little leeway is okay there.)--Mike Selinker 17:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Meegs. My understanding is that this is actually 'famous' people who were diagnosed with breast cancer. Many breast cancer patients are extremely interested in knowing which famous person was personally affected by the disease, and many of them have referenced the information on support lists, etc. It's the type of information that is normally very difficult to locate in one location. Bcsurvivor 00:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Meegs. Is it possible to have a category called: Category:Diagnosed with breast cancer or Category:Breast cancer diagnosis - that would include anyone (especially famous people) diagnosed with breast cancer whether they survived or not and whether they died due to breast cancer or another cause? Bcsurvivor 10:53, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Meegs. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:44, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Civil rights activists in the United States to Category:American civil rights activists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:54, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't match the standard form, as in Category:American activists. Chicheley 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as nom. Chicheley 00:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The standard is based upon Category:Civil rights ≤ (Category:Human rights & Category:Law), and these are divided by country (see Category:Human rights by country). --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These are people categories so it is completely irrelevant how related thematic categories are named. Chicheley 03:23, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename See category:American people and almost all of its subcategories. ReeseM 03:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename "Fooian Xers" is the convention. Piccadilly 06:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Sumahoy 01:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 16:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. This would leave no category for non-Americans who are Civil rights activists in the United States.--M @r ē ino 17:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the rename occurs, Category:Civil rights activists in the United States would be free for this purpose...? Regards, David Kernow 00:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That would be ambiguous, so it should be category:Non-American civil rights activists in the United States. On the other hand I don't have a problem with non-Americans being included in category:American civil rights activists, exploiting the ambiguity of that title, ie they were campaigning for Americans' civil rights. Osomec 13:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Understood; to me, Category:American civil rights activists suggests civil rights activists who are American, so should a distinction between American and non-American civil rights activists in America (i.e. the USA) ever be required (!) I guess Category:Non-American civil rights activists in the United States would fit the bill. Thanks for your input, David 18:10, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as Category:American civil rights activists could/would include American civil rights activists campaigning outside the United States. David Kernow 18:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- That doesn't matter. Chicheley 23:57, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - But that'd be a substantive shift in the category's scope...? Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. Regards, David 01:10, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 17

Category:People diagnosed with clinical depression to Category:Persons who have suffered from depression

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep mainly per argument of JeffW. the wub "?!" 21:32, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy renames after objection Grutness...wha? 22:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would open up the Category to those persons not formally diagnosed with "clinical" depression, but were known to have suffered periods of serious mood depression. Michael David 13:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problems in this case, as it is with most (if not all) of the persons now listed in this Category are the words “diagnosed” & “clinical”. There is a significant difference between a person suffering from the mood of depression, and one who has been properly examined by a mental health professional and found to be ‘clinically depressed.’

I agree with the idea of the Category. There is a benefit to a person suffering from a particular mental, emotional, or physical illness to be able to read about others who suffer, or have suffered, from the same condition and realize they are not alone. And, in many cases, read about persons who have gotten well. This, I feel, is one of the benefits of the Wiki Category system.

I believe the problem in this case is in the wording of the Category. If it read: ‘Persons who have suffered from depression’ I believe it could work. To label someone as having been ‘clinically diagnosed’ with any disorder without substantiated proof is doing a disservice to the person. It can also be legally tricky. Michael David 23:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

that isnt a speedying criterion - this should be movedto the main debate. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is encyclopedic about this? Wikipedia is not in the business of helping people with their personal problems. It's a fine thing to help people out in that way, but it isn't what encyclopedias are for. The category apparently has a lot of problems under any name, to which I would add that people have only been diagnosed with depression in the fairly recent past, so that requirement creates historical distortion. ReeseM 03:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Depression can be a major factor in a person's life. When that person is notable it is totally appropriate to categorize them accordingly. The benefit that readers may derive is not just personal but historical and encylcopedic. It can be stated in the category description that diagnosis is a relatively recent occurance; for comparison, so is much of astrophysics, but that doesn't rule out inclusion in Wikipedia. CovenantD 18:16, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm not sure whether this person means Keep as in don't delete or Keep as in don't rename. --JeffW 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a category this needs firm inclusion criteria and undiagnosed depression isn't definite enough. Those people who may have suffered undiagnosed depression would be better served by a list where the reasoning behind the armchair diagnosis could be explained. --JeffW 23:49, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cover songs and subcategories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was proceed per nomination. the wub "?!" 21:40, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Based on the deletion vote on Singles by artist, I think these need to go too. This is what I think should happen:

Delete category:Cover songs
Delete category:Cross-genre song covers
Merge category:Songs covered by Red Hot Chili Peppers into category:Red Hot Chili Peppers songs
Rename category:Songs covered by Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine to category:Richard Cheese and Lounge Against the Machine songs
Rename category:Songs covered by the Kidz Bop kids to category:Kidz Bop songs
Do nothing with category:Songs parodied by "Weird Al" Yankovic (it's under category:Parodies)

I made sure that every song in these categories has an actual artist category.--Mike Selinker 22:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support Could get out of control. ReeseM 03:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support. Find me a notable pop song that hasn't been covered by someone somewhere. Fl owerparty☀ 10:27, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support There is no reason to have separate categories for covers. --Musicpvm 02:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support 'list of deletions' — cute, but essentially useless.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American Baptists to Category:Baptists from the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 21:41, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I created this, but it has been pointed out to me that "American Baptist" has a specific meaning. Broadly Baptists from the United States are divided into American Baptists (which includes two organizations) and Southern Baptists. There are a lot of Americans in Category:Baptists, but the articles don't very often make it clear which denomination they belong too so it will be easier to retain only one category, but it needs to be renamed Chicheley 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as above. Chicheley 21:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per well-reasoned nom. youngamerican (talk) 21:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete without rename -- Kill it before it reproduces! Pointless categorization by country of transnational denominational structure, by somebody completely ignorant about the actual denominations involved. I'm nominating his new Category:English Baptists and Category:Canadian Baptists, too. People are already separately categorized as American, Canadian, and English. --William Allen Simpson 01:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ReeseM 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 16:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Antares33712 15:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Egyptian revolutionary figures to Category:Egyptian revolutionaries

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. RobertG ♬ talk 09:17, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All but this category in Category:Revolutionaries by nationality follow the format of 'country's adjective revolutionaries'. Why figures here? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This qualifies for a speedy rename, does it not? BoojiBoy 18:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Athenaeum 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ReeseM 03:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and speedy per above. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
(Speedy) rename per nom. David Kernow 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Polish social activists to Category:Polish activists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is the exception to the format of 'country's adjective activists' with the inclusion of the word social. See Category:Activists by nationality - there is no need for the word social here. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 18:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Athenaeum 21:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jacek Kendysz 00:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. This sounds like a subcategory, but if there is no parent category, it doesn't seem to make sense at this time to subcategorize. Luna Santin 04:34, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete both. the wub "?!" 07:42, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States ambassadors to the Republic of China

listified and now empty, and

Category:United States ambassadors to the People's Republic of China

listified and awaiting emptying

Delete -- These are the only remaining two categories that should be lists, relatively recent creations contrary to recent discussion about the lists category. The decision was to keep the lists category. While listifying, I found a couple of serious miscategorizations. Lists better organize this information, and missing entries are easily identified for future articles. --William Allen Simpson 17:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just in case anybody's confused, "ROC" refers to Taiwan and "PRC" refers to mainland China... all sorts of fun history and debate, there, of course. But, if it's listified, it doesn't seem to need a category. Good catch. My only question is: is there a reason the list articles use "Ambassador" instead of "ambassadors"? My read on that is that we're then referring to the office itself, with a proper noun. So long as it fits into existing naming consistency (if any consistency exists), I have no complaint, though. Luna Santin 04:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Apparently, some of them were merged between histories of the ambassadorship, and the list of ambassadors themselves. The top of the article has the history, the bottom the list. Whomever did it made them all consistently named, and so I've just followed the naming convention. --William Allen Simpson 06:54, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have not yet seen or heard a good reason why the category for ambassadors should not be further broken down by country. If it is organized that way, then the category (for example, U.S. Ambassadors to the PRC) can be in both Cat:U.S. Ambassadors as well as Cat:Foreign relations of the PRC. Paul 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- According to this history, PaulHanson is the person that created these two categories, contrary to prior consensus. --William Allen Simpson 11:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Yale University units

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was :delete Category:Yale University units since it has already been split and emptied. Delete Category:New York University units once something similar is done with it, but keep until then. the wub "?!" 07:52, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Yale University units, Category:New York University units and any other University "unit" classification: Universities don't consist of "units". Universities have schools. They have buildings. They have departments. They have libraries. They have any number of other things that might usefully be classifications. "Units" is not one of them. Adding "unit" to the name adds nothing to the category. - Nunh-huh 15:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Opposed. The nominator is correct that universities don't have "units" per se, but this category exists to classify the major divisions of a university (i.e., its schools and libraries.) This is akin to the subsidiaries or divisions of a corporation, or bureaus within a government department (see for example Category:United States Department of Defense agencies.) Paul 17:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- But the Department of Defense actually has things called "agencies", and other things are not lumped in with them; neither Yale nor New York University has "units". Rather than classify according to the divisions actually used (Schools of Yale University, Libraries of Yale University), which would actually be useful categories, you've substituted your judgement of what constitutes a "unit" to produce a classification that no one actually uses, lumps disparate things together, and can't conceivably be useful to anyone. - Nunh-huh 00:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't substitute anything for anything. "Unit" is a generic term for a university's operating division (just like "agency" is a generic term for a governmental operating division.) If there are enough articles to warrant a category for "schools" or "libraries," then by all means create it. I don't think anyone is going to be confused by the term "unit," and it serves the purpose of grouping similar items into a category. Paul 02:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - "Unit" is, in fact, your term, not that used by universities. - Nunh-huh 02:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Nunh, please remain civil and avoid directly attacking other editors. You appear to be proposing a renaming of the category, more than a deletion? If so, to what? Category:Yale University schools and departments, or something akin to that? Luna Santin 04:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I've been perfectly civil, and I've attacked no one. I'm suggesting that the category is useless, and shouldn't be renamed. A school is part of a university, a department is part of a school. They are separate things, hierarchically related, not things that should simply be lumped together. As a single category, it's useless. It needs to be replaced by several categories organically flowing from the actual organization of a university. There's no reason to group departments, facilities, buildings, schools, libraries, administration, etc. together, as they are fundamentally different things. - Nunh-huh 06:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Take your previous post(s) here, "Unit is your term." It might have been more polite to say, "But Yale doesn't organize itself that way," avoiding what I see as both the condescending, confrontational tone and the explicit statements that the contributions of other editors are "useless." But, to respond to your other point... that's a thought. I'm not sure how much material we have on Yale -- if there's not all that much, it might not make sense to give each school a category, but if each school does have a volume of articles (or if such a volume is expected in the future), it might make more sense to subcategorize further. Personally, I tend to judge the need for subcategorization based on the number of articles to be divided up. Luna Santin 07:37, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - I've said nothing that wasn't civil, and I have made no statement that "the contributions of other editors are useless". I've said this category is useless. And it is. Perhaps the categorization should be left to people who know how the schools are organized, or who know how many articles there are to be divided up. But this particular category has no place in any conceivable rationally organizational schema. Which is why it's listed for deletion. - Nunh-huh 07:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - I'd bet money that a better categorization scheme could be devised, but at present no alternative appears to be available (someone should create that, I readily admit I don't have the knowledge). As regards my opinion of your attitude, I feel you've been nothing but condescending. The category itself is an editor's contribution, and we need not add insults to injury of deletion. But, this vein of discussion is pointless because we'll never convince each other and isn't topical to CfD; perhaps I shouldn't have started it here, and I doubt I'll continue it beyond this. Feel free to have the last word if you so desire. Luna Santin 08:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Well, a good classification scheme will be devised when the deletion of this category clears the way for it. - Nunh-huh 12:08, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't think Nunh-huh is guilty of being uncivil or condescending, and in fact I agree with his statements completely. Luna Santin is also correct that a better scheme probably could be devised, but at present, there's no better proposal, and "units" serves the purpose more or less good enough. If there were enough articles to create categories for "libraries," "schools," "research institutes," and whatever else, then of course it should be organized that way...however it appears that there are not, so "unit" is the best catch-all term to use here. (Incidentally, not all universities/colleges' divisions are similarly organized or name, another reason to use a generic catch-all term.) Paul 18:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        That raises the question: how many items are needed before a class becomes necessary? (Is there a guideline on this?) In any case, if there are enough items for "Category:Yale University units", and every item listed in it is a school of Yale University, then there are enough items for "Category:Yale University schools". There are also several schools not listed in the "units" category that could be added to the "school" category. - Nunh-huh 23:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cars and stuff

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 21:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is an automobile. This is a motor. However, a certain Wikipedia demographic has expressed a distaste for the word "automobile". Since consistency is a virtue, doubly so in the case of categories, which don't behave like normal pages on this site, and since this is not an automobile either, but was probably made by a subsidiary of a company that also does "cars", and since I am confident that "motor vehicle" is a neutral, unambiguous, and all-encompassing term we can all agree upon, I propose that we change the following categories:

Furthermore, I propose we get rid of Category:Automobile manufacturers of Africa, because it contains only one article, El Nasr Automotive Manufacturing Company, which is already a member of Category:Automobile manufacturers of Egypt, and because "Automobile manufacturers of Africa" is inappropriate as a subcategory of "Automobile manufacturers by country", Africa, of course, being a continent. — Jun. 17, '06 [15:40] freak|talk>

Whatever, so long as it's consistent. I don't particularly see what's better about "Motor vehicle" over "Automobile", but if that stops the whining about idosyncratic terms, go for it. I totally agree ... the name "Motor manufacturers" is utterly unacceptable when you're talking about motor vehicles. --Cyde↔Weys 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Usual Wikipedia policy is to use whatever is the local name, so that would mean rename the bold ones to "Motor vehicle manufacturer" and keep the others at "Automobile". BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I this I agree to this limited Rename. If you eliminate Automobile then you automatically include truck manufacturers in the same category. I think it makes sense to not combine those two, or imply they that are combined, as they would be from this suggested new group of categories. Vegaswikian 15:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Athenaeum 21:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Though I agree with BL's comment (compare the soccer/football categories, and the transport/transportation ones), if there is a wish for uniformity then the overall rename as suggested is fine. Grutness...wha? 23:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. ReeseM 03:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename all as proposed! --William Allen Simpson 06:59, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as proposed iff no local objections - lets try and settle this. Ian3055 13:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll again raise an object for the US cat at least. There are automibiles and Category:Truck manufacturers that operate in the US. To have them under one name is simply wrong. Or is that not the intent of this nomination? And if not why keep Category:Truck manufacturers unique and do away with Category:Automobile manufacturers? Both are motor vehicles. If they should be combined in a Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers then there should be sub cats for autos and trucks and probably busses and construction equipment and motorcycles. Vegaswikian 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Subcategories can be created for trucks if it is important to separate them, but I'm not sure that it is. Sumahoy 02:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This will create a structure that will look like this, leaving out most of the categories that exist to keep this short:
  Vehicle manufacturing companies
  Kart manufacturers
  
  Streetcar Builders
  
  Motor vehicle manufacturers (including automobiles)
  Truck manufacturers
  
  Motorcycle manufacturers
  
  So this looks like we are adding a level in the structure without any gain and leaving automobiles as the major vehicle without a subcat. Vegaswikian 05:19, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Surely karts belong in Motor vehicle manufacturers. The other categories of vehicle manufacturers would be things like boat and airplane manufacturers. Osomec 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom. Osomec 16:51, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all as proposed Tibi08 21:38, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong oppose. Motor vehicle sounds like a very American term, if you ask me (I lived there for a few years and I've never heard of any motor vee-khee-kls before coming to the US). Cars as we know them have always been known as automobiles (well, at least in Europe). But hey, looks like I'm in a minority here :). KNewman 19:03, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Professional wrestling deaths before the age of 65

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If I recall correctly, we had decided against classifying by age of death... -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We should just create sub-categories of the "Entertainers who died in their #0s"--Darren Jowalsen 17:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Delete all the "entertainers who died..." categories as well. Athenaeum 21:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arbitrary cutoff = limited usefulness. --zenohockey 03:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per zenohockey. King rich 13:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Of all the pro-delete comments I've read above, I have yet to met one reason which wasn't POV. Just because you don't like it, doesn't mean others won't. At least this category is factual unlike some articles like Films considered the worst ever which is strictly based on opinions.Farine 18 June 2006
- POV is not prohibited on Wikipedia pages, indeed it is the essence of Wikipedia namespace pages. Sumahoy 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete but make cats like User:Darren Jowalsen said, possibly. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Articles have too many death-related categories already. Sumahoy 01:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as above. Osomec 16:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete there are already categories saying 'entertainers who died in there 30's,ect.there is no need for this category.after deletion we whould move them to thier correct age group deaths e.g. a wrestler who died at 35 to 'entertainers who dies in thier 30's'.I will marry gollum one day 02:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per zenohockey; "65" is a fairly ethnocentric cut-off, given that the life expectancy in many countries is far below this age. McPhail 16:13, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Former United States Ambassadors to the United Nations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 07:54, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- This was boldly created during the recent discussion about the lists category. The decision was to keep the lists category. This category duplicates the existing list: United States Ambassador to the United Nations. --William Allen Simpson 15:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The category should be deleted; in its place should be Category:United States Ambassadors to the United Nations Paul 17:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, there's an existing list of the same name. The category is not useful, under any name. --William Allen Simpson 17:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Death Row to Category:Death Row artists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match other members of Category:Performers by record label -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. ReeseM 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename just because...Lajbi ^{Holla @ me}Who's the boss? 13:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom Antares33712 15:31, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Current name could refer to criminals sentenced to death, but not yet executed. --Scott Davis ^Talk 12:38, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lancer Fans

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category for fans of a high school team? The light leaving WP:N won't reach this for several years. BoojiBoy 14:41, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A high school in a town of only 15,000-odd people, no less. --zenohockey 03:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Osomec 16:52, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Former Burger King employee

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why? -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's a whopper of a strong delete. BoojiBoy 14:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is going overboard.--SomeStrang e r^(t|c) 17:44, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not worthwhile. Athenaeum 21:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ReeseM 03:39, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is really ridiculous. The single entry is Dana Cook, a comedian, and former Burger King employee. He has some Burger King jokes. Do this instead if you want: put a "Burger King Humor-Dana Cook" link on the Burger King article. But a new category - no, no, no. KKong 06:06, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Silly category. King rich 13:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Period. Farine 18 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete Dane Cook is funny and all, but delete anyway. Paul 23:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete ridiculous heights of silliness.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Indian ethnicity stubs to Category:Ethnic group in India stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was refer to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. the wub "?!" 21:55, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Indian ethnicity" is ambiguous, and could refer to ethnic groups in India, or to groups descending from those originally from India but now present in other countries. Proposal is to rename this category along the lines of Category:Ethnic groups in India and Category:Ethnic group in Africa stubs. Kurieeto 14:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This proposal should be moved to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion as that is the appropriate forum for discussing stub categories. I will move it across in the morning (about 06:00 UTC), unless someone beats me to it. Road Wizard 00:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now moved this across to SfD. Please discuss this proposal there. Thanks. Road Wizard 06:16, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Decapitated terrorist victims. While only a few people supported this new name, there is a wide support for not keeping the category under its current name. In addition, there's no consensus to delete. Conscious 07:12, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Anti-islamic title, delete or choose another name. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename. Islam didn't kill these people; people did. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:57, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can't think of a way to rename this to conform to NPOV. BoojiBoy 17:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- most of the folks in this category are not notable persons, and those articles are likely to be deleted. We don't have articles for every Iraqi decapitated or otherwise, and there's no reason to have a category for folks that happen to be Americans. --William Allen Simpson 17:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. History books will no doubt mention persons such as Daniel Pearl and Nick Berg on the same page, because this is a valid category. It is an unpleasant fact that certain persons objectively fit into this category; thus, it does conform to NPOV. I would also support the existence of categories such as "Modern victims of Christian decapitation" and "Modern victims of Buddhist decapitation," if there were any persons who could be placed in those categories. This is not, implicitly or explicitly, a category for Americans. Witness Kenneth Bigley, a Briton. Although there may not at present be any articles for Iraqi victims, anyone is free to create such articles and add them to this category. Novel compound 07:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a useful category. Rename to a more NPOV name if one is proposed. --Musicpvm 02:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per David Kernow's suggestion below. --Musicpvm 21:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Decapitated terrorist victims. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:24, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:People decapitated by Islamic fundamentalists...? David Kernow 11:05, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per ProveIt's sensible suggestion. --Dweller 11:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to less sweeping generalism. However, Fundamentalist islamic terrorists are the common thread here and sidestepping it completely with Category:Decapitated terrorist victims is willful ignorance. --Mmx1 16:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Frankly I am really surprised that this category has been proposed for deletion. WP:AGF presumes that each editor will actually discuss issues before taking drastic action. Why has there been no discussion about this issue on the category talk page? This category was made by me because a) it's accurate, b) it's NPOV and c) it's informative. The simple fact is that there are indeed a number of modern Islamic decapitations taking place. To deny this is foolish. Also, I have been careful to phrase the title of the category as accurately and neutrally as possible. Now, I am open to renamimg the category if possible so as to have consensus, but consensus is not achieved by threats of deletion. This CfD must be cancelled and the discussion moved to Category Talk:Modern victims of Islamic decapitation or this vote is bad faith. Scented Guano 06:52, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a useful cat, also I think some of these articles need to be merged... KWH 12:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Current category name misleadingly suggests judicial executions under Shari'ah, rather than terrorist beheadings. Rename to Category:Victims of terrorist beheadings. --GCarty 07:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ridiculously delete/rename, what is "islamic decapitation"? This category's name is so far from neutral point of view it is not even funny. Can we say prejudice? This category is not encyclopedic. A big problem with categories like this one is that they introduce sweeping generalizations that in particular allow for editors to utilize them based solely upon original research reasoning. Individuals like Nick Berg and Daniel Pearl have been executed/murdered in such a manor supposedly in the name of Allah but while such is said there also exists a significant body of points of view that says that those performing such beheadings are bastardizing Islam and merely using it as a tool to further their own socio-political ends. This category could possibly be understandable if we're talking solely about those who've been beheaded as a result of a conviction in a Sharia court... at least there'd be some verifiable foundation for the inclusion of an individual in this category... but really is such a category even needed? Netscott 12:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Anti-Islamic title" is a risible argument. The category is entirely factual, and there are no good reasons to delete it. I may support a reasonable renaming suggestion if one appears, but none has been made so far. Pecher ^Talk 12:28, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/rename to Category:People murdered by decapitation. So far as I'm aware, there's no method of decapitation described as "Islamic"; and, again so far as I'm aware, no sanction to "kill" or "execute" these people was given by any generally-recognised authority. David Kernow 12:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, this category appears to be about people killed, by decapitation, by militants, beheadings can also be carried out under the law (e.g. in Saudi), so the title is both misleading, and crap. I'm also not convinced we need a category for people specifically beheaded rather than killed by other means --Coroebus 12:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Word "Islamic" in the Category name is Anti-Islam. Are you saying that there decapitation was according to offical policy of Islam? (If so then I would like to decapitation you because I am Muslim :) ). Secondly, why to make a new cateogry and not a new list or article? I do not think this category (even with renaming) could be justified. Hence Delete it. --- Faisal 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- For those expressing shock at the name of this category, I urge you to look into the matter more closely. The Quran clearly has provisions in it for "striking the neck" (decapitating) adversaries. Still, it is true that this is controversial and we must avoid the appearance of bias. To that end, I would suggest that we rename to Modern victims of Islamic Terrorist decapitation. We must include "Islamic" because all of the killings were committed by Islamic zealots. If we leave that out, we are sugar coating this. However, we must not condem all of Islam for these killings, therefore adding the clarifying text of "Terrorist" is correct. As for "modern" and "decapitation" those words speak for themselves and do not need clarification. Scented Guano 16:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Decapitated terrorist victims as per ProveIt's suggestion. None of those decapitations has been approved by any Muslim cleric. Raphael1 16:37, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename, either per Raphael1, or at least to s/Islamic/Islamist/. dab (ᛏ) 16:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete Inflammatory, POV-biased. Part of the general theme of certain individuals turning Wikipedia as a reservoir of indictments against Islam. His Excellency... 17:01, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Terrorism victims. - Merzbow 17:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest this nom is relisted to find which of the alternatives suggested thus far has greatest support:

Keep without change to name
Delete entirely
Merge into Category:Terrorism victims
Rename to / create:
1. Decapitated terrorist victims
2. People decapitated by Islamic fundamentalists
3. Victims of terrorist beheadings
4. People murdered by decapitation
5. Modern victims of Islamic terrorist decapitation

Regards, David Kernow 20:51, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Pechers above comments. It's a useful category. -- Karl Meier 23:07, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete --Inahet 02:56, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge into Category:Terrorism victims. Mike Dillon 03:04, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Islamic decapitation is to insurgents as Christian lynching is to KKK? gren グレン 20:18, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete / merge to Category:Murder victims --Scott Davis ^Talk 23:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete per Faisal. BhaiSaab ^talk 01:28, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Terrorism victims. Rangeley 03:50, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Category:Terrorism victims. as per above --zero faults ^{|sockpuppets|} 10:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anthropological categories of people to Category:Anthropological categories of peoples

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 07:57, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains sub-cats like Category:Ethnic groups, Category:Race, and Category:Religious groups. Its scope is for people in the plural sense as groups, or "peoples". This is distinct from the singular "people", as used for Category:People for the collection of individuals. Proposal is to change "people" to "peoples" in the title of this category, given the category's scope. Kurieeto 13:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom, but it doesn't sound good so if anyone can come up with anything better..... ReeseM 03:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about Category:Anthropological categories since of people is implied by the term anthropological. --JeffW 00:06, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support rename to Category:Anthropological categories per JeffW. Kurieeto 01:41, 20 June 2006 (UTC) Kurieeto 14:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to original proposal. Category:Anthropological categories is a duplicate of Category:Anthropology, which contains a wide range of categories which are not about peoples. Osomec 13:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per original; 'peoples' is common enough in technical circles, and while it sounds coloquially awkward, it is succintly on point. // FrankB 23:14, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Anthropology of peoples...? David Kernow 12:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Erm no, anthopology is the study of peoples or humanity, so that is circular. This category is for specific peoples, as opposed to other aspects of anthropology. Honbicot 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as originally proposed. Honbicot 23:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per original proposal. "Peoples" is a perfectly acceptable and correct pluralisation in this context.--cjllw | TALK 07:01, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People from Sindh and Category:People of Sindh, Pakistan

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:People from Sindh. the wub "?!" 07:59, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to be merged, no preference as to direction. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 13:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Sindh, which is consistent with the other local Pakistani categories. There are two Punjabs, but there is only one Sindh I believe. Athenaeum 21:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:People from Sindh. It is consistent with other categories made, Please check Category:Pakistani people. --Spasage 06:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Environmentalist groups in the United States

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category was created on March 29, 2006. It is currently empty. It appears to have a very similar scope to Category:American environmental organizations. Given that it has no contents, I'm proposing it for deletion as unwarranted categorization at this time. Kurieeto 12:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. If populated merge to whatever the U.S. categories is called after the end of the next debate down. ReeseM 03:42, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and it is bad grammer. Environmentalists are people and they are not the subject of the category. The editor who created the category probably wanted to categorise environmental groups not the people. Alan Liefting 10:38, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Environmental organizations by country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 21:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Proposal is to apply the "based in" naming convention of Category:Organizations by country to the sub-cats of Category:Environmental organizations by country. Reasons in favour include consistency, and that switching to a by country naming convention avoids the problems that frequently follow by nationality names for entities that are not the direct cultural products of people.

--Kurieeto 12:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all per nom. Athenaeum 21:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. ReeseM 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. Alan Liefting 10:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom. David Kernow 01:11, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:ASME Presidents to Category:American Society of Mechanical Engineers presidents

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:37, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Expand acro to match article about group. Also cap fix. Vegaswikian 17:57, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. In any case, remove abbreviation. CalJW 21:18, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Usgnus 23:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from June 6 for more opinions Tim! 11:40, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, leaning towards CalJW's proposal. Luna Santin 12:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename and purify WP of acronyms and abbreviations in article/category titles. Paul 17:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Athenaeum 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As the proposer, I have no objection to the alternate proposal. In fact I don't see any reason to not speedy this one to Category:Presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers. Vegaswikian 23:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Presidents of the American Society of Mechanical Engineers per above. David Kernow 01:13, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:German International players to Category:German international footballers and Category:French International players to Category:French international footballers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus Tim! 17:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both as the page list footballers to have played internationals for their national football team and as this how other like cat pages have been named Mayumashu 14:26, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per nom; I guess people know that football = soccer here. Regards, David Kernow 01:57, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both. The "England international footballers" should be "English international footballers" too. Same goes for Scotland and Montserrat. Stu ^{’Bout ye!} 14:16, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, but not per nom use "France" and "Germany" instead. It is the team that is relevant, not the country. People can have more than one nationality, but FIFA only allows them to play for one international team (subject to some fiddly exceptions) and they should only be categorised by that one team. Hawkestone 22:45, 7 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative rename to category:France senior international team footballers etc. There should also be categories for under-21 teams, so disambiguation is necessary. ReeseM 02:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:X international team footballers where X = country name, i.e. make senior men's team the default with the suggestion that other teams such as under-21, women's, etc use Category:X under-21 international team footballers, Category:X women's international team footballers, etc. David Kernow 00:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC), updated 00:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from June 6 for more opinions Tim! 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all to Category:X international team footballers as per David Kernow . Athenaeum 21:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:X international team footballers as per David Kernow. Honbicot 23:13, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all to Category:Fooland international footballers, this is the common term. Conscious 07:17, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American Catholic theologians to Category:American Roman Catholic theologians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 22:01, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category should specify that this relates to Roman Catholics, in line with similar categories. Chicheley 11:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. Chicheley 11:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Stongly Oppose This is a highly controversial POV move by Anglicans to deprive the Catholic Church of the use of its proper name. See Talk:Roman Catholic Church See also: Talk:Roman Catholic Church/Name. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) .
Rename --William Allen Simpson 06:41, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - EurekaLott 18:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Roman Catholics by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. the wub "?!" 22:02, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three of the subcategories don't use the same form as the others, and one of those three is ungrammatical.

Category:Argentine Roman Catholic peoples rename category:Argentine Roman Catholics
Category:Australian Roman Catholic people rename category:Australian Roman Catholics
Category:Roman Catholic Americans rename category:American Roman Catholics
Rename all Chicheley 11:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strongly Oppose These categories should be called "American Catholics," "Australian Catholics," and "Argentine Catholics." —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Vaquero100 (talk • contribs) .
Rename per nom. There are other kinds of catholic. Athenaeum 21:11, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ReeseM 03:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename --William Allen Simpson 06:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fantasy massively multiplayer online role-playing games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Moved contents into two categories as explained below. Vegaswikian 06:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split: Another hybrid CVG category. Split per the reasons I gave in this CfD. Please split into Category:Fantasy computer and video games and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:31, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 06:37, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Why not just put them into the more specific categories? Unless there is a reason someone might object, there is no reason to bring it here for a discussion. Vegaswikian 23:32, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: I am asking for the items to be moved to the new categories and this one to be deleted. That is the purpose of CfD. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 09:01, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Someone needs to move them. I can't close since I don't know where they need to go. Vegaswikian 23:47, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Support and Split - No need for further categorisation of the MMORPG cat into genres -- CHANLORD ^[T]/_[C] 04:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from June 4 for further opinions I assume what the intention of this nomination is: delete the proposed category and move each of its members to the categories' parent categories? Tim! 10:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As in the previous nomination, the nominator suggests that all members of this category go into both Category:Fantasy computer and video games and Category:Massively multiplayer online role-playing games, and this category be deleted. I support that.--Mike Selinker 14:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support new understanding of Mike Selinker --William Allen Simpson 02:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:St. Louis Blues (NHL) players

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:St. Louis Blues players. the wub "?!" 22:06, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See: Category:St. Louis Blues players -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reverse Merge in this case (NHL) is better. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:09, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:St. Louis Blues players. The hockey team is only team of that name that has a Wikipedia article, according to the disambiguation page. - EurekaLott 19:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per EurekaLott. No need to DAB. BoojiBoy 22:59, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Reverse Merge~~. I completely and wholeheartedly agree with the nomination, but to avoid ambiguity with the music and what-not, a reverse merge would be better. We do NOT need both categories. However, we have so much more cleanup elsewhere to do. This isn't a high-priority. But I agree that the St. Louis Blues only exist as an NHL team, so no need to narrow it further. But as it is it isn't a huge misstep for Wikipedia. Antares33712 14:20, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

relisted from June 4 for more opinions Tim! 10:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly merge, as the categories are redundant. As we can see at the NFL players by team and NHL players by team categories, the preferred naming convention seems to be "Fooville Foos players", mentioning a league only when necessary (or per inconsistent editor preferences). Luna Santin 10:27, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:St. Louis Blues players; no need for disambiguation with league or music ×Meegs 11:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Meegs (vote amendment) Antares33712 15:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I should mention as well that Category:St. Louis Blues (NHL) players was created by a newcomer to WP:HOCKEY who did not realize that a category already existed. The page has been blanked by its creator and should technically be eligible for a CSD. BoojiBoy 12:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:St. Louis Blues players as mentioned.--Mike Selinker 15:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Crimean people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus and already relisted, but somebody emptied it in the meantime. --William Allen Simpson 07:58, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Needs deletion, or renaming (to what?) for following reasons:

the "...people" categories are for the people of the given nationalities. But Crimea is a multi-ethnic historical region and autonomy with a complicated history. That's why the category should be renamed if the community designates it for the bio articles related to Crimean peninsula (which I object)
previously the category has been confusingly mixing bio articles with articles on ethnic groups, like Krymchaks. However, not all ethnicities present on peninsula were listed. But defining which groups are true Crimean people, and which aren't, would be a conflict issue inadmissable for WP. That's why I emptied the cat., and strongly object its using for categorizing "peoples"/ethnic groups

Feel free to suggest new name considering all above-written. Ukrained 22:45, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm... "... people" are really about personalities, but not about ethnic groups. IMHO in that case we should create Category:Crimean society and replace "ethnic" articles there. Don Alessandro 10:53, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm thinking of two instead: the bio cat., like Category:Famous people/natives of Crimea, but only if people insist. You see, we have at least four different cultural&historical "areas" of Crimea: UBK, Sevastopol and other Russian Navy settlements, Tatars and modern Steppen Crimea (largerly Ukrainian and industrialized). Do we need to group all those famous people in one cat. And, aiming to ethnicities classification, I suggest some category or List of ethnic groups residing in Crimea (where every each small group is presented).
But first, Don, do you support or oppose deletion of the existing category? Under procedure, you should vote in bold so we can decide either to rename one category, or to delete and recreate two (1+list) instead. And we need few other thoughts to decide the issue. Cheers, Ukrained 08:16, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. IMHO we should have two categories: Category:Crimean people (personalities) and Category:Crimean society (ethnic groups, politic parties, NGOs, etc.). Now we have articles for both categories, e.g. Noman Çelebicihan and Mustafa Abdülcemil Qırımoğlu for "Crimean people" and "ethnic" articles for "Crimean society". Besides this we can also create a Category:Ethnic groups in Crimea within "Crimean society". Don Alessandro 10:56, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I still oppose the Crimean people wording as pointing to some single nationality/statehood. What do you say about Category:People of Crimea? Crimean personalities is less admissable for me.
And, as you can see from above, I'm for two categories :), or even three like suggested in the end of your post. Ukrained 12:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, let it be "People of Crimea". Don Alessandro 12:45, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move to Category:People of Crimea --Yakudza 16:14, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Changing it to cat:People of Crimea because cat:Fooean people categories have to refer to nationalities is silly. Just keep the category and make it a subcategory of Category:European people (Crimea is considered part of Europe, right?). And invent a new category for the non-people articles. --JeffW 06:36, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It isn't a country. If this is placed in Category:European people , why not every local people category? That is not desirable.
  - Why isn't it desirable. Category:European people already contains Category:Pictish people, Category:Eurasions, and Category:Cypriot people. Why not Crimean people? Category:European people isn't under Category:People by nationality, it's under Category:People by continent so it seems logical to me that it can contain categories that aren't by country. --JeffW 23:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Category:People of Crimea, even though it is "silly". It just happens to be more consistent with the way we do things. Honbicot 16:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from June 3 for more opinions Tim! 10:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Move/Rename to Category:People from Crimea --William Allen Simpson 06:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I guess there's been debate in the past over using "People of X" rather than "People from X", but could anyone (re)visiting this nom direct me to it? Thanks, David Kernow 01:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The Legend of Zelda

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Discussion continuing at User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion. the wub "?!" 08:04, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Legend of Zelda to Category:The Legend of Zelda

An editor appears to have created new categories for most - if not all - Legend of Zelda categories by including the word "The" at the start. As I can't find any reference to a previous discussion here, I assume these changes haven't been ratified at Cfd. Can editors please state whether they wish to Keep the new category names (including the word "The") or Revert to the old ones (without "The"). Thank you. Road Wizard 06:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are also some other sub-categories in Category:The Legend of Zelda games and Category:The Legend of Zelda media that do not appear to have equivalents without "The", but should probably be considered here as well. Road Wizard 10:27, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I made these and I wasn't exactly aware of this process. I rather wanted to get these corrected out... I saw a note regarding this naming issue on one of the talk pages for a 'Legend of Zelda' page, and that really got me started. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) Also, in line with what User:Voretus has said below, the titles should all follow the same conventions, including the main page of (The) Legend of Zelda. So really, every category should have 'The Legend of Zelda', as opposed to all with 'Legend of Zelda' or a mixed usage. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC) There is also one more thing - I realized there could be over lap between tLoZ the game and tLoZ the series... now I think we should make them all have series in the title. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert Category:Legend of Zelda characters and Category:Legend of Zelda games and keep Category:The Legend of Zelda. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 07:07, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Revert everything but Category:The Legend of Zelda. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:24, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment: To qualify my statement I feel that using "the" should not be used when referring to the plural categories (Category:Legend of Zelda foos), but is fine for the singular root (Category:The Legend of Zelda). Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 18:24, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment: Wouldn't you agree that all the titles of the pages should be in line with the actual series name? I am think I want them to be 'The Legend of Zelda series ---' but we are doing this right now. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:The Legend of Zelda~~, but please note that it has not been categorised correctly. It needs to be added to the categories used for Category:Legend of Zelda.~~ As for the naming of the subcategories, in one way I feel the names should be consistent and use the "The", but in another way I feel that the adjective form should drop the "The", hence my vote below. Carcharoth 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Revert Category:The Legend of Zelda characters; Category:The Legend of Zelda games; Category:The Legend of Zelda villains; Category:The Legend of Zelda media; Category:The Legend of Zelda places; Category:The Legend of Zelda weapons and items to versions without the "The". Carcharoth 09:30, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the catergory The Legend Of Zelda and organize the articles into alphabetical categories so that 6 different articles will not be needed. I can't see why 6 catergories (as well as an extensive list of articles) for a videogame is even needed. Wikipedia is not GameFaqs, and shouldn't be used as an in-depth guide ; but rather as an encyclopedia. And Having numerous articles about minor worlds,characters,ect in a videogame (no matter how popular the game) is non-encylopedic. -24.92.43.149 09:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Remember, Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. A paper enc. wouldn't cover most video games. --Scepia 19:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert — Ian Moody ^(talk) 12:11, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the versions with "The". Proper series title includes the article. Voretus the Benevolent 16:43, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
REVERT without the "the". 132.205.44.134 02:42, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:59, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from June 3 as no consensus Tim! 09:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert --William Allen Simpson 06:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - On June 16, I proposed merges/deletions for several "The Legend of Zelda" categories here. If the conclusion is to revert (reverse merge?) the categories above to "Legend of Zelda", then I will replace the categories in my proposal with the "Legend of Zelda" names. I'm still for the consolidation of these categories but don't want to interfere with this proposal which came first. --Vossanova ^o< 14:20, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Why can't all this fluffly nonsense just go into the original category...? None of these other categories are necessary. -Zero^Talk 16:37, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, perhaps we should eliminate the sub-cats for games, like the cat for tLoZ Nintendo 64 games. Scepia 19:03, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. We don't appear to be closer to a consensus this time round, so I have taken the liberty of starting a new discussion outside of CfD. I will invite each of the people who have previously commented and voted above. Once we reach a consensus on any of the issues, we can return to CfD with a new proposal. Road Wizard 14:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Syncretic political movements

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 08:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Ambiguous categorization. Intangible 03:54, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've had this on my watchlist for a while, wondering what would become of it. As the nominator points out, it doesn't have a clear criteria, and the groups have little in common that readers would seek to navigate to (the point of a category). This is the political equivalent of "Category: Eccentric people". -Will Beback 10:21, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per nom KleenupKrew 14:50, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. On a related note: what shall we do with the Syncretic politics (an unreferenced stub looking like patent non-sense)?. I'm no political science expert, but.... Ukrained 22:57, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Five seconds spent on Google would reveal the term syncretic politics has been used in both the Nation magazine and the Village Voice, in reference to Pim Fortuyn and Andrew Sullivan. You don't have to be a poli sci expert to do a web search, right? Mjk2357 04:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very Strong keep~~. But include a simple definition. Otherwise, where are we going to put thing such as National-Bolshevism or National-Sindicalism? I certainly would not like them put on under extreme left and would not totally fit under fascism. In all cases, someone have to go through and remove POV additions ~~such as People's Mujaheedeen of Iran and the like~~. And there is definitely such as a thing as syncretic politics. Regards, E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 09:37, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. This is about the Category:Syncretic political movements, not the article (which does have problems). Intangible 15:57, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I know that. I am talking about the stub here. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 16:43, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - If you can give me a definition of syncretism that would give a NPOV partitioning of political movements, that would be welcome. Although I think you will fail in this. Intangible 19:46, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Well, you know this would be very difficult, because the whole point is that these groups accept views of traditionally opposed ideologies, obviously within different degrees. On the other hand, I could say that in most ocassions they are far right movements with a touch of "class struggle". I think we should get some expert opinion before going ahead and delete this on our own. This is my only reason to disagree. E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 20:16, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment How is adding People's Mujaheedeen of Iran POV? Unless you think Marxism and Islamism are similar ideologies, then the group is certainly syncretic. Mjk2357 11:09, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment Deciding on our own which movements are syncretic is original research. We should rely as much as possible on outside sources and simply report that group X "has been called 'syncretic'". Though not necessarily pejorative, I doubt any significant group uses that label for itself. Separately, I've listed all of the category entries in the article itself to see what that looks like. I think that since it's a vaguely defined term we should not use it as a category, merely as a list. -Will Beback 23:50, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Comment: I think you are right on this. It should be turned into a list instead. --E Asterion ^{u talking to me?} 19:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Just because the basis for inclusion is not B&W is not in itself a reason to delete a category that is neither eminently "loaded" in meaning, nor original research. Don't we expect readers to be able to realize that a category can be abstract, and therefore can have contested members - yet still be useful? Far from being unhelpful to users, this is the sort of emergent, interesting categorization that should be encouraged in a large web of information. Outriggr 23:48, 5 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Categorization derives from ontology, the way of being of things. You cannot argue that those current entries should be listed in this category and other (political) movements not, thus categorization is impossible. Intangible 00:39, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, categories are binary - if what you are trying to classify is not inherently binary, and guidelines that will govern inclusion/exclusion can not be strictly formulated, then listify instead; there, it is possible to debate various views on the extent to which entries have been considered syncretic. Just because there are some clear-cut cases for inclusion doesn't mean the category is itself clear-cut enough. TheGrappler 18:55, 6 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted from 3 June 2006 due to lack of clear consensus Tim! 08:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would it make more sense to list a few notably syncretic movements at the main syncretic politics article, perhaps? Some movements have been syncretic, in history, and this would be worth noting, but as was pointed out, the category is a bit subjective. I'm not entirely opposed to the idea, but sometimes I like to say, if a categorization isn't inherently intuitive, it shouldn't be made. Luna Santin 10:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Skull Island species

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 07:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and attracts fancruft. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 06:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Currently empty, and honestly, how many of those creatures are really so notable? An article discussing a few of the creatures, sure, I guess, but do we really need a whole category? Luna Santin 10:22, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a great category, and well organized.--Mike Selinker 14:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's empty; what articles do you want to include, real species or fictional ones? ×Meegs 23:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As Skull Island is fictional, I'd imagine that it'd mostly be ficitonal. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, looking at Skull_Island#Skull Island inhabitants, it appears that the only species that have articles are the real ones, and I really don't think those belong in a category like this (less we're prepared to have Stegosaurus included in dozens of categories for films and novels it has appeared in). ×Meegs 10:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I now see why I sound like I'm endorsing an empty category: On Friday, User:Apostrophe deleted all of its contents, turning articles like Vastatosaurus rex and Venatosaurus saevidicus into redirects, before proposing the deletion of the category on Saturday. I can't find any AfDs on these. Apostrophe, was there consensus to do this, and if so, where? (To Meegs's point, I think this category should only have articles about fictional species, not stegosaurs.)--Mike Selinker 14:48, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Turning into redirects" is not deletion, nor is it something that needs consensus. You are free to revert my changes. Of course, I'd expect an AfD for all of them if you do so. (50 or so articles on fictional animals only described in a fictional encyclopedia? C'mon, and that doesn't even touch on the clear copyright issues.) ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 03:56, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I do believe that blanking the contents on 50 articles would need consensus. Well, when I read the articles, I found them interesting and insightful, and I didn't even see the movie. So I'd vote for putting them back in this category, seeing which ones get deleted, and then reevaluating this category. Seem okay to everyone?--Mike Selinker 05:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mike, you certainly should restore the articles if you believe they are valuable. It does appear that a number of editors have worked on them.

Apostrophe, it would have been nice if you had shared the information that you emptied the category, especially since it was your lead argument for deletion. If the redirection is challenged, though, you should be the one to bring the articles to AfD if you want to pursue their deletion (after all, you don't want a proponent of the articles writing their nomination). I have no real opinion on their subject, but 50 articles based on The World of Kong does seem excessive, and I'd expect there would be a consensus to merge (and condense) them to a single article. If Mike or anyone does restore any of the articles, we should keep the category while the articles' fate is decided. ×Meegs 13:15, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: I restored the text for 11 articles in the category. I couldn't find any more, and I figured if they required that much searching, they probably weren't worth keeping. But I'd certainly support most or all of these on AfD if they come up.--Mike Selinker 19:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

models, phase II

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 08:12, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Well, apparently we're not going to wait. OK, withdrawn.--Mike Selinker 04:33, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per this approved deletion, the rest of the category's pertinent contents are being relisted here for another week.

removed category names

Any objections to these going the way of their sistren?--Mike Selinker 05:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Baleet. Looked it over, considered a few (Vogue and Coca-Cola, at first), but nothing struck me in particular. Luna Santin 06:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per nom. Chicheley 11:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom. BoojiBoy 12:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete allper nom. Doc 15:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian social justice activists to Category:Canadian activists

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Canadian activists. the wub "?!" 09:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge categories to remove any bias in distinguishing between the two. Deet 02:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Social justice is a slippery concept and many of the people on the list are activists for other causes as well (Maude Barlow and Naomi Klein being two obvious examples). BoojiBoy 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Just to point out, there's 24 articles in Category:Canadian activists and 83 in Category:Canadian social justice activists, which would put the total count up to 107 after merge. It may be desirable to subcategorize, but it may be preferable to do so with slightly less nebulous/POV criteria. For instance, minority rights advocates could be a subcategory, and I see Canadian feminists is already a subcategory. Luna Santin 06:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is bloated in part because of all the left-of-center politicians in it (e.g., Jack Layton). If we remove the positive "social justice" vibe some wikipedians might find less temptation to put their favourite politician into it. Deet 11:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. Chicheley 11:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I wonder if "Canadian activists" is too general a category to be of any use. "Social justice" usually refers to a left-of-centre ideology, in the modern usage of the term. CJCurrie 03:29, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It is only used by people on the left, so it is POV. Sumahoy 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and find suitable subcats if necessary, like Canadian free speech activists, for example. Intangible 00:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Sumahoy 01:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Osomec 16:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:California Transit to Category:Mass transit in California

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:Mass transit in California. the wub "?!" 09:39, 29 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These two categories should be merged because Category:California Transit is misnamed and redundant. Mike Dillon 02:52, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Mass transit in California per nom. Luna Santin 06:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Mass transit in California per nom. David Kernow 01:23, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Sport in Persia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete/merge to Iranian categories. Conscious 07:27, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am afraid this category is an anacronism. Please delete it and all its subcategories. I suppose that the corresponding articles must be related to Iran. Particularly funny sounds category:Persian bodybuilders. Mukadderat 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Anyone unfamiliar with the Iran/Persia naming controversy should probably read up on that. At the least, upmerge the two subcategories; there's no gain in subcategorizing when each subcat only gets one article. One policy idea, perhaps we could sort people according to their own self-identification; I know people who take insist on being called Iranian, and others who insist on being called Persian. But that would probably become quite problematic (just brainstorming). My current thought at this time is a moderate support of merging this one into Category:Iranian sportspeople, but if you're asking me if I'd support a precedent to rename Persia to Iran all over the category map, my answer would be a no at this time. Luna Santin 10:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- In this case, I'd merge category:Sport in Persia into category:Sport in Iran, category:Persian sportspeople into category:Iranian sportspeople, and category:Persian bodybuilders into a new category:Iranian bodybuilders. I see no evidence that Ben Roberts is anything but an Englishman, so he should go into category:English poker players and category:Persian poker players should be deleted.--Mike Selinker 15:01, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete/rename all to "Iran". Regardless of whether some people still prefer "Persia" or not, Iran has been official through most of the era which these articles relate to and duplicates will just cause confusion. Athenaeum 21:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/delete/rename all to "Iran". Persia sounds much nicer so it's a pity they changed the official name, but they did and that change is followed by almost everyone in the English speaking world. Osomec 16:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 16

Category:Classical writers of Egypt history

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ungrammatical and hopelessly confused category. It needs at least to be renamed; but many of the contents are unsupported by their articles, and some are flat wrong. Apollonius of Tyana? For that matter, what does Apollonius of Rhodes, the epic poet, have to do with anybody's history? Better to scrap this and start over. Septentrionalis 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Extremely strong delete nom vote. Septentrionalis 20:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Renaming is welcome.--Connection 00:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please join in editing inclusion criteria as you like, do not delete.--Connection 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Surely there were at some point notable writers in Egypt's history; is there some parent category (ie: writers by nationality) we'd rather upmerge to? If not, this is something we might keep and work on. Thanks, Luna Santin 10:45, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The focus is on purpose of writing, regardless of nationality. It may be a child of a category by time frame. Regards.--Connection 11:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Surely the correct category would be Category:Historians of Ancient Egypt, but this is so far from having the appropriate contents that it would be better to delete it. Osomec 17:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...or Category:Classical historians of Ancient Egypt. David Kernow 20:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Film history to Category:History of film

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge Tim! 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same topic. Category:History of film uses the correct category label, as seen in Category:History by topic Clubmarx 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:History of film, per nom. Luna Santin 10:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. David Kernow 14:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Athenaeum 21:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. FrankB 04:00, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Joke Wikipedian categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). (The one that does had no significant support and is empty.) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are either in jest, are overly-obscure pop culture references, or are completely opaque. None of them provide any useful information. - EurekaLott 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I do not wish to qualify for Category:Wikipedians without a sense of humor. Septentrionalis 22:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE too much social club wikipedia 132.205.45.148 23:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Not hurting anything, don't use them if you don't like them, if someone likes them then good, happy editors contribute more. — xaosflux ^Talk 02:46, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Except Jntg4, delete that one, not useable by any editors not names Jntg4!. — xaosflux ^Talk 20:13, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep all apart from Category:Jntg4 which actually looks like it's full of sockpuppets. AnemoneProjectors (talk) 16:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Jntg4 and keep the rest. These are harmless, except the one which can only include one user and his multiple personalities.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Members of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy, Category:User Likes Hotel Wikipedia, and Category:Users who wish you a happy Astronomy Day since these have multiple users in them. Delete the rest because they only have one or two (or in one case, no) users, or in the case of "What You Say?" an unexplained inside joke. Stev0 17:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. -- LGagnon 18:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, all these categories are nonsensical. If categories like these are kept, users will continue to create ridiculous categories for their user pages. There is no limit to the number of possibilities, so there must be at least some restrictions and user page cats like these need to go. --Musicpvm 06:52, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia is an encyclopedia and we categorize by encyclopedic topics. What the hell is the point of these joke categories? --Cyde↔Weys 16:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Jntg4 in particular. These probably should be listed as individual deletes so that people can air their opinions on each one. -- Reinyday, 18:25, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete on even days, and Keep on Odd days, but only in the months of Octember when there are two full moons. FrankB 12:52, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Jntg4 does not have sock puppets. They are brothers.

Category:Jewish American spies

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), occupations are categorized by nationality, not ethnicity. --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Seems to be an obvious Jew-baiting cat. Irresponsible. --TJive 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't see any obvious reason to delete, but what is with Schmuck? --Coroebus 22:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As an aside, does anyone with more knowledge of the etymology of Schmuck want to go and clear out that article, which is part joke article, part anti-semitic, part god knows what. --Coroebus 15:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This includes none of the Jews that spied for the United States. Even if it did, this would be an extraordinarily specific cat. The nom's conclusion that this is bad faith is at least plausible; and we should avoid the appearance of evil. Septentrionalis 23:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would consider a merge with Category:Soviet spies (or for Moe Berg, Category:American spies; we seem to do this by employer's nationality); no further refinement is warranted. Septentrionalis 20:56, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fail to see how this was not already the case. --TJive 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE:

This entire category seems to be a smear on Jewish Americans. Here's some reasons to delete:

1) First, the singling out of "Jewish American" spies fore a category. Is there a "Protestant American" spies category? The religious background is already mentioned in some spy articles (usually it's pointed out if someone is a Jew), but not in others. It's prejudicial to create this whole category when most of the spies were motivated by communism, not Judaism.

2) Spies are, rightly, identified by who they work for. So Americans who spied for the Soviets are called Soviet spies - NOT American spies (or "Jewish American" spies). British spies spy for Great Britain. Or, you could speak of Nazi spies, or communist spies. If the Americans have a Russian person spying on Russia, he's called an American spy, not a Russian spy. So the "Jewish American" spies in this article are not "American spies" at all. This alone should show why this biased category should be deleted.

I'd say that it shows that a complete system of spies by nationality is needed. Athenaeum 21:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

3) There are already categories that are more appropriate, which do, in fact include the spies listed here:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_spies
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_spies
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Israeli_spies

If you look at the categories at the bottom of each spy article, you'll see that they are already sufficiently categorized.

4) Some of the "spies" listed in this article were never even indicted as a spy, such as Allen Rosenberg. That's why there is another more appropriate category:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accused_Soviet_spies

5) The original article included the link to "Schmuck" which is a well known (at least to American Jews) derogatory term in Yiddish. It means penis, and is used like "dick". Ex. He's a schmuck (He's a dick.) That link to a non-existant spy named "Schmuck" was included by the author of the category. It is clear sign of *bad intentions* and meant as an insult. There's no other way it can be justified. The catagory was started with an anti-semitic intent, and should be deleted. 24.44.45.54 10:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Update-The creator of the category, Hmains, has said that someone else put the "Schmuck" entry on the page. So I withdraw objection #5. Still support Deleting based on the other objections. 24.44.45.54 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and good argument by IP address. BoojiBoy 16:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this category and I meant no harm. It seemed be not out of line, what with the 'Jewish gangsters' subcategory. In general, the collection of subcategories is very impressive and, by any measure, commendable. I do not know that this category is any more or any less specific than all the others here. I work on many categories throughout Wikipedia. There were just a number of bio articles in the Category:Jewish Americans which did not fit in any other of its subcategories and which had the common thread of 'spy'. Certainly, spies for the U.S. should also be included; I just changed the purpose of category to include this idea and I just I just added Burg to the category. Everyone who is interested: please add other articles; I expect the number will far outweigh those who spied for the USSR, showing the for-Soviet spying to have been a one-time aberration during a particular time in US-Soviet history. And I did not include 'Schmuck' in the category and would never have done so--it does not belong there and I just deleted it; look at the history of that article to see who added it. Also, you can see the by general nature of my edits that I am not involved in hate mongering--I delete such material whenever and wherever I see it. I hope you might consider discussing this category first, however, rather than having as a first reaction: delete it. Thanks Hmains 17:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Hi Mmains. I'm the one above (24.44.45.54) who listed objections. First off, I did give serious thought to your proposed category. Prior to commenting, I did look look at, and was impressed by, your extensive positive contributions to Wikipedia. I have not seen vandalism or hate-mongering by you. I will take you at your word that you meant no harm, but respectfully submit that perhaps you may have a blind spot on this issue. Here's another way to think of it: What if someone created catagories like "Black American Rapists" or "Roman Catholic American Murderers."? No doubt, there are Black Americans rapists, and Catholic American murderers, some of them famous. It may be possible to write many articles on such people. If a particular article mentions the ethnic background of an individual in a factual way, that's fine. And I also have no objection, per se, to articles written about criminals who are Jewish – As "Athenaeum" says "Some Jews do bad things because Jews are people." But creating categories can sometime create unfair and slanderous groupings. Of course, if ethnicity was the primary motivating factor in a crime, then it could be valid, but that's not the case here. I do not think your addition of "regardless of country..." will make it much less offensive (intentional, or not) to many people. As for the "schmuck" entry... I will also take your word on this. I had checked the edit history several times prior to posting, and it clearly seemed as if it was in the original category you created. But I think this due to the way Wikipedia works with Catagories, as far as I can tell. It seems that only current articles are shown in the entire edit history. Or perhaps its also due to my status (without a username yet), but I can't even seem to find *any* remaining reference to the "Schmuck" article in the edit history, so it seems impossible to "look at the history of that article to see who added it" as you suggest. Anyway, thanks for the response, but I still think this is a unnecessary and provocative category. 24.44.45.54 22:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If there are Jewish American categories some of them will be for bad things. Some Jews do bad things because Jews are people. Please relax and live with it. Athenaeum 21:16, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Spies should not be broken down into ethnic and religious demographics. There exist nationality categories to describe for whom they were spying. This is unnecessary. --TJive 21:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and 24.44.45.54. Road Wizard 17:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Although apparently created in good faith, seems unnecessarily anti-semitic. Dev920 18:00, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not anti-semitic. I don't get the idea that uniquely among occupations spies should not be categorized by nationality. Just because they can be categorized in another way as well, that doesn't mean the usual approach is not useful. Sumahoy 02:02, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you clarify something for me please? Since when has "Jew" been a nationality? I think the point raised above is that they are already categorised by nationality (Russian, American, Israeli, etc.) and that categorisation by religion serves no purpose. Road Wizard 06:28, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A nation is a cultural entity: it is not synonymous with a country (a geographical entity) nor a state (a political entity). Judaism is both a faith and a cultural group. You are treading on very dangerous territory if you are trying to say that the Jews are not a nation but purely a faith: that line of argument is commonly deployed by anti-semitists. It does Wikipedia no favours at all that it repeatedly confuses nation, country and state.--Mais oui! 07:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. However, I resent the implication that I asked the question as an anti-semitic attack. Though you didn't aim that comment at me directly, I would ask you to be careful about who you tar with that brush even in an indirect manner. Thank you. Road Wizard 07:32, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One argument for deletion is a slur and the other is based on an insistence that there should only be a single category structure for spies that doesn't make much sense. Osomec 16:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Clearly antisemitic. —Babelfisch 05:53, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only started to single out Jews. Pecher ^Talk 09:39, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - How about just Americans convicted of espionage? I don't see what 'Jewish' has to do with anything. It's not as if they were spying on the Knights of Columbus. Tom Harrison ^Talk 13:04, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I am actually fairly disgusted by whoever started this category, and will not be exactly pained if it is deleted. However, it is no less and no more legitimate than all the other categories in which a non-religious, quasi-racial "Jewishness" is paired with some other trait. I am not denying the right of people to apply labels to themselves, but applying them to others is a different thing entirely - and to presume that a label has any legitimacy as an explanatory category of thought simply by the fact that some people use it is entirely ridiculous. This category should be discussed together with all other such categories - "Jewish veterinarian", "Aryan painter" and "Gentile pirates" included. 132.204.53.57 17:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Number-one categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per amended nominations Tim! 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Should be moved to be consistent with all the articles in the categories and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which states "Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words." Also, the capitalization in the third category is incorrect. --Musicpvm 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename numbers two and three without hyphens. The first one could be renamed Category:Lists of number one songs, and the fourth does not need to be changed. - EurekaLott 22:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename all per revised nom. - EurekaLott 18:45, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment. "chart-topping" makes for less clumsy looking names: Category:Chart-topping hits in the United States etc. also it make it less likely that someone will make "Number two hits", "Number three hits" +c BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:06, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as all these categories contain aritcles that are lists of number-one songs by year rather than articles about the actual songs (which are at Category:Number one singles and its subcats), I'm changing the proposed names and nominating a fifth category for renaming so they will all be consistent. Also, i think "hits" should be changed to "songs" and I guess the hyphen in "number-one" is unnecessary. --Musicpvm 06:28, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Masons to Category:Freemasons

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The former only has one article and the primary meaning of "mason" is something totally different from what is intended. Merge. Chicheley 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

RENAME category:masons to Category:Stonemasons and cleanup whatever necessary. 132.205.45.148 23:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- the single entry has absolutely no verifiable information that he was a freemason or a stonemason, and the category is now empty. --William Allen Simpson 02:59, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Empty and ambiguous. Osomec 16:55, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Designated terrorist organizations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted on 21st June - see [3] AndrewRT 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless.Count Iblis 19:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nothign about the title is anything but factual - this is a list of organizations that have been included (="designated") on list s of terrorist organizations. It does not mean they actually are terrorist, only that they have designated as such.Isarig 20:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then the same can be said about "legitimate militant organizations". Both are opinions of certain countries and in both cases the title doesn't tell you which countries support that opinion. Iran and most of the Arab world support Hezbollah and the US, Israel and EU countries have placed Hezbollah on a terror list. Count Iblis 20:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you wnat to change the title to "Organizations designated as "terrorist" by the EU & US, I wont object to that. Isarig 21:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's ok. Count Iblis 22:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. I'd also refer Count Iblis to WP:POINT. This should have been your response to this category rather than to create an in-kind cat. Very bad faith nomination, but one that I support, despite his in-kind rejection of the below nomination. --TJive 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's a matter of interpretation. I changed my mind a few times. At first I was against the addition of groups like Hezbollah to this category. Then, when my deletion was reverted, I went to the talk page of the category and diuscussed the issue a bit. I could more or less agree with the arguments given there. If you take "designated" to mean that a major power like the US considers the group as a terrorist organization, then that inevitably has a major impact and, whether you agree or not, it should be mentioned in some way, e.g. by including it in a suitable category. I was still unhappy with the name "designated", i.m.o. too general, but that could be dealt with later.

But then, as I explained on the talk page, you need also a category to list organizations like Hezbollah that have some support from countries. Just like the fact that it is designated by the US as a terror organization has a big impact, so does the fact that it is considered to be a legitimate militant group by Iran. If one supports the category "Designated terrorist organizations" for the right reasons (and I could bring myself to do that), then one should also agree that there should be a category "legitimate militant organzations", where "legitimate" means "legitimate" according to some countries, just like "Designated" means "Designated" by certain countries.

There would have been no problem if people were willing to interpret the words in the correct way. However, it soon became clear that this wasn't going to work. The additions to the category "legitimate militant organzations" were being reverted (I agree that the name "legitimate" was perhaps not well chosen). Then the category was put on cfd. I did wrote something in defense, but then I just gave up and decided to also put this page on cfd.

So, in summary, this was not just tit for tat. There is a case for adding both categories. But if we can't have a category for organizations that are regarded by certain countries as legitimate militant organizations, even if that has a large impact (Iran's support for Hezbollah does have a big impact and that's why the US and Israel make such a fuss about it), then the argument that we should include the organization in this category is a bogus argument, the real reason was then all along to give the opinion of the US an undue weight. That then violates NPOV. Count Iblis 21:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, makes sense as a category, maybe not the best title, a category of groups not designated as terrorist by some countries makes less sense, many countries don't bother to outlaw organisations without necessarily endorsing them. --Coroebus 22:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Nothing POV about this category, just slightly different from Category:Terrorist organizations, which probably won't survive a deletion effort, but is nonetheless a fine category. Stop terrorizing wikipedia with these nonsense cfds. Intangible 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What is POV is the that the name "designated" is ambigious. What if Iran "designates" the US as a terrorist country? :) And as I explained above, trying to interpret this in "good faith" didn't work. Count Iblis 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That does not make sense, one law monopolist calling another law monopolist a terrorist. Designation in this case means by law monopolists, like the UN, EU, India, etc. Just one designator should be enough to include an organization in the list.Intangible 21:32, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Rename I think that there could be value in these types of categories if they specified who was the accuser. Such as "US State Department Designated Terrorist Organizations" or such. But then again it is a problematic area. --Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)--Ben Houston 22:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that renaming would solve most of the problems. Count Iblis 23:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Check the sister page for comment [4]. -- max rspct leave a message 23:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I created this cat as an attempt to improve the cats Category:Terrorist organizations etc (see discussion at [5]. The hope is to move beyond NPOV into a more factually based categorization. "Designated" is not intended in a vague way but rather in the technical use of the term as used by legislators See, for example [6], [7] Specific cats for "US Designated Terrorist Orgs", "EU Designated Terrorist Orgs", "Australian Designated TOs" etc. wouldn't work as article pages would be cluttered up with multiple cats. In practice most items on most lists are common. Besides there are already articles on U.S. State Department list of Foreign Terrorist Organizations and, for the UK, Terrorism_Act_2000#List_of_proscribed_groups and I suggest these are better in as articles rather than cats. Incidentally I don't know the technical hows and whys but could this cfd be merged with the older one? AndrewRT 23:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The name "designated" is then very US POV and that should thus be indicated in the name. In practice, almost all of the terror organizations appear on the US list anyway. Also, as discussed on the talk page and mentioned on the category page itself, the intention is to focus on the UNSC, the US and the EU. The reply I received about the hypothetical case of Uganda placing some org. on a terror list indicated that the idea was to only focus on the major powers.

Count Iblis 23:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it was a good idea, but I just personally prefer Category:Organizations accused of terrorism, sorry. —Khoikhoi 03:38, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - but more needs to be done in terms of establishing what authority has designated the groups as terrorist organisations. For instance, the UN has a list of organisations and individuals associated with Al-Qaeda, which have been identified by its 1267 Committee [8]. But these do not include some of the groups designated as terrorist organisations by the US and EU. Also, states other than the US and EU may also identify certain groups as terrorists which are not listed here. I don't see why they should be excluded, so long as it is made clear who is designating who as "terrorist". It is a content problem, rather than an issue of the naming of the category.--الأهواز 09:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. To tell the truth, I'm not happy with Category:Terrorist organizations (serious POV risk) or Category:Designated terrorist organizations (designated by who?). I can respect the categories themselves, and the motivations of the editors behind them, I just want a better name. It would be just fine and dandy if somebody could please come up with a shorter way of saying, "Organizations accused by (UN/US/whathaveyou) of terrorism," and then we could all go home. Luna Santin 11:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- New idea. "US list of terrorist organizations." Or perhaps, "State-designated terrorist organizations." What do we think of those? Luna Santin 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - State designated? What about those orgs des by the UNSC or EU? AndrewRT 12:17, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Criticisms are welcome, I'm still just brainstorming. I've recently developed an understanding that the UNSC actually keeps no list of terrorist organizations ([9] in particular), but if I'm mistaken there, feel free to correct me. Would the EU not qualify as a nation-state (for this purpose, anyway)? I can see your point there, open to any ideas. What about "government-designated"? Luna Santin 12:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Didn't mean to sound curt - I'm still feeling my way through too. The EU is not a state but a collection of states, like NAFTA although more developed. After a bit of research I discovered the UNSC Counter-Terrorism Cmte doesn't have the power to designate as you mentioned. However the UNSC does. At the moment the only DTO is Al-Qaeda although they plan to add more to the list and have formed a subcommittee to draw up a list - see UN Security Council Resolution 1566. AndrewRT 12:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        Ah, hrm. I'm starting to think it may be best to listify all of this, and then put all the lists into a category. Say, one article could be "United States list of terrorist organizations," and another could be, "United Nations list of terrorist organizations," and then toss in whatever other countries/international organizations we deem as having notable lists. Naturally, the lists would be interlinked (both to and from) the articles for the TOs themselves. Does that sound like a good idea? And if so, what would be an appropriate category name? Luna Santin 04:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete or split into "Organizations designated terrorist by X" and fill in the blank. That way each case (and each category) can be judged/debated more clearly on its own merits. Luna's list suggestion above is also workable. The category as it stands is just asking for trouble. heqs 08:55, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Just b/c we don't agree with the government that defined the category doesn't mean that the category doesn't exist.--M @r ē ino 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NPOV would then require to add Falun Gong to the list if China declares it a terrorist organization. You then cannot keep it out of the list by arguing that China uses bogus arguments to put it on their terror list. Count Iblis 23:06, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't faze me in the least, Count Iblis. China could name Jesus himself a terrorist, and He would have to join this category, because he would have been designated by a legitmiate government. Wiki stays NPOV even when the outside world isn't.--M @r ē ino 03:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me ^edit) 23:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete as per heqs. 132.204.53.60 18:51, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Designated by whom? Why should the US government's definitions be privileged over those of, say, the Iranian government or the Burkina Faso government, as the note on this category currently suggests? "Organizations designated as terrotist by the US government" might be an acceptable alternative, but then who would decide which governments or supranational bodies should have such categories associated with them? I can see the reason for having the category, but ultimately it does more harm than good. Palmiro | Talk 15:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Legitimate militant organizations

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless. --TJive 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this was immediately used to promote Hamas and Hezbollah as "legitimate militant organizations". --TJive 19:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, who determines whether an organisation is 'legitimate' or not? --Coroebus 19:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. You can't on the one hand have a category like this:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Designated_terrorist_organizations and on the other hand not allow listing organizations in categories indicating that they do have support and are not regarded as terrorist. Also, the category page makes clear the criteria for listing (one or more counries regard the org. as legitimate and you don0t have a UNSC council resolution outlawing it). Count Iblis 19:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consider categories of militant groups supported by america, militant groups supported by iran etc. rather than a catch-all category. --Coroebus 22:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That's how this category was supposed to be interpreted. I agree that the name may suggest otherwise (it is explained on the cat. page). Thing is that in case of "designated terrorist organizations" above, we are asked to be flexible and to interpret the name as explained on cat. page and not by the broadest interpretation the name suggests, leading to POV problems. Count Iblis 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete violates Wp:NPOV and was created in violation of WP:POINT Isarig 20:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ultra-strong delete. There is no way to determine legitimacy without violating NPOV. BoojiBoy 20:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Chicheley 21:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category does not make sense. Intangible 22:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It can make sense when correctly interpreted as explained on the cat. page, just as "designated terror organizations" can make sense. However if it is required that the title should always be interpreted in the broadest possible sense and we should have no tolerance to apparent POV violations even if it is not intended, then the same is true for "designated terror organizations". Count Iblis 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete "Legitimate" as is "Designated" (in the above case of "Designated terrorist organizations") is a POV call because just by their nature, militant organizations have supporters (who probably view it as legitimate) and something that they are in strong opposition to (who probably returns the negative sentiment.)
Strong Delete Category has no value. All orgs consider themselves legitimate so it does nothing but state the obvious. The fact that Hezbollah is considered legit by Iran should be discussed in an article about Hezbollah and/or Iran. Appears that cat was created to make a point related to the cfd of cat DTO above in violation of WP:POINT AndrewRT 23:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, it was created in violation of WP:POINT in response to the category itself, though the CFD was replaced on the DTO cat precisely because of this CFD, with the same language copied in support of it (I support the deletion of both, however). --TJive 23:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

WP:POINT was not violated, because I was serious about the new category. I explained it on the talkpage of the other category yesterday. A category of this type (with a different name) is still necessary. And instead of "designated" we need a name that unambiguously specifies that the US/EU have placed it on the terror list. Count Iblis 00:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, of course, copying your argument here and pasting it m.m. above was a joke, but it is a valid point. In both cases the Cat. page explains how we should interpret the cat name. If that's not good enough in this case, it isn't for the other Cat. Count Iblis 00:30, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. —Khoikhoi 03:37, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Athenaeum 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete. This is not a valid counterpart to Designated terrorist organizations b/c no one legitimate is designating the movements as "legitimate".--M @r ē ino 18:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is in fact not true. Iran regards Hezbollah as a legitimate militant organization. Their POV that it is legitimate is just as POV as the US position that it is a terrorist organization. The only problem with this category, like the "designated terror org." category is that the name of the category looks POV. In both cases the definition as explained on the category page is clear. Count Iblis 22:57, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The accused category is the one to keep. -- max rspct leave a message 23:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strongest delete possible Legitimate from whose point of view? This is the POVest category possible. Pecher ^Talk 15:39, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:The Legend of Zelda BS-X games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

Category:The Legend of Zelda CD-i games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

Category:Cancelled The Legend of Zelda games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

Category:The Legend of Zelda series games to Category:The Legend of Zelda games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was discussion continued as User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion. Conscious 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all. Overcategorization, especially for a video game. I'd include Category:The Legend of Zelda Nintendo 64 games in this merge, but it is still under vote for a different merge. I don't understand how the last category of the group is different from the main category. --Vossanova ^o< 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:The Legend of Zelda games, per nom. Luna Santin 11:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Note that there are currently several proposals open for "Legend of Zelda" to "The Legend of Zelda" category merges. I want to wait for those to be closed before handling them in the same manner as these. --Vossanova ^o< 14:13, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:The Legend of Zelda NES/Famicom games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'd suggest a merge, but the category is empty anyway. Vossanova ^o< 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Novel sequences to Category:Series of books

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Revised proposal: Category:Novel sequences to Category:Novel series~~ Revised proposal, part deux. Withdraw proposal to upmerge Category:Novel sequences; instead create a separate sub-cat of Category:Series of books : Category:Novel series or Category:Series of novels. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Original comment: Redundant; defining the sequence in which books should be read would work better in list format. Plus, sorters cannot seem to agree on what should go in this category. Some discussion on the talk page, but no consensus. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or rename to an all-inclusive category for all connected novels like Category:Novel series. MakeRocketGoNow 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

No, please this is just continuing the problem. This SHOULD only be for articles about SERIES or SEQUENCES, not the novel or book articles themselves. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment copied from talk page: "Have we misunderstood the category here (regardless of current description), this would be for articles on the sequences. So the articles are likely to contain the list of what makes up the series / sequence. Also the sequence should not make too much of the intention, just that they can be treated as a sequence. Also I don't think there is much on common parlance to distinguish sequence / series. No individual novel articles should appear here in this catagory. No I don't think the catgeory should be merged. I might support a rename to "Novel series" or "Series of Novels" if others thought this necessary. If we merge it we will have the series of books that make up "The History of the English Speaking Peoples" by Winston Churchill in this the "Dune" sequence, series by Frank Herbert in one enormous :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 07:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, the category is full of individual novel articles. If it should be full of lists, or articles about novel series, then would someone please revise the description for it? (Kevin?) I'll be happy to help move the articles once it's clear what the category's for. Also, how about renaming it Category:Series of novels to parallel Category:Series of books? ~~Or the term used a lot in library science, Category:Novels in series?~~ Thanks. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:17, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on Category:Novels in series I know that is a common term in Libraries but that surely is putting focus back on the individual book. The emphasis should be on the "series". :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:00, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to a category for novel series like Category:Novel series. Not per MakeRocketGoNow's suggestion above. Sorry but there it is! The books have a number of categories for them, what we need is this category (or one like it) for the "group" article, what ever we call them. Personally I prefer "series" as that is a more widely used, less loaded term. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

changing vote Keep to Rename as above now we are talking about Category:Novel series. Nice one Pegship! :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 16:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I agree that articles for individual novels should NOT go under Category:Novel series; the category should be reserved for articles on the series/sequence as a whole. MakeRocketGoNow 18:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See revised proposal above, now that the distinction has been clarified. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:27, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I thought this was dealt with 'way back'--see the summation about the 'technical nature of the term' Category talk:Novel sequences#Thankyou_Mr._Darcy; especially the technical link leading to Brittanica. OTOH, Google has only mirror hits and ourselves in pertinent hits, everything else seems to be genetics oriented. Hence I must conclude Mr Darcy was off in some manner, or the technical term is so obscure as to be unknown save to savants and gurus in literature, if unknown to a librarian of renown and puissance like Her Pegship. You see, I'd flagged the fact that the article Novel sequences seemed to disagree with the category definition to Her Pegship's attention[10] back on the 12th for that self-same collision of definitions, assuming one or the other to be wrong. (Kudos to MakeRocketGoNow for catching and noting that back on the category talk just above the Thankyou Mr. Darcy sub-heading. I missed that somehow.)

She apparently decided this category action was a 'smooth move' after looking it over. The original terse category definition read: Groups of novels by the same author intended to be read sequentially. For groups of novels where the order does not matter, see Category:Series of books. (I tried to clarify it back on March 25th, and insofar as I can see, that's what we're looking at now... until Peg changed things on the 19th. Like some others here, I've been remiss in returning to clean out (re-categorize) many of the entries currently there— too many irons in the fire. In any event, I'm concerned whether the contents are in error were the definitions properly reconciled; it looks to me that the whole list needs re-catted, even with respect to Her Pegships redraft of the 'purpose' statements on the 19th. Worse (for me!) the revised proposal is one that obliterates the 1632 series, which is about half-short fiction collections, though I guess not the series article itself. In sum, I'd like to echo two things on the talk: "I'm so confused", and why not delete it (merge with Book series) per the original nom.

Lastly, the understanding I had way back was the technical difference was that a 'sequel novel' in a novel sequence did little if anything at all to re-introduce the 'how we got to here', 'what are we doing', 'what's happening in our milieu', and 'who are we' types of background information which a typical series book adds in 'under the radar' as a matter of course to be somewhat 'stand alone'. Books in a novel sequence DO NOT do this, much if at all—they just take off on page one as if it were page 459 following the last chapter of the previous book— the author-publisher expects you to read the works in the order published. End point, but it seems a large one. Lord of the Rings is like that, and note the intro to our article discribing it as a single book, not a series of three (or six if you go with Tolkien's sub-divisions). The prefactory materials in the second two books in the trilogy is sketchy at best... a novel sequence per Mr Darcy. If Pegship is satified that that distiction is satisfied or irrelevant (as in or if WP:NOR by Mr Darcy, who has gone inactive), she has my proxy, my vote is hers to cast. The better proposal was the 'original', imho, if this technical distinction is covered. If it is not, then the category and main article definitions need aligned. I'll be glad to help re-categorize. I already forgot that chore once, so I owe penance! Best regards, // FrankB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Short Comment - on Frank's rather rambling contribution. It took me a long time to work my way through this to and fro to the various references and back. At core I think this is based a on genuine logical distinction between two types of Novel "sets" - one that sensibly can be read seperately and those that cannot. This can be regardless of authorial intention. Also I think that the different semantics of "series" and "sequence" are not clear and the arguement is based on a precieved but not consistant usage between the two terms. IF we made this distinction it would 'never' be clear to everyone. If we needed to keep "Novel sequences" defined this way we should consider "Novel series" as well. In my view of course. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 13:39, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Suggest: Keep Original Name, but Her Pegship still has my proxy. Just found several more examples using the technical term on two entirely different and respected 'vetted' encyclopedia's using the term "Novel sequence" ... re talk page: do consider 1, and 2 as well as Mr Darcy's 0. This becomes in that light, a matter of definitions and purpose statements, plus moving things from the category that don't fit. Cheers! // FrankB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yea, verily, I'm not particular about the name of the category. All I want is a clear definition of what it is and what it contains. LOTR fits the narrow description of a novel sequence -- a single story contained in several publications. As for the distinction of other types of novels in a series, (for example), the Amelia Peabody or Brother Cadfael mysteries may be read separately, but they do follow a chronological sequence and provide better understanding of the milieu when read in order. I think there are too few of the LOTR-type works -- the only other one I can think of is Remembrance of Things Past -- to create an antire category for them. The bottom line (yeah, I'm a bottom line kinda gal) is: how is this category (however named) different from Category:Series of books, and can we nail down a definition clearly enough to allow people to categorize with it? Off to work (to do some cataloging!)...♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:12, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And as I implied above but didn't get as far as spelling out; the other factor which could bring confussion to the definition is that one is for novels and the other for all types of books. If we stick with a version of the "sequence" idea that is being touted then we would ideally need a companion "Novel series" category. both would need clear definition. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 15:56, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose. "Novel sequence" is an accepted literary term, serving as the standard English translation of the French term roman-fleuve. The fact that some Wikipedians aren't familiar with it is not cause for deletion or for moving it to an inaccurate name ("Novel series" wouldn't cover La Recherche du Temps Perdu or La Comedie Humaine, both of which are novel sequences). As for using technical terms, using technical terminology is totally appropriate in Wikipedia; we don't dumb down chemical or math terms for readers, so why are we trying to dumb down a literary term? What's needed here is a category cleanup or a split into Novel sequences and Novel series, because they're two different things. LotR isn't a novel sequence; it's a series. Proust's works are not a series, but constitute a sequence. | Mr. Darcy talk 20:02, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Accepted by those who accept it - not by everyone. Also you may need to be "very" clear on the distinction as LotR is a series in that it is meaningless read separately, was never meant to be published in seperate volumes and is rarely considered one novel in isolation, but is still a sequence semantically. We need to offer up a clear, unambiguous definition that everyone can understand and work with for this to work. By the way there should be no objection to using technical terms, but only if that is what they really are and there is no dispute over their meaning. If there is such a dispute they actually become unhelpful at best. As people clearly have become confused here (including me at times) should provide some evidence that this is not as easily followed as one might hope. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thus, a newer definition for the proposed two categories would be

for Category:Novel sequences Note: This is for articles on

novel sequences - which are a set or series of novels which have their own title and free-standing storyline, and can thus be read independently or out of sequence or in sequence.

for Category:Novel series Note: This is for articles on

novel series - which are a set or series of novels that should be read in order as is often the case in speculative fiction and all its sub-genres. Can be thought of a one over-riding storyline, and often without plot re-introduction, reiteration or reminder.

How does that work. Should fit Pegship's revised proposal although with different definitions. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:56, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, create category:Novel series as a separate, new category; and keep category:Novel sequences, if User:MrDarcy agrees to police it. MakeRocketGoNow 20:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you again, o Gordian knot cutter. I am revising the proposal AGAIN. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hokay-and not rambling (yet again-sorry Kevinalewis and all! The years wear, esp. when it's late.). What She says (again! <g>). Just out of clarification, to see if I understand -- That puts Harry Potter books into new proposed cat 'Novel Series', or am I at sea again? MakeRocketGoNow, don't think it's fair to attempt to elicit a promise someone may not have time to keep. The key is whether something is logical, consistant, 'professional' and maintainable—that devolves on a clear 'mission statement' on the category page as well as the same on possible alternatives with a good see also link or three, not one particular editor's involvement. We all change jobs, life circumstances, and interests as time passes—the salary and perks here aren't all that great so as to expect one to be wedded to the job! <g>

I do strongly believe after all this, someone needs to make a clear case on each category and on the top of each category talk (less terse, more examples and perhaps links to such examples as Proust, et. al. like I found) so that this work we did here need not be created (or unnecessarily re-debated) later! // FrankB 02:51, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Quite agree on ALL points you raise - happy to help out with the work once we have goahead. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Vertabase

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Company with one product in wikipedia, for which the notability isn't that clear either. S.K. 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Undecided on the article, but the category I'm thinking no; I suppose it'd make sense to have a category for, say, Microsoft products (we probably do, somewhere), but I've never heard of Vertabase, and I don't think they have quite that many notable products. Just link from their main article, if they do. Luna Santin 11:14, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Programmers by nationality to Category:Computer programmers by nationality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programmers to Category:Computer programmers

All 14 national subcatgories already include the word "computer", which provides more clarity. Chicheley 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename both as nom. Chicheley 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. Athenaeum 21:21, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. David Kernow 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Mexican-American War people to Category:People of the Mexican-American War

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Per here. David Kernow 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:People involved in the Mexican-American War per the various extensive discussions here. Using "of" for the name causes inconsistency with natural sub-category names; "Sailors of the United States Navy of the Mexican-American War", for example, parses much less cleanly than "Sailors of the United States Navy involved in the Mexican-American War". Kirill Lokshin 15:31, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I guess my instinct would be to use "U.S. Navy sailors involved in the Mexican-American War", although I grant that the "Country Armed_force Combatant_type" format of "U.S. Navy sailors" is probably not generally applicable (as I note is discussed on the WikiProject Military history page Kirill links above). However, does anyone else favor "...involved in..." over "...of..." for these categories? It seems a more active than passive description. Meanwhile, I don't understand Osomec's comment below. Best wishes, David Kernow 00:35, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Meh, it's not a major issue; we can probably deal with "of Foo War" as a standard as well. (We're probably going to be nominating all of the by-country categories to take the form "...of Foo" in the near future; once that's done, we can figure out what the best way to name the intersecting sub-categories is.) Kirill Lokshin 00:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me. Thanks for your input, David 01:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Kirill Lokshin that subcategories much echo the form of the parent is false. Osomec 16:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Dakota ~ 19:27, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -Medtopic 00:30, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dance artists by country to Category:Dance musicians by country

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 09:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Although an empty Category:Dance/Club music artists has recently been created (musicians is better than music artists). There are also a number of sub-categories that will require renaming. There is potential for confusion with dancing related performers. Paul foord 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Osomec 16:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I also agree with the idea that it should be Renamed. Robert Moore 22:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, it should become a subcategory of Category:Dance/Club music artists which should be renamed to Category:Dance musicians. --Musicpvm 22:44, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Category:Dance musicians by nationality for consistency. (See Category:Pop musicians by nationality, Category:R&B musicians by nationality, Category:Rock musicians by nationality, etc) And rename subcategories to be consistent with other genre subcategories (See Category:American rock musicians, Category:British rock musicians, Category:Australian pop musicians, etc)

--Musicpvm 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Caerphilly geography stubs to Category:Caerphilly county borough geography stubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Wrong discussion page --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

moved to WP:SFD where it belongs. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 03:08, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the Category:Caerphilly county borough geography stubs one (that's the standard convention used for Wales)

Delete the Category:Caerphilly geography stubs one

NOTE: these comments will be ignored unless they are made at SFD. Stub catagories arent debated here. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 19:31, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United Kingdom planning law to Category:Town and country planning in the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We need to recategorise all of the articles in the current category-some of them do not pertain exclusively to planning law. Planning law in the United Kindom will then be a sub category of the main category. There has been a small discussion regarding this change on the categories talk page Category talk:United Kingdom planning law--Mcginnly 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:38, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

RPG Maker categories

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Mostly Deleted (empty) --William Allen Simpson 06:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:RPG Maker, Kept, not empty, not tagged
Category:RPG Maker games,
Category:RPG Maker sites,
Category:RPG Maker users

Those categories will only encourage people to think they're notable enough to be added to Wikipedia. Delete. ' ^{(Feeling chatty? ) (Edits!)} 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as long as the unfortunately very notable Super Columbine Massacre RPG! finds a home somewhere.--Mike Selinker 13:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:RPG Maker, Delete the rest. _dk 07:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People killed by or on behalf of Muhammad

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to People killed by order of Muhammad (no consensus to completely delete) Tim! 09:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This categories NPOV is questionable, and claiming that Muhammed asked someone to kill these people or someone killed them on behalf of Muhammed is Original Research and it is against wikipedia policies and guidelines «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, it is my unerstanding that Mohamed never killed any person during wars, but only defined strategy and tactic plans.--Amesoliman 00:34, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this category in my opinion isn't neutral and is sooner demonizing Muhammad. It is unecessarily polemical due to this reasoning. Even it's creator User:Briangotts was fully conscious of that fact. Netscott 09:38, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Netscott, the diff to which you link doesn't support your characterization. Rather, it seems Brian had assumed - correctly, it appears - that certain religiously and politically minded editors would motion to delete for reasons unrelated to the validity of the category. He was right.Timothy Usher 14:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Should we also delete the several other categories which list people executed by governments or leaders for various reasons? Your reasoning makes no sense. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 15:30

Brian, what are these categories you speak of? I found Category:People killed by the Third Reich, but that was it. What are the others you had in mind? joturn e r 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher. Guy Montag 17:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad. The category is purely factual; that all these people were indeed killed in fulfillment of Muhammad's will is supported by reliable sources used in the respective articles. Therefore, the charge that the category isn't neutral is entirely spurious. The fears of "deminizing Muhammad" are an example of unwikipedic reasoning. Contrary to Netscott's misrepresentation of Briangotts' comments, the creator of this category simply expressed a (correct) expectation that it may be put up for deletion someday, as any editor can ascertain by clicking the link above. Pecher ^Talk 11:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: the reason for renaming is that none of the people included in that category was killed by Muhammad with his own hands; therefore, "by" is not appropriate here. Pecher ^Talk 14:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. If kept, definitely rename. Luna Santin 06:35, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Keep~~, or, in the alternative, rename per Pecher. Muhammad is regarded as a prophet by on the order of a billion people. It is certainly notable that these individuals were killed on his orders. It is shocking to me that this category is proposed for deletion for the stated reason that he should not be "demonized". First of all, asserting that he ordered so and so killed can hardly be demonization when (a) it is factually true, as reported in primary and secondary sources (the accusation of original research boggles my mind) and (b) the articles make no moral judgments on the killings but report them in a factually accurate, NPOV manner (and if it is felt that the articles themselves are POV, the place to address that concern would be the respective article page.) Netscott's citation of my communication to another user is out of line and entirely beside the point. I predicted in that post that someone would tag this category for deletion for blatantly POV reasons and behold, it has come to pass.... --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib)

I am changing my vote to rename per Pecher, since it appears that none of these people were actually killed by Muhammad himself; he acted by proxy in each instance. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Muhammad was both a political and military figure of the 6th century and this is a reasonable way to collect articles about his various slain enemies and rivals. User:Dimadick

Weak Keep, pointless category, not at all sure about the strength of the sources (i.e. I'm not sure a category of 'people brought back to life by jesus' would be any less spurious), but doesn't seem to be doing any harm, and maybe someone finds the grouping useful since they bothered to compile it (although it does seem tolargely consist of a particular tribe, plus named individuals of that tribe, which is a bit redundant). --Coroebus 13:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Actually only one of the individuals listed (Ka'b ibn Asad) was a member of that tribe. The others came from a number of different tribes. Briangotts (Talk)

(Contrib) 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well others are from the Banu Nadir, but it doesn't really matter. --Coroebus 14:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Some are, some aren't. You are right that it doesn't matter, so why keep bringing it up? There are people in the category who were from the Quraysh, and from other tribes. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad as per Pecher.Timothy Usher 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stong Delete Inflammatory. His Excellency... 14:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE:User:His excellency is the new username of User:Amibidhrohi; see block log.Timothy Usher 14:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad. We have several other categories for people executed by various countries or leaders for various reasons. People who think this is offensive need to enter reality. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-16 15:27

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad as per Pecher. Jayjg ^(talk) 15:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Who would claim, that the crusaders killed on behalf of Jesus Christ? Raphael1 16:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The comparison is absurd. The Crusades took place a thousand years after Jesus died. We are talking about events that took place, according to Islamic sources, not only during Muhammad's lifetime, but in all cases at his specific instruction, and in a few in his physical presence. Your question has no relation to the noteworthiness of this category Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:45, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Though your objection to my question is correct, I still object for the reasons User:Inahet stated below. Raphael1 19:25, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad per Pechers comments -- Karl Meier 16:13, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to People killed by order of Muhammad as per Pecher. -- Avenue 16:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I looked at it yesterday, and I recall that some in the category mysteriously disappeared - leaving it open for them to have been killed by Muhammad himself. Additionally, given Muhammad fought in the Battles of Uhud and Badr, he must have killed SOME people (or he's a pisspoor leader); these people should be found and added to the category, rather than renaming it.Dev920 16:44, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher's reasoning. Nobody is trying to demonize Muhammad, but he was an important historical figure and military leader. - Merzbow 16:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. BhaiSaab ^talk 17:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete We dont need any other justification to keep such a category as it clearly violates wikipedia policies "People killed on Muhammads Order or On behalf of Muhammad" is Original Research, if anyone can give a good peer reviewed scholarly source then we could keep this category. otherwise no matter how many justification you give, this should be deleted. If it is still kept I dont see any point in having an Original Research policy.

And just to remind you, people still continue to kill on behalf of Jesus, Muhammed, Governments, Terrorists, so on and so forth could we create categories for all this? this is very meaningless. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see my response to Raphael, above. You are comparing apples and oranges. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Could you provide a single source that says Mohammed (pbuh) ordered someone to kill (assasinate) another? Or a source that he used a proxy to do so? And one source that says so and so killed because prophet asked them to do so and not out of their own will? If you cannot its your own assumption and conclusion that makes it Original Research. Wikipedia is a place to share scholarly facts and you cannot put your derived conclusion as a category after your own unscientific research. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» ^(T) 20:47, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If this category is "original research", then I am apparently al-Tabari, Bukhari, Stillman and a host of other primary and secondary source authors rolled into one. To say that Muhammad never ordered anyone killed is to ignore all these sources. If you want to justify these actions, go ahead, but they are reported in dozens of sources. Pretending they didn't happen seems a rather dead end route to take. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 02:09, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you were to create a category entitled "People killed at the orders of Baldwin I of Jerusalem", for example, that would be an apt comparison, since we are talking about things that happened around and in front of the actual person of Muhammad, not stuff that happened 1000 years later. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 19:26, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher.—Perceval 20:28, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher, and make sure it is based on encyclopedic WP:RS and doesn't include WP:OR. ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 20:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Jam-packed full of original research at the mo, which is crazy considering the amounts of Records on the subject. Obvious POV/Troll attack cat. --Irishpunktom\^talk 21:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:04, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher. "Jam-packed full of original research": Most rely on authoritative secondary sources like Tabari, Stillman, Ibn Ishaq or Watts. Where they don't, the reported incidents are unquestioned by Islamic and western historiography, so adding missing sources is a technicality. --tickle me 22:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: All but two of the category's twelve articles had quality secondary sources mentioned. I amended these two (Ka'b ibn Asad and Abu al-Rafi ibn Abu al-Huqayq) with references to Guillaume and Stillman. --tickle me 22:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Where is the category People killed by or on behalf of George Bush or People killed at the order of George Bush?? Of course those categories don't exist because of the double standard as exemplified here. Very appalling. --Inahet 23:51, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What does this have to do with George W. Bush? Guy Montag 00:28, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See logical fallacy Tom e r ^talk 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point is that there is a bias towards Muslims and Islam, it's obvious, and appalling. A category lisiting people killed on the order of George Bush would be immediately deleted on the day it was created. Tell me, is there any other "People killed at the order of person X" categories?Person x can be Ariel Sharon, King Henry VIII, Alexander the Great, and every other despot. Singling out the prophet Muhammed, who happens to be an important figure in the faith of millions of people throughout the world, suggests that the creation of the article was perhaps done out of political reasons, which is clearly against Wikipedian polices. --Inahet 06:20, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Since when, Inahet, has Ariel Sharon been a despot? He was popularly elected by his people, and he was always clear about what he intended to do in power. I would say that the Guardians in Iran are much more despotic. Dev920 23:49, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of pondering over my "strange suggestion" how about bringing your attention to the people who are jacking up articles and creating unreasonable categories in order to disrupt Wikipedia? --Inahet 00:22, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you notice my keep above, you will know that I do not consider this category a waste of time. Dev920 12:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep and rename per User:Pecher. Tom e r ^talk 00:43, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per all above.--Jersey Devil 03:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify I think might be a better solution, really. If it stays, then rename per all above. It really should be just a list, though. Actually maybe not just a list but a proper article... Herostratus 04:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. I'm not convinced that cause of death is a person's most notable characteristic -- if the only thing a person is notable for is being killed by order of Muhammad, they're not worth an article; if they are worth an article, then I highly doubt that having been killed thus is one of their primary identifying characteristics. What I'm getting at here is that if the first thing that pops into your head when you think of a person's name is "Oh, yeah, that guy Muhammad had killed," then they're very probably not historically notable. I'm not necessarily opposed to the content, but I am opposed to using it as a categorization; I say this is something for article space. Make sense? Luna Santin 11:03, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. or Listify. Ok. This is an important search point for Wiki User.--Connection 11:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete. per Netscott, His Excellency. --- Faisal 12:54, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete very POV. -- LGagnon 18:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher. Intangible 00:15, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Notice User:BhaiSaab has been spamming a number of User talk pages, every one of whom but Zora is listed as a member of The Muslim Guild, where this category was proposed for deletion: [11],[12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17].Timothy Usher 00:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is another one of Timothy's one-sided comments. Zora, for example, is not a member of the Muslim Guild. Furthermore, Timothy Usher, decided not to mention anything about Briangotts posting this deletion on several user pages [18], [19], [20], [21]. In fact, he didn't even mention how he was notified about this category for deletion: [22]. BhaiSaab ^talk 00:56, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- BhaiSaab, you're right, I saw this in many places, including the above. You're also right that Zora isn't a member. But it's still spamming.Timothy Usher 01:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah? So sue me. Be sure to note Timothy's correction to his premature and one-sided "report." [23] BhaiSaab ^talk 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - BhaiSaab, Timothy will never be satisfied even if you had contacted more Non-Members than Members. Just take it easy. --Aminz 03:50, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename I'm afraid converting this category to a list would not be a good idea because it would potentially attract many otherwise non-notable people. For example, a List of people killed during the Holocaust would result in millions of names, most of which are only known for being killed during the Holocaust. However, I see no reason to delete the category because it certainly is of interest to some. The motives of those who created the category may have been sinister. Perhaps the editor who created the category wanted to portray Muhammad as an terrible, ruthless, evil man. But we're supposed to assume good faith here. If we were to assume good faith and assume the creator(s) weren't trying to push some negative point of view, many of the delete votes would have no weight. joturn e r 00:43, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Listing is not a good idea indeed. However, you're smearing the creator's rep by questioning their motives. That's a personal attack, ostentatiously assuming good faith afterwards doesn't make it better. --tickle me 15:32, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Compare the statement to something along the lines of perhaps the American government was behind some conspiracy to kill John F. Kennedy, but if we assume good faith and let the evidence speak for itself, we'd have to go with the conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald killed him. Just because I say perhaps or may have does not actually mean I believe those in fact were the intentions. What I'm saying is that because we don't know the creator's intentions, we shouldn't jump to conclusions like the ones I formulated in my statement (which were ultimately derived from some statements above). That couldn't be farther from a personal attack. joturn e r 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You "don't know the creator's intentions" - indeed. However, that doesn't hinder you speculating on the "sinister", motives pushing some "negative point", "ultimately" hypothesizing on yet another user's comments. "we shouldn't jump to conclusions like the ones" ...you took care to "formulate" in the bleakest tone. That couldn't be closer to a personal attack. Neither "perhaps" nor "may have" mitigate the fact. --tickle me 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as too narrow to be useful; but if kept, rename per above. Tom Harrison ^Talk 01:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that perhaps saying Muhammad sounds a bit too specific, but I couldn't think of a group that would better represent him. There's a Category:People killed by the Third Reich instead of a Category:People killed by Adolf Hilter. But, at least as far as I know, there is no name for the group of people led by Muhammad. joturn e r 22:09, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The group is usually called "Muslims" or do you disagree? Pecher ^Talk 22:19, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a feeling someone was going to say that. No, that obviously wasn't what I was talking about. Perhaps sahaba would be the closest, but I don't know enough about the deaths of the subjects in the category to know if that would indeed be correct. Additionally, I have an aversion to using Islamic terms to explain concepts to the general public. joturn e r 22:46, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete I think it is unnecessary. --Aminz 03:40, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per User:Joturner. Whatever this may be intended to say about Muhammad, a reader can formulate an opinion based on the facts. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Tewfik (talk • contribs) .
Delete - by it's very nature the category isn't neutral and can only really defend one POV i.e. here look Muhammad is evil, here is a list of people he has killed. Probably unnecessary as well. Wikipidian 04:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete This was a though one. But after som consideration, i vote delete per the arguements of Inahet, Luna Santin and Wikipidian. --Striver 09:47, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Pecher. This is not POV; it is factual. --Musicpvm 18:14, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Delete' - This is totally pointless, you can make similar topics such as "people killed on the orders of X USA president" its just really stupid and makes Wikipedia look like a sub-par encyclopedia with a bunch of useless articles. --Street Scholar 20:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no...plenty of other articles take care of that for us. :-p The solution is improvement, not deletion. :-) Tom e r ^talk 01:53, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Strong Delete'- Doesn't add anything beneficial to the encyclopedia, except maybe in the eyes of a few sectarian warriors, who want to force some kind of anti-Islamic agenda on the project. Ulritz 11:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question for deletionists: How is a category listing people executed by order of a religious leader different from a category of people executed by order of a religious organization? Sure, the exact name might be offputting, but that can be changed; there's no reason to delete simply because you don't like the wording of the name. — BRIAN0918 • 2006-06-18 22:23
- This category does nothing but bringing us farer and farer from each other. It is simply unnecessary & controversial. It is like someone creating a category titled "Enlightened Jews who converted to Islam". That's my reason at least. --Aminz 03:10, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Enlightened" is POV. However, "Jews who converted to Islam" wouldn't contravene any WP rules or guidelines. --tickle me 03:22, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you see my arguments (fair ways above), they take an entirely different spin on the issue. Specifically, is this cause of death useful as a categorization for articles? Take Walt Disney as an example. When we think of the name, we don't think, "Oh, yeah, that guy who died of a heart attack!" and I wouldn't see much point in categorizing him as such -- nobody's going to look him up that way. If a person is only notable for having been executed, are they truly notable in an encyclopedic sense? If it makes sense, I have no opposition to the content, but I question its use as a category and encourage turning it into an article. Likewise, you do bring up a good example with Category:People executed for heresy, but I'd like to point out that the comparison isn't quite perfect -- the heresy category has more to do with what the person did while alive, and the struggles they went through, and covers hundreds of years of history, not just "Oh, they died by execution," or, "Oh, they were executed because X said so." To put it another way, a category for prisoners executed for murder may be worthwhile, a category for prisoners sentenced to execution by a particular judge, probably not so much. I'm sure you'll have some good counterpoints, I look forward to seeing them. Luna Santin 06:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- - Jewish Encyclopedia uses ' "Enlightened" Jews who converted to Islam' to specify a particular group of converts. But yes, it is Jewish Encyclopedia's POV. Anyways, I don't support this category since it will only increase tensions & + in response some may make other "NPOV sounded" categories. These categories are simply unnecessary. --Aminz 03:36, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- We do not work in a vacuum. Whatever the category's abstract right to exist, it is of limited use at best, and can reasonably be expected to annoy some of us. On balance it does the project more harm than good. Tom Harrison ^Talk 03:47, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How is a category listing people executed by order of a religious leader different from a category listing people executed by order of a political leader? There probably wouldn't even be a CfD filed to remove "People killed by order of Ariel Sharon" or "People killed on behalf of George W. Bush" as it would be straight away speedy deleted by admins. Raphael1 10:14, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Delete or rename' per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 05:43, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless "People killed in the name of/by the order of/at the behest of George W. Bush/Tony Blair/George Washington/etc." are also created, which they won't be, because the whole idea of a category like this is intentionally inflamitory and supported, above, by ardent anti-islamists. Publicola 08:58, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

FUD. These cats would be discussed and criticised as this one is - and eventually accepted or rejected. --tickle me 02:05, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per Pecher --Baruch ben Alexander - ☠☢☣ 15:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete gren グレン 00:12, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per Pecher or listify - but clearly a major characteristic of these individuals. For instance, Huyayy ibn Akhtab is not famous for being a Jewish warrior, he's famous for being somebody who fought against Muhammad and getting executed for his troubles. Not sure that the Bush comparisons are worthwhile - though if it ever became clear that President Bush actually produces lists of people he wants killed and orders people to carry it out, I don't see why they shouldn't be categorized as such - it would clearly be a major characteristic of those people that they had been killed by order of Bush. This isn't a general category for "people who died as a result of Muhammad" (so general war victims are not included for instance), which to my mind makes it much more useful, verifiable and neutral. However, I am leaning mildly towards listifying on the grounds that this would enable sourcing to be made clearer. I can't see that the category is being abused at the moment sourcing-wise, but it may be safest to switch to a list for sourcing reasons. TheGrappler 23:21, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Leaders of cities in the United States to Category:American mayors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 09:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A better name for inclusion in Category:Mayors by country which is what they really are. The proposed name is shorter and clearer about the contents. If there are notable city managers they can be placed in a category for that title. But city leaders are generally know as Mayor. If this really is mostly about mayors, then why not use mayor in the name? If results of this nomination are positive, then the subcategories would need to also be renamed. Vegaswikian 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:Mayors in the United States; it already exists, and keeps with the trend of preferring "X of/in the United States" to "American X". —Zero Gravitas 06:50, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There appears to be a naming convention for the proposed form. Vegaswikian 06:53, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that's the case, move per nom. —Zero Gravitas 07:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose -- The subcategories should not be renamed. Therefore, the parent category should follow the convention for the children.
1. We've already been over this state by state for the past 8 months:
  - Some US states have Mayors only, some have managers, some have both.
  - Some Mayors are executive, some are honorary, some are legislative.
  - The law varies by state under the theory of home rule.
2. Note that the UK and others also have Leaders of cities.
3. Wikipedia is not the world legal body for enforcement of uniformity.
4. I cannot find the discussion of any Category:Mayors by country decision that resulted in the spurious Naming convention. --William Allen Simpson 03:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If kept, we should still have the mayor categories since almost everyone listed is a mayor and that is the common term in the US and around the world. They can be a subcat of leaders if that's the compromise point. Vegaswikian 05:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. "mayors" is much clearer than "leaders of cities". -- User:Docu

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Juneau, Alaska

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Category redirect. Vegaswikian 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and utterly pointless duplicate (and sub-category of!) Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, created two days ago solely as a holder for Category:People from Juneau, Alaska, which I've moved to Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, where it belongs. —Zero Gravitas 05:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment should this be a category redirect? I suspect that is a mistake a lot of editors could make. Vegaswikian 07:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why not. As long as it isn't cluttering up ordinary category-space. —Zero Gravitas 07:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:NHS Hospitals

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty duplicate of category:NHS hospitals. Delete CalJW 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - redundant. Afonso Silva 12:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not needed.--Dakota ~ 19:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect. David Kernow 00:40, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Non DJ Clue Apperances

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Give me a break. This would be like "artists who haven't recorded with Carlos Santana." I could see an argument for performers who have appeared with DJ Clue, but this is nuts. JDoorj a m Talk 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is this a BJAODN? If not it should be. Speedy delete. BoojiBoy 01:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 03:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Oh my. ×Meegs 08:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or else create Category:People who have never been in Cliff Clavin's kitchen —Zero Gravitas 08:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Uninformative. Tim Ivorson 2006-06-16
Delete - so this category tells us that there are only 3 rap artists who have not appeared with DJ Clue? That's amazing. Per nom. Rossrs 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete useless category Jaranda ^{wat's sup} 15:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Plus, it's misspelled. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:LGBT comic book characters to Category:Fictional LGBT characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep (was not tagged). --William Allen Simpson 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: The section has numerous entries that were altered to better qualify for the category, these alterations mean that whoever altered them lacked the necessary neutrality required by Wikipedia and are tantamount to vandalism. I feel that merger with the larger category means more eyes, more oversight and hopefully more applied neutrality. All the pages in the category still need to be reviewed, and at least 1/6 need to be corrected as the LGBT comic book characters category was spammed into quite a few pages. Basique 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. "LGBT comic book characters" is parsing categories far too finely. The category situation is getting way out of hand, divided into such hair's-breadth differences so as to become only marginally useful.--Tenebrae 02:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The narrow focus of the category has been helpful to me. I don't want to have to wade through LGBT characters in other mediums to find the material I need for my research. Breakaway 03:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. CalJW 03:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Feeds directly into category:Comics characters and category:Fictional LGBT characters. Works great for me.--Mike Selinker 05:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. Comic books are a significant and unique medium with its own unique fanbase. For people who want to research LGBT representation in this specific medium, keeping the categories distinct is invaluable. And there seems to be plenty of interest in this very specific topic, with recent news articles on the upcoming lesbian Batwoman, plus the speculation about Superman Returns. Why complicate a research tool unnecessarily? Perceive 06:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Mike S. It has problems, as described in the nomination, but nearly one hundred members makes this a very practical subcategory of Category:Fictional LGBT characters. ×Meegs 08:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Practical and populated subcategory. Afonso Silva 12:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - The merger would result in a parent category with over 200 articles and locating comic book characters would become a task in itself. User:Dimadick

It's a large category precisely because of the mislabeling of certain pages, which it seems was deliberately done to build up the size of the category. --Basique 13:42, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And I encourage you to root out the ones that don't belong there. But Northstar, Akbar and Jeff, and Cherry Poptart, to name a few off the top of my head, certainly deserve being in this category. Even Mary Jane Watson, who's as heterosexual as they come in the mainstream comics, has been portrayed as a lesbian character, and so doesn't seem a mislabeling to me.--Mike Selinker 14:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If the category is composed of some mislabeled articles, we should change the articles, not the category. Considering the usefulness of the category, deleting it won't make Wikipedia better. Afonso Silva 18:32, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; per Mike Selinker -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Side nomination. This probably should become Category:LGBT comics characters to match the parent Category:Comics characters. Thus Akbar and Jeff, two comic strip characters, make more sense here.--Mike Selinker 00:05, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - per Perceive and Alfonso Silva. --Newt ΨΦ 00:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose. --DrBat 00:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Update. I added a comment to the category discussion page about whether certain characters belong in the category. If anyone wants to do some research on this, it would improve those articles' link to this category.--Mike Selinker 01:00, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Percieve, Alfonso Silva and Mike S. The medium-specific catagory is useful -- if there is a problem with the items in the catagory, fix the content, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater. ~CS 01:36, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I certainly sympathize with your concerns, Basique, and I can see some merit to your suggestion, but I think we might do better to just show the category some more love (...and monitoring). By all means, seek out miscategorized articles, and revert/edit vandalism with prejudice. Luna Santin 10:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well I achieved most of what I wanted, which is more eyes monitoring the category, and a decent degree of oversight from other Wikipedians. So I'm perfectly willing to concede defeat om the issue of a merge. Plus it's pretty much a foregone conclusion. --Basique 02:35, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose - too broad. --Chris Griswold 14:05, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per all good resons above. Th e Gerg 14:36, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose as per reasons above Palendrom 03:42, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose there are several good reasons above Caesarcub 04:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - 102 articles is big enough to warrant its own category. Even if 1/6 of them don't belong, 85 is still enough to warrant its own category.
Oppose but rename per Mike S TheGrappler 03:25, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 15

Category:Toronto TTC to Category:Toronto Transit Commission

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: TTC stands for the Toronto Transit Commission, so the first Toronto is redundant and the full description should be used. --YUL89YYZ 23:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Please. -- Usgnus 23:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Please. -- raraa --raraa 10:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 16:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nominator. jareha ^(comments) 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Deet 11:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 13:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Absolutely rename; I've often meant to put this one up for CFR myself and forgotten. Bearcat 05:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Asian-British people to Category:British Asians

Category:Asian British actors to Category:British Asian actors

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reason: British Asian is the term used in the UK. Chicheley 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename both as above. Chicheley 21:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both -- within British "Asian" are various actual Asian nationalities, like Philipino. These broad categories are redundant. And nobody should be classified as "Asian" unless all parents are asian, and the person verifiably considers themselves "Asian". (Ben Kinsley, that's nonsense.) --William Allen Simpson 07:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. They are not redundant to narrower categories because the term is widely used in the UK, whether or not Americans approve of it. However, if anyone wants to nominate all UK ethnic categories, then I will vote delete. Osomec 16:15, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both per nom. Athenaeum 21:23, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to correct term. --Musicpvm 02:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:DigiDestined to Category:Digimon main human characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn - TexasAndroid 14:29, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Overly limiting, limiting to one type of character from Digimon. Also the category name is much more obscure than it needs to be. Rename to the much simpler and more easily recognized "Digimon characters". - TexasAndroid 20:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support a rename, but to include all Digimon characters wouldn't be very helpful. There are many categories for different types of Digimon and Digimon elements (see WikiProject Digimon Systems Update#Categories). I believe the point of the category is to list only this type of character, usually the "main characters". So maybe Category:Digimon main characters or Category:Digimon main human characters. -- Ned Scott 20:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. Hmm. Hmm. Given the description on the cat, and the fact that it was the only on in Category:Manga and anime characters, I assumed that this was for all major characters. This appears now to not be the case. Looking up at the main Category:Digimon cat, I see there are quite a few other categories of types of Digimon characters. I'll leave this up for now, and support your alternate rename, but I still think a Category:Digimon characters would be useful. Not as a replacement for Category:DigiDestined, but as a new parent for it and the other character categories. Updating the proposal. - TexasAndroid 21:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This might actually be a good change to clean up some Digimon related cats. I noticed a few that could be merged or re-sorted. -- Ned Scott 22:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose that new name defines a distinct scope (including characters like Yukio Oikawa€,but excluding others like Alice or Ai and Mako, who are not "main characters" by any definition of the term). Circeus 23:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Request that this be put on hold for now, and allow WikiProject Digimon Systems Update to take some time to look at all their categories and where this change would fit. -- Ned Scott 03:49, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States media to Category:American media

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was relist Tim! 08:36, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It took me three attempts to find this. It doesn't match up with category:American culture. Chicheley 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as nom. Chicheley 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Was nominated in December: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 22#Category:United States media to Category:American_media. -- Usgnus 21:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Create redirect from whichever category not kept to the other. David Kernow 23:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to either Category:American media or Category:Media of the United States, per grammar. :) Luna Santin 11:18, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per DK. 'American' is not cool as an encyclopediac entry, just as a coloquialism. Mexicans, Columbians, etc. have a claim too. International scope of wikipedia really requires the more professional and correct US flavor. Dukes 03:58, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Manga and anime characters by origin

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only entry is the subcat Category:American manga and anime characters, which is already well categorized in the parent Category:Manga and anime characters. Overcategorization. - TexasAndroid 20:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

keep There are enough potential subcategories for the cat to be legitimate. Circeus 23:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. I would just point out that if you are able to identify a few more examples and populate the category before the end of this discussion, your argument will be greatly strengthened. Road Wizard 23:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Boeing Aircaft

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:52, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Page named wrong - recreated proparly (June 15 2006)

User:Reedy Boy created and wants to delete this. As it was on PROD, and PROD does not and should not handle cats, I moved it here. 132.205.45.148 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE 132.205.45.148 18:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Eligible for speedy (CSD C1), tagged. BoojiBoy 20:10, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted per C1.--Kungfu Adam ^(talk) 20:30, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Brady Bunch characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

80% of the actors in this category:80% of the Brady Bunch characters listed are jokes and do not appear in the TV show or movie. The category is also unnecessary because the cast of both the TV show & movie are already documented in those articles.

The Category:Brady Bunch actors should be deleted for the same reasons.

Delete characters category, simply because there are no actual BBunch characters in there. Keep actors category, but clear it down to the regular cast, removing joke entries or one-shot guest stars. - TexasAndroid 20:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete both categoriesGhosts&empties 07:23, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Films by number

Category:First films to Category:Directorial debut films

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete and rename, respectively. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The "by number" category should go based on a previous decision to eliminate category:Albums by number. The "First films" should change to "debut films" to eliminate the concept of numbers in these categories. (Or be deleted. I don't care which.)--Mike Selinker 16:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Category:Films by number before it grows. I have no strong feelings about Category:First films, but would not object to its deletion either. Any rename, though, should reflect that the category is intended for directors (maybe Directorial debut films). ×Meegs 16:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I agree with that. I changed the nomination accordingly.--Mike Selinker 18:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Films by number and rename Category:First films to Category:Directorial debut films per above or Category:Directors' first films per below. David Kernow 23:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC), updated 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Films by number and rename Category:First films to Category:Directorial debut films per above. Osomec 16:16, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Category:Films by number and rename Category:First films to Category:Directorial debut films per above. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:05, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category was so named to reflect a worldwide point of view. Its usage is common internationally, indicated by awards such as The "Luigi De Laurentiis" Award for Best First Film at the Venice International Film Festival, the César Award for Best First Film, and the Camera d'Or, given at the Cannes Film Festival for best first film). Directorial debut is an expression that suggests entre into a film profession, which may not be a reality in societies that lack an established filmmaking tradition. If renamed, it should be renamed Category:First films by a director. However, delete Category:Films by number. Jonathan F 00:10, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...an expression that suggests entre into a film profession, which may not be a reality in societies that lack an established filmmaking tradition.

If "first film" implies "first significant film" or "first professional film" or the like, I'm not sure how that differs from it being a "directorial debut"... Apologies if I'm missing something obvious. As an alternative, I think I'd prefer Category:Directors' first films rather than Category:First films by a director, as the latter suggests each director made a cluster of first films. Regards, David Kernow 14:02, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting on the possibly problematic wording. "First film" means nothing more than first feature film yet the distinction alone has significance not just in the world of film prizes (the Independent Spirit Awards being another example) but in evaluating a director's oeuvre. Since no special recognition is given to first features in the Academy Awards or the Golden Globes, the highest profile film trophies in the world, I can forgive the term's lack of meaning (even the category's lack of value) to the average English reader. As I notice from a casual Internet search that the usage of "directorial debut" is common even in what appear to be fledgling film cultures, I rescind my prior recommendation and instead vote that the category be renamed Category:Directorial debut films. Jonathan F 22:29, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category for first films/debut films/whatever you wanna call 'em is reasonable enough; we don't need categories for second or third or fifteenth films. Delete Category:Films by number; keep the first films category at whatever wording this debate deems the most appropriate. Bearcat 05:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User bruins fans

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this category is actually a triplicate of Category:Boston Bruins fans. At any rate, it's empty. BoojiBoy 16:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted per CSD C3 (populated by deleted template). ~~ N (t/c) 16:58, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:NE Pats Fans to Category:New England Patriots fans

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian New England Patriots fans. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. BoojiBoy 16:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both per Mike Selinker below. Merge and delete -- Usgnus 18:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 19:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to category:Wikipedian New England Patriots fans to follow new guidelines on user categories. Category:National Football League supporters and all subcategories should be similarly changed.--Mike Selinker 19:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename both to category:Wikipedian New England Patriots fans Athenaeum 21:24, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bruin Fans to Category:Boston Bruins fans

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Wikipedian Boston Bruins fans. Conscious 05:54, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Duplicate. BoojiBoy 16:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename both to Category:Wikipedian Boston Bruins fans per Mike Selinker in NE Pats category. Merge and delete -- Usgnus 18:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC) --Usgnus 19:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As above, rename Category:National Hockey League supporters and all subcategories to category:Wikipedian (X) fans.--Mike Selinker 21:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Major League Baseball supporters to Category:Wikipedian Major League Baseball supporters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as well as all subcategories-only Wikipedians are in it.--Lkjhgfdsa 12:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all, except Category:Red Sox Fans, which is an improperly capitalized duplication of Category:Boston Red Sox fans and should be merged/deleted. BoojiBoy 14:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all Osomec 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Football clubs in Serbia and Montenegro to Category:Serbian football clubs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:26, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Somebody has already moved Montenegrin clubs out of this category, so it's time it was renamed. Conscious 10:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename. At a glance, we can see this would be consistent with other categories in Category:Football (soccer) clubs. Luna Santin 11:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pearl Harbour films to Category:Pearl Harbor films

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from mistaken TfD. --William Allen Simpson 09:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Pearl Harbor films. User:Zoe|^(talk) 01:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. Local use is "harbor." Luna Santin 09:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. "Pearl Harbor" is a proper name. BoojiBoy 13:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename.Pearl Harbor is in the USA, where they spell harbor with no u. Hawaii is not British. MPS 16:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Films featuring Pearl Harbor...? David Kernow 23:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point, David; it looks like it's supposed to contain articles about the bombing of Pearl Harbor, not just anything filmed there or about the place. Category:Films about the bombing of Pearl Harbor?? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Perhaps that might be too specific a category... I don't know of any (notable) films featuring Pearl Harbor that aren't about its bombing in 1941, but guess I wouldn't mind if there were any listed alongside Pearl Harbor, Tora! Tora! Tora!, etc. Having said that, many WWII films might "feature" Pearl Harbor inasmuch as it makes a (brief) post-1941 appearance, so perhaps Category:Films about Pearl Harbor is more suitable. Regards, David 14:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Fabartus user categories

Category:Fabartus user page (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Navigation templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:WikiP equalized with Commons Cats (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename to Wikipedia navigation templates and Wikipedia categories equalized with Wikimedia Commons categories Tim! 08:23, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yet another user category tree. Currently, there's no particular reason to have the same templates and categories as Commons. Badly designed with cyclical self-references. Certainly this isn't the best way to go about coordinating them. Appears to have recently done the same at:

Commons:Category:Fabartus user page

Delete all --William Allen Simpson 09:11, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per nom - a confusing group of self-references. - EurekaLott 17:26, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
PIFFLE -- I believe Mr. Simpson is acting out because I spoke sharply to him on his talk about an unneccessary edit. I should have enough spare time to be spiteful, and I admit I let my pique get out of hand. But see his (ahem) measured response to put these nominations in their proper perspective! I also note, I've emailed an apology to him as well, but all in all, he's attacking a useful tool to the detriment of wiki-sister projects at the expense of our time with quetionable personal motivations. That alone should be enough to aim your vote in the proper direction.

On my personal page category— which is modeled on one's I've seen used by others: Maybe you should try having your brain wired AD/HD and covering half the ground I cover in Wiki. I need the notes, and the interconnection for improved productivity; I've only recently gone to this, and like it a lot. I know about where things are, but the exact page syntax sometimes gets difficult when editing to create or fix up, or as in the last two items, cross-reference in multiple pages at a time. For that reason alone, as the most active wikipedian on the cross-commons categories project, the second two occur as sub-categories of the first—it helps me get around and reference what I need to look at with minimal effort. Whether the organization is of use to others really matters not—that it helps my wiki contributions should suffice on grounds of mutual respect-- never mind the Americans with Disabilities act <g> (Even my two teens get extra-test time on that basis, so extrapolate the need, please.). An extra category page that prevents me from needing a new user or user talk page is a cost trade-off that anyone should understand to the benefit of the foundations coffers. Finding the 'currently' recyclable page or note I need is all to wikiP's benefit. 'Nuff said.

Of the later two, both are administrative project management categories. Navigation is admittedly badly named (currently) due to that same short term memory thing mentioned above... it was actually a 'Miss' of the near-name 'navigational templates' category I created here thinking I was on the commons duplicating the category here. Once I realized it, I adapted the purpose to something useful as one 'need' as one that plans on porting a fair number of navigation type templates to the commons. The focus there will henceforth be on cross-links on the heirarchial tree-nodes (Categories listing media) so one can browse easier to find suitable material. Note this has multi-lingual encyclopedia as well as impact on other sister projects such as wiki-books and wiki-source.

At most, it needs RENAMED as discussed in the link, and it's contents won't begin growing until I get back from a well-deserved wikibreak for RL needs. The point is that many mult-part templates will not necessarily need be ported as being useless in the needs of the commons, which is much more category oriented with respect to navigation needs. The cross-connects we're building there and to here and vice versa, will be of great benefit to all of us eventually who work at article expansion. In sum, the category is useful to porting templates to the commons, where they normally need some modification to work within categories. At the least, it gives an inventory of those on either sister project which are available in some form on the other. Category:Navigational templates does not make that distiction, nor cross correlate the multiple sisterprojects. By refering to said category, the Japan or French or German commons or encyclopedia people have a ready list of what needs translation for their own front ends and languages.

As we work through to equalize commons categories to this, the major source wiki-encylopedia by article count, we need the last of these nominated to see where more work is necessary. There is a commons template which indicates in a seperate category when the fixups (both) here and there have begun, and the apropo selection of the template there and then here then allows us a completed list for side by side comparison. Eventually this last category will become moot at which time I'll be nominating it for deletion myself, it's job being done, as is mentioned in the usage notes on the various (See usage notes: {{commonscat2}}) but in the meantime it is useful indeed. // FrankB 18:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all and let him have his space. At least he's putting it to good use. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. 2 notoriously stubborn and blunt (and productive) editors. Cue fireworks. ;)
As long as they get cleaned up in the nearish future, keep all.

It's generally not a good idea to mix user-space with article-space in any way. However, as Frank says it is temporary, and to help in the very complex task of merging interwiki template usage, I'd imagine it's ok for now. In the future, it'd be best to keep self-organizational lists within your userspace though, and not to fudge categories into doing that job.

A potentially less cumbersome method of tracking one's own user subpages, is with prefix search: user:fabartus (ie, no manual adding of category tags needed. Put the link on your user page for easy access.)

Hope that helps. -Quiddity 19:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grumble- at least someone noticed the productivity! And I'll cop to stubborn at times, but notorious? Must be a legend in your own mind!) (Ahem!) The category is a late add trying to improve the same, the other methods you suggest sounds like what I've been doing which have resulted in time wasted missing a lot of missed page titles, and other frustrations liek loosing track of what the actual edit is while hunting for something. It can and will be eliminated in the other two once I get their names down pat. If it's against some policy I'm unaware of the first can go too with my blessings. I've just seen others with such. It's the later two organizing the interwiki effort that concern me most. Nice trick on the link you gave! Best to all // FrankB 22:03, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all, or at least last two, don't know about the first 'user pages' one or the policy on same. The other two seem pretty useful. Dukes 03:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: recruited by User:Fabartus --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
IMHO the user subpage cat should be deleted, there are better ways to keep track of user subpages, bookmark Special:Prefixindex/User:Fabartus and Special:Prefixindex/User talk:Fabartus for example or just maintain a "index" subpage. The temporary project cats however should be kept untill his project is wrapped up. Though consider the merits of simply making a list on a user subpage to track multiple pages in the future. A bit more work, but people are prone to remove "strange" categories they don't understand from pages, wich might cause you to "loose" some pages anyway. --Sherool (talk) 08:01, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: recruited by User:Fabartus --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Category:Navigation templates and Category:WikiP equalized with Commons Cats. As for the other one, listify or delete per Sherool. JYolkowski // talk 02:05, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: recruited by User:Fabartus --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- this is not a "vote" -- these categories do not meet any of the policy set forth in Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for some Wikipedia-related categories or the Wikipedia:Categorization guideline -- any "votes" to the contrary are simply invalid. --William Allen Simpson 04:14, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response Comment — Then the proper action is to nominate the 'offending' category be renamed appropriately with your superior knowledge, not to throw a monkey wrench into tools others are trying to be productive by using in good faith, as some others suggested here on your parallel action. Some of us are far more interested in doing editing rather than tearing down what others are doing and squalling ad infinitum because you don't document as thouroghly as I do or like. Calling in a few others that know my work and work ethic is only sensible when one sees such a unmeasured and concerted set of attacks.

I (repeat) I took up the badly named second ahead of your nomination on the 13th (Wikipedia_talk:Navigational_templates#NOTICE:_New_Interwiki_Navigation_Templates) asking for more appropriate names when I announced it and the templates, and have since finding three categories marked {{db-catempty}} (despite busily echoing their commons contents precisely as they should here on en.wikipedia though showing zero pages in category herein, as they now should, and just as many other 'Map' cats here will eventually also as the project progresses and things get relocated) and then subsequently speedy deleted (and restored). That's rather counter-productive to the top-down design of the Map categories, and hard on editors here trying to find or add maps properly, so something will need adjustment to prevent those references disappearing.

Since you're such a rules mechanic why not suggest how to keep THAT kind of step backwards from happening and contribute to all the wikipedias in a constructive way. Good design paradigms sometime necessitate having categories in advance of contents, which is particularly true if we get those things which should be on the commons off these pages and onto the commons where they belong. I've since suggested the two month old commons map re-categorization project I stumbled onto wanting to properly park some maps (and immediately began to help with) formalize itself as a project, which it has not as yet, and at which time, I suppose if a better name is needed, we'll adopt one per the guidlines. Some of us don't have the time to fool ourselves with airs of self-importance by trying to keep up with every simple minded suggestion which shows up or is adopted as proposed guidelines. Sorry, not going to happen when things need done— but gas away all you like. Enough of us usually know such trivial minutia to get things fixed up collaboratively, but bring them up in a far less hostile and unproductive manner. I'll take my actions over yours any day of the week, at least I'm trying to add content or organize it better.

Status Changes—While writing the above, I applied {{db-author}} to the first (Fabartus user page) category, with link here, and deleted the category reference to same in the two project categories. Best regards, // FrankB 04:29, 24 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bucknell University graduates to Category:Bucknell University alumni

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Broaden scope to include non-gradutes and bring in line with its peers in Category:Alumni by university in the United States. ×Meegs 08:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per nominator. jareha ^(comments) 08:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Usgnus 14:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:42, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Turkish-Britishs to Category:Turkish British people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was speedy deletion G4 recreated content by CambridgeBayWeather (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Needs renaming as "Britishs" is not a word. (I'm also not sure if this should be hyphenated) AnemoneProjectors (talk) 08:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation of deleted content, tagged as speedy. BoojiBoy 13:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I give up it's a recreation of what deleted content? There's nothing inthe history to indicate it was deleted before. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 14:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

recreation of deleted content (May 30). Contrary to consensus at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 19#British "ethnic" categories - again, Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 11#Category:British Cypriots, and Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 April 29#British people by ethnic or national origin. Also, words reversed. Also, users don't belong in encyclopedic categories. Per the last time it was recreated, thanks to William Allen Simpson. BoojiBoy 14:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. British was also spelt correctly the last time. CambridgeBayWeather (Talk) 15:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People of Serb descent to Category:People of Serbian descent

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think ethnic and nationality nedd two cat. There is Category:Serbian diaspora too. Matt86hk talk 08:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. It would be great if I knew whether Serb or Serbian were more correct, though. I believe Serbian, but I hear Serb so frequently I'm not sure. Luna Santin 09:55, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I may be wrong, but IIRC it's like "Scot" and "Scottish" - Serbs are people of Serbian decent. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:People of Serbian descent per nom. David Kernow 13:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American university presidents

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename all. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The large majority of categories within Category:American university presidents are titled "[University] presidents". The few listed below don't follow this convention and should be renamed for consistency.

Category:Presidents of the College of William and Mary to Category:College of William and Mary presidents
Category:Presidents of United Methodist Colleges and Universities to Category:United Methodist college and university presidents (capitalization/plurality fix as well)
Category:Presidents of United Methodist Seminaries to Category:United Methodist seminary presidents (capitalization/plurality fix here as well)
Category:Presidents of The University of Texas at Austin to Category:University of Texas at Austin presidents
Category:Presidents of Yale University to Category:Yale University presidents

jareha ^(comments) 08:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoops. Totally missed that there was a second page of those when I nominated the last batch. Rename.--Mike Selinker 18:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, I've just noticed two more batches: Category:Canadian university and college chancellors and Category:Canadian university and college chief executives. I say we rename these as well. jareha ^(comments) 10:07, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps these examples indicate that the "Institution presidents" format works less well overall than "Presidents of Institution"...? The "Presidents of Institution" format also places the subject of the category first. Regards, David Kernow 13:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all for consistency. --Musicpvm 21:20, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:British Chinese to Category:Chinese-British people

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are British people with Chinese descent, not Chinese people with British descent. It may confuse with British people lived/working in Hong Kong. And British people live in China is incresing too. Matt86hk talk 05:35, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose This is the form used in British English. Possible alternative rename Category:British Chinese people. Deletion would be fine too. Osomec 15:16, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- over-categorization duplicated by Category:British Asians on this page --William Allen Simpson 06:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:French Armenians to Category:Armenian-French people.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

They are French people with Armenian descent, not Armenian with French descent. Matt86hk talk 05:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete empty category, no rename (and the rename would be improper) --William Allen Simpson 04:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Tunisian-Brazilians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I moved the only one article of this cat José Clayton to Category:Brazilian-Tunisians, because he is Tunisian with Brazilian descent, NOT Brazilian with Tunisian descent. Matt86hk talk 04:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 21:21, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People of disputed sexuality

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A category is not the best place for a set of rumours as there's no way to source them in it; this could probably be listified, however. Related discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 10#Category:People alledged to be gay. Ziggurat 03:31, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – no different than Category:People alledged to be gay, currently being debated here. ×Meegs 07:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nominator. jareha ^(comments) 08:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Tabloid type category. Osomec 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:48, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 132.241.246.111 01:27, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator; don't listify, as there was previously a list of this type which got AFD'd some months back. Bearcat 05:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete libel liability (as discussed at Neil Patrick Harris) Turly-burly 10:51, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Islamic Pirates to Category:Muslim pirates

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

At first I was merely going to send this to speedy for recapitalization, but similar categories use "Muslim". Sumahoy 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename as nom. Sumahoy 01:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename fine by me AdamBiswanger1 03:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, per nominator. jareha ^(comments) 08:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. -- Usgnus 14:24, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- overcategorization contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- we already categorize by nationality and occupation (combined for efficiency), and sometimes by religion (when notable, see Wikipedia:Categorization of people). There's no reason for a 3rd category intersecting religion and occupation. We certainly don't want to go down the road of categorizing every possible double, triple, quadruple intersection. --William Allen Simpson 19:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Muslims by profession to Category:Muslims by occupation

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 14:29, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to match category:People by occupation. Sumahoy 01:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. --Usgnus 14:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:18, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Clubmarx 22:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV. There's no xtian or jews by occupation.--D-Boy 07:15, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all -- overcategorization contrary to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories) -- we already categorize by nationality and occupation (combined for efficiency), and sometimes by religion (when notable, see Wikipedia:Categorization of people). There's no reason for a 3rd category intersecting religion and occupation. We certainly don't want to go down the road of categorizing every possible double, triple, quadruple intersection. --William Allen Simpson 19:11, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Boston Reds players and Category:Boston Reds (UA) players

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename Category:Boston Reds players to Category:Boston Reds (PL) players (technically, there's no majority, but important information was found by Meegs). Conscious 15:55, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

These ought to be merged, no preference as to how -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed AdamBiswanger1 03:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After brief investigation, it appears there may have been a short-lived team by this name in three different leagues:

the Union Association in 1884
the Players League in 1890
the American Association in 1891

Our article Union Association doesn't mention a team named the Reds, nor does our article Boston Reds mention an 1884 team by that name, however it does seem that the team existed (Baseball reference, Hall of Fame). I will update those articles once I've had a chance to do more research. As for the categories, we actually seem to have one for each instance right now:

Category:Boston Reds (UA) players
Category:Boston Reds players (for the 1890 Players League team)
Category:Boston Reds (AA) players

I suppose we should rename Category:Boston Reds players to ~~Category:Boston Reds (PA) players~~, and leave it at that. ×Meegs 06:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why not Category:Boston Reds (PL) players (c.f. New York Giants (PL)). Is PA the normal abbreviation? SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Of course it should be Category:Boston Reds (PL) players. Thanks for catching my mistake. ×Meegs 23:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Carnivorous dinosaurs

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:57, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contains only two items, both of which will shortly be removed per a recent unanimous decision on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dinosaurs regarding superfluous categories. Category was created by User:Elmo12456, who did not consult the team members, and only added the category to four pages (out of 800 genera). The group's decision is that such a category was arbitrary because diet of dinosaurs is speculative in many instances.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and Category:Herbivorous dinosaurs should probably go too); the relevant discussion was at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dinosaurs/Archive3#Category:Carnivorous dinosaurs, and I agree that it is based on circumstantial evidence and a false dichotomy. Could be listified, which would allow for proper context and discussion of the utility of such terms in Paleozoology. Ziggurat 03:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks, Zig. I should have included the link, but I didn't even think of it. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Templates using ParserFunctions

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 15:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

From talk page:

This is category creep. Eventually, the majority of templates will either incorporate at least a couple parser functions or become obselete. — Jun. 9, '06 [14:50] <freak|talk>

Hi Freak. I created this out of fear we'd have a hard time finding the PF using templates. But I agree with your sentiment. If that PF stuff is stable enough (as it seems so), there isn't much reason for this cat here anymore. I wouldn't have a problem if you nominate this for deletion. --Ligulem 14:57, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Additional concerns I have about this category:

I would estimate that it is less than 50% complete anyway.
It doesn't include templates that call a sub-template using parser functions, due to <noinclude>.
If the subtemplate is substed into the first template, the parser function is forever present and the categorization is forever lost.
It's impossible to maintain.

— Jun. 15, '06 [00:35] <freak|talk>

I agree with freak's concerns, especially with the No. 1 and 4. That cat had some merits in the early stages of M:PF. But now it is rather ballast. If there aren't any concerns found about that proposed deletion, let's delete it per freak. --Ligulem 08:06, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If need be, I expect someone with enough access would be able to find all the templates with parser functions. -- Usgnus 14:27, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify? David Kernow 23:44, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- ##you_have_got_to_be_kidding. A list would be even more difficult to maintain. — Jun. 15, '06 [23:48] <freak|talk>
  - Okeydokey! Regards, David 12:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - if there was a decision that parser functions are here to stay I missed it. If there was no such decision this category will help to find the right decision. After that the category can be deprecated. -- Omniplex 03:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I've done a regex search over the dump of 2006-05-18 (see User:Ligulem/PFtemplates): 1107 hits. The cat currently has 990 entries. You can use AWB/MWB to cycle through both kind of lists. I can update the dump search for you whenever you want (drop me a message, can send the result per email). Or do it yourself using Martin's dump searcher (recently integrated in AWB). The time to download the dump for me is about 40 minutes. Scanning the dump took less than 5 minutes. --Ligulem 13:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Interesting, thanks. So its's apparently possible to find them without category (I didn't check any details). About 900:1100 is also interesting, I'd have guessed that most authors won't bother to add their templates to this category. Changing my opinion to "weak keep"... ;-) -- Omniplex 13:47, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A little warning: the dump search is from 2006-05-18, so a bit aged. Will do an update when I do a new download. --Ligulem 14:01, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You realize this still doesn't address the categorization of templates which indirectly use parser functions, right?. — Jun. 17, '06 [13:52] <freak|talk>
Indirect use is a different problem, for some cases it would be simple to switch them back to if-templates. Not for #expr:-essions, and there we have various math categories. If what you want includes "math is expr and therefore two cats to say so are overkill" I'd second it. -- Omniplex 02:39, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I don't really see this as any reason to delete. The nom has failed to assert any compelling reason to remove the category. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep this category was ceated to replace/moveelements from Category:Esoteric templates. Circeus 14:24, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No. Esoteric has nothing to do with PF. I've created that cat because PF's were announced to be enabled on an "trial" basis. I've never heard we (Tim)-officially left that state, but I don't think anybody still has doubts about it. --Ligulem 15:12, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I've used this cat. many times to locate pages using these functions in order to reference the pages for my own use. It is quite helpful, and is fine as it is. There is no upkeep required. → JARED ^(t) 20:55, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. — even incomplete, to those going up YADWLC (yet another damn Wiki Learning Curve) or those that need a little reminder now and again since we don't have eidetic memory for trivia (names syntax) can use the reference. // FrankB 14:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, makes a good xref list. Dukes 04:02, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep I find it useful. --kingboyk 10:22, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 14

Category:The Legend of Zelda Nintendo GameCube games

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge to Category:The Legend of Zelda games. Conscious 07:19, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category could only possibly contain two articles, namely The Legend of Zelda: The Wind Waker and The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, and as such is utterly useless.--SB | T 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Four Swords Adventures... Hyrule 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Three articles is still far too few to justify a category. My apologies for the oversight; it is no one's fault but my own. --SB | T 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:The Legend of Zelda games. Luna Santin 07:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep many categories only have 3 articles. Arniep 15:22, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as per Luna Santin. Zelda games can go into a single category. --Optichan 17:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Luna Santin. --Vossanova ^o< 18:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Luna. There is no need to subcat each game by particular system again. --Musicpvm 21:17, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Monte Carlo Software and Category:Monte Carlo Method

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Speedy renamed to Category:Monte Carlo software. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 03:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[Category:Monte Carlo Software has s]ame contents as Category:Monte Carlo Method. [Suggest Category:Monte Carlo programs as b]etter description of contents -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to Category:Monte Carlo software (prefer "software" to "programs"). Regards, David Kernow 00:47, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Monte Carlo Software to Category:Monte Carlo software (lower s). I deleted Category:Monte Carlo Method as duplicating existing Category:Monte Carlo methods. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 23:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Leftist think tanks

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. POV / Ambiguous. Intangible 23:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You obviously want it deleted, because you're the one nominating it; you don't have to bold that. See also User:Tony Sidaway/POV.--SB | T 00:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep verifiable. Arniep 15:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not generally verifiable (whether something is "leftist" often tells more about POV of the speaker than of the institution in question) TheGrappler 20:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as TheGrappler said. Anand 15:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Common township names in Ohio

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Probably better as a list, and the list is already AFD. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:59, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. PedanticallySpeaking 17:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Category:Townships in Ohio is sufficient. --Musicpvm 21:15, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People convicted by the ICTY to Category:People convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Abbreviation should be expanded, as it is in Category:People charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia, Category:People charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda, and Category:People convicted by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. --Saforrest 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom Agathoclea 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom Golfcam 23:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People charged with war crimes by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia to Category:People charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Charged with war crimes" is redundant, as the ICTY exists only to charge people with war crimes, and adds length to already long title. Compare also to Category:People charged by the International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda. --Saforrest 21:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom Agathoclea 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Osomec 15:19, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:American Idol Season 5 to Category:American Idol media

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:22, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only media files -- ProveIt ^(talk) 21:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. --Musicpvm 02:45, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:World War II British battlecruisers to Category:World War II battlecruisers of the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 07:24, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with other categories, like Category:World War II aircraft carriers of the United Kingdom. Some other British cats are named similarly to this one, and they will be renamed eventually as well. General convention is (era) (ship type) of (country), not (era) (nationality) (ship type). TomTheHand 20:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Television programs filmed in high definition

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Before long every new program will be in HDTV, making this pointless. All that is needed is a few prominent examples of HDTV first in the article, so let's delete this category now. Twittenham 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as above. Twittenham 20:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
neutral. Either keep this category, since it will take years until all shows are HD, or use the television infobox (for instance: picture format : SDTV 480i, HDTV 720p...)Thewikipedian 18:43 UTC+2, 18 June 2006.
Delete per nom. Deet 21:31, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dallas Texans players and Category:Dallas Texans (1952) players

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete former (empty), rename latter to Category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players. Conscious 07:27, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ought to be merged, I have no preference as to how -- ProveIt ^(talk) 20:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players, unless Meegs can remember why didn't we just call it that when we created it. (The other two Dallas Texans teams were in the Arena Football League and the American Football League, so NFL should be available.)--Mike Selinker 22:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, we thought date-based disambiguation might be better than league-based, since there have been two NFL teams under the name Baltimore Colts. Given that we've since added several league-disambiguated cats, renaming Category:Dallas Texans (1952) players to Category:Dallas Texans (NFL) players is alright. Category:Dallas Texans players is empty, very ambiguous, and should be deleted. ×Meegs 05:39, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, similarly, let's delete category:Dallas Texans (Arena) players, as it's been empty for months.--Mike Selinker 17:41, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian ska singers to Category:Canadian singers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 07:25, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only 1 person under category, there isn't even a cat:Ska singers to begin with. Zoz (t) 19:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom Agathoclea 22:18, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Musicpvm 02:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Object; the whole idea, which is precisely in accordance with the policies spelled out by the music cleanup project, has been to subcategorize singers by their style precisely to get people out of the undifferentiated Category:Canadian singers. CFD enforcing the opposite of a defined Wikipedia cleanup project doesn't exactly strike me as a smart thing to do. Bearcat 05:22, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Ulyanovsk class aircraft carriers

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one ship of this class was ever begun. Category can never contain more than a single article. That article is now listed under Category:Unique aircraft carriers, so it will still be able to be found and no merge is necessary. TomTheHand 19:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The article is also in the Soviet category. ReeseM 01:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Kinston Indians players

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) its AfD must have concluded. --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All articles within the category are currently at WP:AFD; Single A-level baseball players fail WP:BIO spectacularly. BoojiBoy 19:01, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for the AfD's to go through (or not). Iff every article is deleted, then delete, otherwise we'll see what's left and work from there. SeventyThree^(Talk) 22:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:No NPOV

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not a category -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Convert to Wikipedia essay~~. David Kernow 00:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC), updated 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It looks like the essay page has now been created by the author (Wikipedia:No_NPOV). 24.19.184.243 04:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for spotting. Now it's time to:

Delete per above. David Kernow 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Now that it's been moved, speedy delete. BoojiBoy 14:02, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Cities in Uganda and Category:Towns in Uganda

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was delete (empty). Conscious 07:30, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: They are redundant to Category:Cities and towns in Uganda. In Uganda urban centres are usually towns or "trading centres". Only Kampala, and occasionally Jinja and Entebbe are reffered to as cities. Category:Cities and towns in Uganda is quite adequate. The subcategories are superfluous.Ezeu 17:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: And when Hilary Clinton visited Jinja, she referred to it as a "village". Ha! Support the all-inclusive category. - BT 17:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Agreed... it's redundant. Dweller 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Convert both to redirects per above. David Kernow 00:53, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Musicpvm 21:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Russian supervillians

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Xaosflux (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Seems a bit too too narrow, at least for now -- ProveIt ^(talk) 17:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Was created by someone who did not understand how categories work, judging by the history of Category:Russian supervillians and Category:Captain Britain villains (the user attempted to add articles directly to category pages). "List of ..." is probably what the user intended to create. --Ezeu 18:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom - reminds me of "supermodels" Agathoclea 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – This cat, and its parent Category:Supervillians, are misspelled. I have listed the parent for speedy merger to Category:Supervillains, which, incidentally, has a few subcats similar to this nominee, like Category:Hispanic supervillains and Category:Native American supervillains. ×Meegs 07:23, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional kleptomaniacs to Category:Fictional thieves

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only two pages; can be covered in Category:Fictional thieves. (trogga) 16:45, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom. --Musicpvm 21:10, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Age of Sail frigates of the United States to Category:Sailing frigates of the United States Navy

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would be a more accurate and appropriate name. TomTheHand 16:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. David Kernow 00:54, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Jinian 01:02, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Muse (band) to Category:Muse

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename --William Allen Simpson 13:20, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary brackets, no other category called Muse. Alternative meaning for Muse would never have a category in the singular anyway. BigBlueFish 15:56, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose~~. The article has the (band) qualifier, and there are currently 12 muses with their own articles. -- Usgnus 17:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Surely these would go in Category:Muses. Compare with Category:The Farm, Category:Fluke, Category:Genesis, Category:James, Category:Oasis, Category:Pulp and Category:Queen, of the English musicians, whose only other exception is Category:All Saints (band) which could be considered for a similar move. The singular form of the word Muse makes it a category title only suitable for proper nouns, and the band is the only one of those. All Saints COULD hypothetically be the category name for one of its other uses but it seems highly unlikely that a different form would not be preferable. BigBlueFish 20:22, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point. -- Usgnus 21:32, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If this winds up with Category:Muse and Category:Muses, they will need a dab like opening so people don't assume that at least Category:Muse is the wrong name. In fact if Category:Muse is created, the other should be to avoid future confusion. Vegaswikian 22:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. ProveIt ^(talk) 23:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per BigBlueFish. Luna Santin 07:37, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:User Wikipedia/Stargate

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Merge into Category:Participants in WikiProject Stargate --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Participants in WikiProject Stargate. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge per nom Agathoclea 22:19, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Victorian era categories for countries other than the United Kingdom

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was No consensus; also, categories not properly tagged as umbrella nomination, and in most cases not tagged at all! --William Allen Simpson 13:09, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It is inappropriate to categorize non-UK ships under "Victorian era", according to discussion on Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships TomTheHand 15:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Replace "Victoria era" with "19th-century"? Regards, David Kernow 01:36, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Possibly... but I do think "Victorian era" is valuable for ships of the UK. On WP Ships we've been discussing possibly having a "Ships by commission date" category structure to complement our "Ships by era" structure, which focuses on events and doesn't try to have complete coverage (i.e. a ship potentially can fall into no eras). TomTheHand 02:51, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - "Ships by commission date" seems a neat solution, otherwise, yes, retain "Victorian era" for UK ships as subcategory of "19th century" ships for all nationalities. David 14:09, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People from Hoover, Alabama

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete, as the creator was willing; however, the discussion was negligible, and this does not set a precedent for this category. --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hoover is a suburb of Birmingham and there's already a category for it. User:Arual 14:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

I initially started this page with the expectation that at least one minor league baseball franchise would be based there. After having looked over the records of them, I find that Hoover in fact never had a minor league baseball team. So, as one of the reasons for creating the category is wrong, I would have no objections whatsoever to the deletion of the category. However, I would greatly appreciate it if it could be indicated on the page Category: People from Birmingham, Alabama which other communities should be considered a part of the Birmingham area in this context, so I can know to include them there. Thank you. Badbilltucker 18:56, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Composer

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Soft Redirect --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as redirect to Category:Composers -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dead People

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Speedy Deleted by Cyde (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

As I recall, this has come up before and we've already decided againt this -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:10, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If so, it should be a speedy and the page probably should be protected to prevent recreation. Vegaswikian 20:50, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one, but not Category:Dead people, which is a parent category to some other useful categories. --Ezeu 21:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & protect if possible Agathoclea 22:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-if someone's not living, he or she is obviously dead-the info. also appears in the beginning of the articles, so it should be easily known. Michael 06:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As Ezeu pointed out out, we have Category:Dead people. ×Meegs 07:26, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete & protect if possible Osomec 15:20, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Dead people category seems useful as a top-level holding category for deaths by year and such. Can we do a category redirect to Category:Dead people? BoojiBoy 02:19, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional towns and cities in Germany

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There was only one article in the category, and I removed it (because Bielefeld-Verschwörung isn't a fictional town or city, it's a joke, and Bielefeld isn't fictional). TheMadBaron 13:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When I made this category in the process of breaking up Category:Fictional towns and cities, I had an imperfect understanding of this article. Seems like the article would be better as Bielefeld Conspiracy rather than its current name. If that makes sense, go ahead and delete this.--Mike Selinker 18:55, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Probably a silly question, but why is it that real cities and town categories are all Category:Cities and towns in X but fictonal ones are always Category:Fictional towns and cities in X? The former way makes more sense, IMO, since cities are more important than towns in general terms, but consistency either way would be good, surely? Grutness...wha? 06:45, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I thought about that when I broke those categories up, but went ahead and did it by the name structure that was there. I'm certainly on board with naming all of them "Cities and towns in X".--Mike Selinker 14:05, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Railway stations in Ayrshire

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Relisted, need more participation --William Allen Simpson 12:54, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Categorisation by geography in Scotland is normally in terms of current unitary authority areas rather than historic counties. Splitting the category into East, North and South Ayrshire would be consistent with other subcategories of Category:Railway stations in Scotland and would allow these new categories to become subcats of Category:Transport in East Ayrshire etc. Jellyman 12:51, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if subdivided, but not otherwise. I suggest that if Jellyman wants this to done, he would be best advised to get on with it himself, as I doubt that anyone else will do it. Osomec 15:21, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Administrative divisions of Russia to Category:History of the administrative divisions of Russia

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename --William Allen Simpson 12:14, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(or to Category:History of the subdivisions of Russia) This category is a child of Category:Subdivisions of Russia but contains articles about historical subdivisions/administrative divisions. IMO the name of the category should reflect its contents. My previous proposal for this rename deviated to discussion which of the terms is more suitable. Conscious 12:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Rename per nom. ReeseM 01:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Free webcomics

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This category doesn't make any sense - what webcomics aren't "free as in speech"? thatcrazycommie 01:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This nomination was initially made on AFD. I am moving it to the correct location. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This has been listed on Wikipedia:WikiProject Webcomics/Deletion. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC) [reply]
Keep The nominator fundamentally misunderstands what free means here. In fact, very few webcomics are "free as in speech". Please read Gratis versus Libre. The sense we're talking about is "libre", not "gratis". –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 12:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment when I saw this, I was thinking it could be deleted since there are only two articles in it and at least one of those could be moved to Category:Free software culture and documents. Now that I see the nomination, I agree with Adashiel that there has been a misunderstanding. However, I'm undecided because there is the independent issue that I don't know what a "free comic" is. For software, "free software" has four specific, accepted freedoms, but what are the useful freedoms for comics? I know that non-commercial redistribution is one useful freedom which a comic must have in order to be called free, but what are the other criteria? Gronky 13:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I read the Gratis versus Libre article before I made the nomination, and I stil don't see how it can possibly apply to webcomics, like Gronky.Thatcrazycommie 20:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Both Greeneyes and Everybody Loves Eric Raymond are released under the Creative Commons License. In Greeneyes case, the author maintains most rights, but you are allowed to copy the comics and distribute them so long as you don't make any money. For ELER, the license is even more liberal, letting you do basically anything so long as you attribute the original author and release any derivative work under a compatible license. Comics that aren't released under CC, a similar license or into the public domain are definitely not free, even if you don't have to pay for them. Even though people love posting their favorite comics all over the place, they're actually on shaky legal ground. They're somewhat protected by fair use (if they're in the US), but that's not much of a shield. For Wikipedia, which is based on the GFDL, a category that specifically identifies free content is significant. –Abe Dashiell ^(t/c) 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not entirely convinced that the category is notable; is this really the comic's primary identifying characteristic? How many websites do we intend to categorize by their finer licensing details, and for what purpose? Luna Santin 07:34, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: We have other free categories, such as Category:Free software. This is in the same vein, comics under a free content license. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 08:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:1990 mystery novels

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 01:34, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one title was in this sub-category, moved to parent and nominating this as a currently unnecessary sub-category for this novel genre type. This is the only sub-category by novel, by genre, by year I know of and I know of no formal proposal for such as this. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 11:17, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. But that title you moved might belong in Category:1990 novels instead. -- Usgnus 18:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's does and it was surprisingly already in both Category:1990 novels & Category:Mystery novels. :: Kevinalewis : ^{(Talk Page)}/_(Desk) 10:56, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Orthodox Rabbinical roles and titles to Category:Orthodox rabbinic roles and titles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Make two minor changes and rename to conform with similar usages: "rabbinical" should be "rabbinic", see rabbinical literature which redirects to rabbinic literature, as an example. And in this category's name the upper-case (capital) "R" should be a lower-case "r", as in other instances when "rabbi" is not the first word of the category, see Category:Orthodox rabbis as an example. IZAK 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, per above. IZAK 09:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the creater (of this cat), I say Rename... its nice to finally agree with IZAK -- Nesher 13:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Yoninah 15:38, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Doug characters

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was nomination withdrawn - EurekaLott 13:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination withdrawn Some of the pages may be kept. I'm withdrawing the nom for now.--Chaser T 00:15, 15 June 2006 (UTC) This category was recently created as a result of an ill-considered demerger of List of Doug characters. The AfD for the pages is here. Chaser T 06:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Flora from Mauritius to Category:Flora of Mauritius

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Renamed. Vegaswikian 04:15, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

common misspelling. Darwinek 18:36, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename Common missgrammaring. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Rename per nom. David Kernow 12:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Anonymous__Anonymous 14:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Game$how Marathon to Category:Gameshow Marathon

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Rename --William Allen Simpson 12:26, 22 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The primary topic article is currently at "Gameshow Marathon". The dollar sign in the show's title is merely a style element of the program's logo; it is not contained in any official textual renditions of the title. [24] [25] Zzyzx11 (Talk) 21:58, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy. This is possibly misspelling, but I doubt it is a ytpo. In any case, something requiring this much explanation could probably do with the extra time. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Rename per nominator. The external links provided don't show much because they may not have been written with regard to the 'correct' title so much as the look of the printed page, but they don't refute the idea. On the other hand, since there's been no controversy over the page move this should be OK. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:28, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

June 13

Members of Category:American musical groups by state

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:47, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to make them consistant -- ProveIt ^(talk) 23:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. CalJW 03:24, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, delete the old and change to these new categories, great idea. Tyciol 12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; Added New York ... somehow I missed it the first time. ProveIt ^(talk) 21:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - consistency good. --Vossanova ^o< 18:25, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename, sounds much better. Starla Dear 22:08, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional flight attendants

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was withdrawn Tim! 20:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only one article since creation in April, probably a bit too specific. Tim! 21:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete.~~ Unsure. Perhaps Category:Fictional flight crew members would be less narrow, or something along those lines but even that seems iffy. Good catch. Luna Santin 21:52, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it now it has seven articles. It'd be eight if someone would just write an article about Vicki Barr. :^) --Mike Selinker 01:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Do it, Mike, even if for now it's just a stubby paragraph – "you know you want to"...! Chuckle, David Kernow 01:42, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You crafty devil, you. Fair enough. What about a move to a slightly less specific area, to do with flight crews in general? Luna Santin 03:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think we need a category for real flight attendants, given articles like Betty Ong. Pilots are accounted for in Category:Aviators. Is there anyone else who's part of the "flight crew"? If not, I'd suggest Category:Flight attendants.--Mike Selinker 04:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Category:Fictional aviators and Category:Fictional flight attendants respectively. Tyciol 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - OK, I made and populated category:Flight attendants. If we end up with a different name, I'll move them there.--Mike Selinker 18:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there seem to be enough characters there now. Tyciol 12:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We seem to have several relevant articles already. User:Dimadick
Keep. -- Usgnus 17:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:One-of-a-kind game consoles

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category is too general, and too POV to be useful. While the Category:One-of-a-kind computers is useful (computers built only once), this category attempts to divide game consoles due innovation. As virtually every console brought an innovation, virtually every console would need to be added here. ReyBrujo 21:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was sort of expecting weird one-off products like TurboGrafx 16 here, but NES? Strong delete. BoojiBoy 21:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, based on the article you linked to, the TurboGrafx 16 was fairly popular in Japan; it just didn't sell in the US. Thus you've just demonstrated yet one more potential problem about this misguided category. ;) 24.19.184.243 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete One-of-a-kind should mean that there was only ever one of them built and I doubt there are any game consoles like that or it there were that it would be notable. --JeffW 21:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename. The game consoles in the category obviously have features, characteristics and target market that no other console before or after them had. So, renaming is a solution to the misdescribed category. --File:Cvilletrojan.PNG page | contact 02:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- You do bring up a good point. Perhaps someone could write a History of video game consoles article, or something similar, noting some of these pioneering platforms. That said, I'm not sure if it's appropriate for a category. Luna Santin 03:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. CalJW 03:25, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the concept is too subjective for a category. Also, it's got a similar scope to Category:Notable game consoles, which wouldn't last long. History of video game consoles seems a fairly good location for the information. SeventyThree^(Talk) 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)
Delete per nom. 24.19.184.243 03:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This category is not merely misdescribed, but ill-conceived. I can discern no clear, objective, and useful set of criteria which distinguish the consoles which had been placed in this category. As they are, the selections seem very arbitrary and subjective. It seems to me that a category should in itself indicate the notable quality being described; everything should be self-explanatory simply by an article's inclusion in the category. "One-of-a-kind" is almost synonymous with "unique" or "special", and is too nebulous to provide much useful information. Dancter 04:05, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category confused me when it was first placed on the Wii and Nintendo DS pages. Neither of those consoles is really "one of a kind" in any way except they brought around a feature that a previous system might not have had. In the case of the DS combining two screens(done before) with a touch screen(also done before) might never have been done but isnt really something that makes it one of a kind. Sir hugo 11:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Locarno 14:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV category. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:48, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete POV, entirely subjective, unnecessary. drseudo (t) 18:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Incorrectly named and POV. --Optichan 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the list of CVG deletions. Optichan 17:58, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:24, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pixel image editor

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was moved to AFD. - EurekaLott 22:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The page describes a commercial software product and was probably set up by the developer itself --> misplaced advertising Naui 20:40, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Anti-Semitic people to Category:Anti-Semitism (people)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus to rename (but there is consensus for the category to exist). Conscious 06:03, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category's current name is too all encompassing and rather than allow for the subtleties that an article's text permits it just blanket labels anyone found in it as an "anti-Semite". While it's true that a given individual may express views on anti-Semitism, to blanket refer to them as an anti-Semite, particularly if there isn't a body of points of view that add up neutrally to the person being labeled as such allows for editors to add individuals based upon their own original research personal points of view. Netscott 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, as nom. Netscott 20:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename into Category:Anti-Semites or Category:Anti-Semitism (individuals). ←Humus sapiens ^ну? 21:12, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I really don't see a difference in meaning between the two category names. --JeffW 21:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, moving the category to Anti-Semitism (people) will dilute its meaning. You could have Abraham Foxman, who combats anti-semitism in the same category as Hitler. Better to handle this by more clearly defining the inclusion criteria. Also, note that only one person is really disputed at this point (Ahmadinejad). GabrielF 21:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If that logic were true wouldn't it seem likely that we'd find Abraham Foxman in Category:Anti-Semitism already? Netscott 21:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sure that if you corrected that oversight no one would object. I just added John M. Oesterreicher (noted opponent of anti-Semitism) to that category, and will do so for other articles relevant to anti-Semitism as I stumble upon them.--Mantanmoreland 19:34, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, it is worth keeping, definitely. when there are facts when it comes to anti-Semitic remarks, actions, and/or affiliations surely they can be in this category without a problem. Shamir1 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't about keeping or not keeping but renaming. Netscott 21:49, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose at this time. I can see your point, but I don't think the proposed change will accomplish what you want it to, it's not a significant change; besides that, I think it goes against consistency in category names. If we can come up with another name, or devise/enforce stronger criteria for inclusion in the category, that might be a better solution. Luna Santin 22:30, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. To be fair and uniform, and to avoid the spectre of a one-sided action, the same logic would have to be applied to every other similar category. E.g., "Terrorism: People." Additionally, GabrielF's point re Foxman is well-taken. The same can be said for Monsignor John M. Oesterreicher, a leading opponent of anti-Semitism. I find it disturbing that this valid category is continually singled out for deletion or watering-down. --Mantanmoreland 00:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category will never be neutral or acceptable. CalJW 03:38, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per well-reasoned nom.--Chaser T 06:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While the category is a good idea it's a POV magnet and causes a lot of unnecessary trouble and disturbance. // Liftarn 10:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GabirelF. Even ff inclusion of some individuals is disputed, it does not indicate any problem with the category. The inclusion of the overwhelming majority of people inot that category is not disputed, and when disputes arise, they should be resolved on a case-by-case basis. Pecher ^Talk 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is not a neutral category.--R.S.ro 12:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep althoguh this category is dangerous anyway. --larsinio (poke)^(prod) 15:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Alternative Rename I would recommend that the category be renamed along the lines of "Individuals accused of anti-Semitism", this accusation category would parallel with a more definite category along the lines of "Individuals convicted of hate crimes". We had a problem with the category "Terrorist organizations" since it was definite term but since it has negative connotations there would often arise battles as to whether it was applicable or not. The solution that seems to be functioning at least an order-of-magnitude better is "Organizations accused of terrorism" -- the category is NPOV, one can not disagree that someone has been accused by a notable source if there is a reference whether one agrees or not with the correctness of the accusation. The trick is determining what are notable sources to avoid rhetorical uses of such accusations. --Ben Houston 17:40, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, People accused of anti-Semitism would probably work better. // Liftarn 06:57, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment, That is a bad idea as many people who have criticised Israel have been "accused" of being anti semitic by certain groups. Arniep 15:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment, I totally agree. The trick is to have a high enough bar for judging what are reputable accusations. We tried to deal with this explicitly on the Category:Organizations accused of terrorism page. That category is actually working out amazingly considering how contentious the "Terrorist organizations" cat was. --Ben Houston 17:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment. I see several problems : somebody who has not been accused of "anti-semitism" can also be "anti-semitic". And some people will certainly want to precise "people unfairly accused of ..." to discuss about the instrumentalisation of the problem. The most important I think is the encyclopedic point of view. It is interesting to gather all articles about "anti-semitism" (people or not) but there is absolutely no encyclopedic interest in gathering "anti-semitic people" and even less "people accused of anti-semitism". And at the end, "antisemitism" is 100% neutral. All that have to be proven is that the article is linked to the subject... Alithien 12:09, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment bis Look at the vote of Ste just below. You have an illustration of the future if you proceed that way (note that is just my opinion). :-( Alithien 12:12, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename This category name is currently an original research disaster. Nom is dead on. Bibigon 05:40, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite having once created a category by the proposed name, I think the current name is essential. My experience has shown that it's much more difficult to apply the category to a WP article, even when the category is unambiguously appropriate because there are always partisan supporters who don't want their hero identified as an antisemite. Also, I don’t understand why this has to be a zero-sum game where the current category must be destroyed in order to create a related but not identical one. For example, why not also have a category for contributors to anti-Semitism (i.e., people who can’t be reliably identified as antisemites, but who contributed to hatred towards Jews)?--Doright 08:03, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename - I guess its better?? These lists/categories seem very problematic but people like them and they probably won't go away so I guess we need to do the best we can. --Tom 18:41, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the catagory is unneeded, since antisemitism covers the subject and does not have very many entries on it. We've voted to delete this cat before. Also on deleting this one twice to no consensus. --CTSWyneken 00:37, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per nom. Thetruthbelow 00:46, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Rename (not sure which), but certainly not Keep. The category name is too POV as it stands. - Merzbow 01:08, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates WP:NPOV. Remember that? Assuming someone's argument was plausible enough to convince me to keep it, it would have to be cleaned up of its crudeness, by splitting it into the most relevant subjective groups: Accused Anti-Semitic people, Self-described anti-Semitic people, Formerly anti-Semitic people, Somewhat anti-Semitic people and Possibly-maybe anti-Semitic people. Regards! -Ste|vertigo 06:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We might also need to include other relativist pejorative categories such as Category:Anti-American people, Category:Anti-Slavic people, Category:Anti-Irish people, Category:Anti-Indian people, Category:Anti-Muslim people, Category:Anti-Arab people, Category:Anti-Swiss people, Category:Anti-Japanese people, Category:Anti-Christian people, Category:Anti-Russian people, Category:Anti-Mexican people, Category:Anti-Canadaian people, Category:Anti-Israeli people, etc. etc. -Ste|vertigo 20:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename per nom. Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 20:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Stevertigo; however, I would vote to rename if it is kept.--Drboisclair 22:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
rename per Netscott -- Karl Meier 09:02, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
keep' per Mantanmoreland. I don't know why this category is so highly contested. Are the anti-semites insulted by it? Onsmelly 07:19, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: There are editors, however, who do not like being labeled antisemitic. Please do not attack them. --CTSWyneken 13:35, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict to Category:Battles and operations of the 2003 Iraq conflict

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:48, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Match the standard naming convention for categories of events during a particular war. Kirill Lokshin 19:34, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Luna Santin 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians with an age

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete all --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

When a phrase is used as a modifier it should be hyphenated. Additionally, Wikipedians should be capitalized. Esprit15d 15:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Everything in Category:Wikipedians with an age is similarly formatted and will need to be changed. In all honesty I don't see the usefulness of this though, I'd vote to delete it. BoojiBoy 15:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I didn't create it, but these cats go with the {{Template:User current age}}. Outright deleting the category would affect the userbox, which is a whole new issue.
  - We voted to delete these not very long ago. Darn, now I'm going to have to search throught the CFD archives. Can't someone figure out a way to index them? --JeffW 18:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - I found it at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 May 17#Category:Wikipedians who are 13. The nomination was to merge this with Category:13 year old wikipedians but the vote was universally to delete and most of the votes were to delete all like categories, but User:Vegaswikian only recorded that the result was Delete. I guess he didn't delete the rest since Category:13 year old wikipedians is still there (which is proper because those other categories were never tagged). --JeffW 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's about it. I did delete some of the empty cats outside of the CfD as speedy's since they were empty. Vegaswikian 20:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all these categories. I'll tag the super-categories too later today if I have time. --JeffW 18:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - Wikipedia is NOT MySpace. --Cyde↔Weys 02:13, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment These were originally linked with Template:User age, until I removed the categories from the template a month or two back. Basically, that template, instead of calculating the person's age, let anyone enter whatever age they wanted. Which was resulting in red-linked categories of fractions, smileys, etc. Pure chaos. So I removed it and gave an explanation on the talk page. - TexasAndroid 18:52, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - what Cyde-Weys said. --Vossanova ^o< 18:29, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

category:Children's ITV television programmes to category:ITV children's television programmes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 05:49, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

for consistency with category:BBC children's television programmes. (I haven't checked all the other tv companies for style though.--Shantavira 13:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose "Children's ITV" is a division of ITV (though it's now often abbreviated to CITV for coolness). Chicheley 15:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since that's verifiable, oppose and speedy close merger per Chicheley. BoojiBoy 18:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I thought Children's BBC or CBBC was a division of the BBC, along similar lines, so the BBC category should be renamed as well - and explantory notes added at both category pages to avoid renomination for renaming, though really, both naming conventions are equally comprehensible. Carcharoth 13:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose per Chicheley.

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Vespa scooter riders

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not encyclopedic, and not noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the bio articles. The people listed are not particularly associated with Vespa, and this type of categorization encourages the proliferation of trivia. Also could be interpreted as product endorsement, although I doubt this was the intent. Rossrs 13:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As the creator of the category, I can understand your points. However, just because someone rides a Vespa doesn't necessarliy mean it should be in their Bio - probably only the Bristish Chef Jamie Oliver would afford such an accolade in his Bio, even ahead of Gregory Peck and Audrey Hepburn who bought about it's global popularity from the film Roman Holiday. However, because it doesn't need to be mentioned in the Bio, but beacuse it is so trend setting and one of the accessories of many of the percieved leading crowd, I felt it better to create a category which listed real owners. Only if I could find a direct link article or photo, have persons been listed in this category. Perhaps you can suggest a category heading which would encompass the above, plus the design and engineering aspects of the company? Rgds, - Trident13 15:32, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Information of this sort is already listed at the Vespa article, as I see it. If the person's association with Vespa is notable enough to warrant mention, by all means do so, but I doubt there's a significant number of people we'll find, where we can honestly say that such an association is one of their primary identifying characteristics, if that makes sense. I truly do appreciate your contribution, but it seems more like article information than a category, to me. Luna Santin 22:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think so too, and Trident13, I mean no disrespect here but I disagree with your reasoning. Hepburn and Peck for example, weren't Vespa riders really. They played fictional characters who rode a Vespa in a film. It was probably the best and most enduring advertisement Vespa could have hoped for but it was the characters who were Vespa riders, not the actors. Audrey Hepburn also played a princess in the same film, but it would be wrong to list her in "Category:Princesses", as it would be equally wrong to list Peck in "Category:Journalists" because he played a journalist the film. I know there's a gulf of difference between "Category:Princesses/Journalists" and "Category:Vespa scooters riders" but the reasoning behind characterising people or articles into any category should be consistent. Rossrs 09:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Chicheley 16:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If it's not notable enough to be mentioned, the cat should not be on the article at all. Trident13 suggests that this would leave one member; in which case the cat is deletable as useless. Septentrionalis 16:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not a notable attribute or accomplishment, and just silly as a navigation tool. Would we want similar categories for every brand of vehicle? I hope not. -Will Beback 21:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Only the most important attributes mentioned in an article merit categorisation, not all the attributes and then some as suggested by Luna Santin. CalJW 03:37, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after listing notable people at Vespa. Carcharoth 14:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Pmanderson/Septentrionalis, possibly listify in Vespa per Carcharoth. Aecis ^Apple ^knocker ^Flophouse 09:58, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional table tennis players

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 05:16, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is too specified to be useful. The fact that Forrest Gump played table tennis should be in his article Dakart 08:45, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Luna Santin 09:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Rossrs 13:48, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too specific. Tim! 21:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doesn't even include Guy Haines from Strangers on a Train. Really!--Mantanmoreland 12:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.--ᎠᏢ 4 62090^Contribs 01:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

merge Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada with Category:Conflicts in Canada

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 05:50, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We already have Category:Conflicts in Canada and Category:Military history of Canada dealing primarily with military conflicts in and out of Canada. by removing or changnig the instructions on the Category:Conflicts in Canada, the category could accept non-military confrontations between groups within Canada, along with military confrontations that perhaps are not considered wars. The Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada was created in an effort to keep Category:Conflicts in Canada to exclusively military subjects, making Category:Conflicts in Canada somewhat more redundant then it already was. Category:Aboriginal conflicts in Canada also is a small category with little potential for growth. Mike McGregor (Can) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

support merger per nom Mike McGregor (Can) 02:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose Valid and useful subcat, with at least some omissions. Septentrionalis 16:16, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Take Category:Native American wars as an example of such a valid subcategory. It makes sense to look at Aboriginal conflicts as a subset. That said, I'm actually more looking at merging Category:Conflicts in Canada and Category:Military history of Canada, since they seem potentially redundant. Luna Santin 00:44, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is not too small and it is an appropriate subcategory of Category:First Nations. CalJW 03:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CalJW. Carcharoth 14:07, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Freccia class destroyers to Category:Destroyer classes

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 05:52, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Freccia category contains nothing except its own page. Dakart 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do not merge. The category only contains one article, but it has the potential to have four more, one for each ship in the class. See Category:A class destroyers for an example. Individual ship articles haven't been written yet, but the category has the potential to grow. For consistency among other destroyer categories, this cat should remain. TomTheHand 02:27, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment But none of the four listed Freccia class ships appear to be notable --Dakart 07:58, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - USS Tinian (CVE-123) was completed too late for World War II, never commissioned, moved directly into reserve, and kept there until 1970, when she was scrapped, and she's article-worthy. All four ships of the Freccia class fought in World War II and all of them sank during the war. They must have had interesting histories, and the fact that we as English speakers don't know much about them doesn't make them non-notable. An Italian, or an American with access to Italian sources, could write interesting articles about their service histories. It just hasn't happened yet. TomTheHand 11:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a fair number of empty categories in Category:Destroyer classes, but most of them haven't had much time to populate -- many are less than a week old. Luna Santin 10:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose merger, but please populate or add blurb to category page with red-links to future articles intended for this category. Shouldn't it be a guideline to create the articles first, even if only stubs, and then the categories? Carcharoth 14:06, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Do not merge. It is standard practice within the Wikipedia:WikiProject Ships to create a category for each ship class; if categories are deleted, the listings in the Ship classes category will no longer be complete. Moreover, Wikipedia:Category deletion policy does not endorse the deletion of "underpopulated" categories. I quote: Categories that should exist but it is clear are missing articles or subcategories should be added to Category:Underpopulated categories. Regards to all, John Moore 309 13:48, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Cleanup overhead

Shortcuts

If process guidelines are met, move categories to the appropriate section here to prepare to delete.

Before deleting a category, please ensure that it is empty.

Please help keep this page clean! Listings that have already been dealt with need to be removed quickly.

List is located at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Awaiting closure – updated by AnomieBOT.

See also Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Old unclosed discussions.

Discussions awaiting closure

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 8 (7 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7 (2 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6 (2 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3 (1 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 30 (2 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 26 (1 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 25 (1 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 24 (2 open)
Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 19 (2 open)

Closing procedure

Bot

JJMC89 bot III (talk · contribs · logs) processes the requests on this page. It currently checks for new work at 19 and 49 minutes past the hour.

Process

The working page must have full (sysop) edit protection.
The bot can only recategorize when a page is categorized using category syntax ([[Category:Foo]]).

The bot iterates over each section of the page using the section header to determine the mode.
Within a section the bot iterates over each line if wikitext.
- Each line consists of three parts: prefix, wikilinks/templates, and suffix. Everything else is ignored.
  - All wikilinks on the line
    - They must be to a CfD page or a category. The bot will not process the rest of the section if any other wikilink is found.
    - If a CfD link does not contain a section, the bot will attempt figure it out based on the linked CfD page.
  - {{c}}, {{cl}}, and {{lc}} can be used to link categories. All other templates are ignored.
  - The prefix is the plain text at the beginning of the line.
    - The prefix on a line with a CfD link applies to all lines until the next CfD link.
    - If the prefix contains "NO BOT" (case sensitive), the bot will not queue it. (These should be placed on WP:CFD/W/M instead.)
  - The suffix is the plain text at the end of the line.
    - The suffix on a line with a CfD link applies to all lines until the next CfD link unless that line has a suffix.
If a CfD link was found and there is at least one category link is on the line, the bot will queue the request.
After queueing the entire page, the bot will remove any conflicting requests and requests involving disambiguation categories from the queue and then check and process the remaining requests.

Bot work

If the category needs to be split among multiple destination categories, requires template editing, or requires editing the documentation subpage of templates, or any other special circumstances that require manual review, list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual rather than here.

If a category has over 5,000 members to be updated by bot, list it at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Large.

Speedy moves

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Speedy

Category:ŠKF iClinic Sereď managers to Category:ŠKF Sereď managers

Move

Bot information

The bot moves the category to a target category without leaving a redirect and removes the {{cfx full}} template.
If the prefix contains "REDIRECT" (case sensitive), then the bot will leave a redirect.
Checks:
- The current category cannot be the move target.
- There must be one move target on the line.
- If the current category is a redirect, then the target must exist.
- The target must not be a redirect.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:Greek Muses to Category:Muses (mythology)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 26

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:Monarchs of South Africa to Category:Monarchs in South Africa

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:Redirects from transliterations to Category:Redirects from alternative transliterations

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:UK Singles Chart number-one singles to Category:UK singles chart number-one singles

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:Australian food and drink organizations to Category:Australian food and drink organisations

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:WikiProject Central Asia projects to Category:Central Asia WikiProjects

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:People from Jagiroad District to Category:People from Jagiroad

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Category:Paeonian mythology to Category:Mythological Paeonians

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6

Category:Fictional haunted hotels to Category:Fiction about haunted houses

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Category:Lighthouses completed in the 2nd century to Category:Ancient lighthouses

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Category:Retailers to Category:Retail companies

Merge then delete

Bot information

The bot merges the category to one or more target categories and deletes the empty category.
If the prefix contains "REDIRECT" (case sensitive) and there is a single merge target, then the bot will redirect the category to the target using {{category redirect}} instead of deleting it and add {{old CfD}} to the talk page.
Checks:
- The current category cannot be a merge target.
- There must be one or more merge targets on the line.
- All merge targets must exist and not be a redirect.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Category:Oils and fats technologies to Category:Oils

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Category:Land disputes by country to Category:Land disputes

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6

Category:Government of the East Rand to Category:East Rand

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6

REDIRECT Category:Drawing artists to Category:Draughtsmen

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Category:Forestry researchers to Category:Forestry academics

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6

Category:Populated places in ancient Arabia to Category:Former populated places in Yemen

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 6

Category:Lists of Major League Baseball retired numbers to Category:Major League Baseball people with retired numbers and Category:Lists of retired numbers

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Category:Minyan mythology to Category:Boeotian mythology

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Category:Counts in the Holy Roman Empire to Category:Counts of the Holy Roman Empire

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Category:History of medical education to Category:Medical education

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:Post-Classical Chinese philosophers to Category:Philosophers by Imperial Chinese dynasty‎

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Luthiers from Genoa to Category:Italian luthiers and Category:People from Genoa

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:Table tennis magazines to Category:Sports magazines and Category:Table tennis mass media

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Writings by topic to Category:Literature by topic

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Singers from Vijayawada, India to Category:Musicians from Vijayawada

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Construction law in France to Category:Law of France

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Gaza envelope in the Israel–Hamas war to Category:Israel–Hamas war by location

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 31

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 27

Category:Middle Eastern diaspora to Category:West Asian diaspora

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 29

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Construction law by country to Category:Construction law

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Chemistry volumetric instruments to Category:Volumetric instruments

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Chemistry instruments to Category:Scientific instruments

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:Court Treasurers to Category:Political office-holders in Poland

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:Political and economic think tanks based in the European Union to Category:Think tanks based in Europe

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:History of blood donation in the United Kingdom to Category:Blood donation in the United Kingdom and Category:History of blood donation

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:17th-century mayors of places in Pennsylvania to Category:17th-century mayors of places in the United States and Category:17th-century Pennsylvania politicians

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:Cyber Security by country to Category:Computer security by country

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 1

Category:Wooden floors to Category:Floors and Category:Wood products

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 1

Category:Insurance law in France to Category:Insurance in France

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:Vehicle simulation MOGs to Category:Multiplayer vehicle operation games

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

REDIRECT Category:Women in war in the Middle East to Category:Women in war in West Asia

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Category:California winemakers to Category:American winemakers

Empty then delete

Bot information
The bot removes the category from all pages and deletes the empty category. Checks: There must be one category on the line.

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 1

Category:Survey selection methods

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 1

Category:Thermal instruments

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Radio serials

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:YouTube podcasters

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Cannabis distribution retailers of Canada

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Category:Kyrgyz Political Organisations

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Category:Teenage pregnancy in video games

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:First ladies of Denver

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:English chiropractors

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:First ladies and gentlemen of Las Vegas

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 1

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 August 31

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Psychiatric procedures

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 3

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 2

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Transport companies of East Germany

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 4

Category:Jat states

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 5

Category:People from Karabakh

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2024 September 7

Retain

Bot information

The bot removes the {{cfx full}} template and adds {{old CfD}} to the talk page.
If the suffix does not contain the discussion action and result for {{old CfD}}, the bot will attempt figure them out based on the linked CfD page.
On the working page, the action/result must be one of the following.
- no consensus (for|to) action
- not action
- keep (The action is assumed to be delete.)
Checks:
- There must be one category on the line.
- There must be an action and result (on the line or bot detected).

None currently

Old by month categories with entries

This section lists old maintenance categories that should be empty but are not. This can result from reversions of pages, incomplete nominations, bot errors, backlogs or pending manual work.

Category:Categories for discussion from August 2024 (2,434) - started with 3,444 to be processed