Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 30

< August 29	August 31 >

August 30

MOVE/KEEP-Should be moved under Emerson Electric Company. NORPAC is its own Company under Emerson. Not to be removed from wikipedia. This company exist as can be seen on the website link.

Category:Wikipedia vandals and all remaining subpages

Delete/transfer - per WP consensus that vandals should not be glorified with subpages; most of the subpages have already been deleted. If their is any information in the remaining pages that might be useful, it can be transfered to WP:LTA.--Lorrainier 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - The project pages are beyond the scope of WP:CFD, so you should probably list them separately under WP:MFD. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is certainly not the consensus. This category is useful in guarding against vandalism. --M @r ē ino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It seems to be a consensus as nearly all of the vandal subpages have been deleted.--Lorrainier 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- a "vandal hall of fame" only encourages more imitators. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment not sure what is up for deletion here. "Subpages" implies this is not a category so this isn't the correct place to list. --pgk^(talk) 22:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC) (Delete the category - I think we'd need to consider the LTA pages seperately - keeping any refering to subtle and current vandals - kill the rest). --Doc 10:27, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Useful in tracking vandals. By the way, where was this consensus reached? --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:22, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Can you tell me what use this actually, specifically, is? What use is it in tracking vandals? How is it actually used? Do you use is, and to what end? --Doc 00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Ryan Delaney - I know that there was recently a nomination to delete the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and there is currently a nomination to undelete it. I'm not sure if that's what Lorrainier was referring to, but if it is, there are quite a few editors who question whether or not that constituted consensus. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I have used Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts during one of my past encounters with a vandal, and I can see how it (along with the similar categories for vandals) could be helpful to others. Guidelines are good at telling you how to handle vandals, but sometimes it can be beneficial to see the actual process that was taken against one. If an argument develops about what constitutes vandalism, seeing some precedents can help make a point against it. In my case, I looked at some of the users that were blocked in the past to see what type of vandalism they were doing and the types of warnings and blocks they received. By looking at some of their edits, I could see what constituted serious vandalism (such as what might require the {{blatantvandal}} warning) and minor vandalism. I could also see how this might help look for patterns of vandalism since many vandals target certain types of pages. There may be some things that "glorify" vandalism, I don't think that a category (which does nothing more than list the vandal's name) really does that. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - once all of the subpages are deleted/transfered, it will be an empty category.--Lorrainier 05:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you are saying keep this one, because I once used a different one. Perhaps you can enlighten me how did the category of 8000+ names help you in you r encounter with a vandal. What new information did it give in "see the actual process that was taken against one"? WP:VANDALISM lists the types of vandalism which I would suggest is far better use of time than working through 8000+ entries in a category to see if something is similar to vandalism someone else did. --pgk^(talk) 06:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All subcategories of Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts that list Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked in DATE OR during or prior to DATE

Delete - See below rationale--Lorrainier 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is useful in guarding against vandalism. --M @r ē ino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You've got me intrigued now. How is a list of 1000's upon 1000's of names useful in guarding against vandalism? --pgk^(talk) 22:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC) (For reference in the 16/8/2006 database dump there was 8000+ names in the main category alone)[reply]
Delete -- a "vandal hall of fame" only encourages more imitators. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep No valid rationale for deletion --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - See my reasoning above. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly useless. the wub "?!" 10:14, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts

Delete - A list of every petty vandal who has been blocked is entirely unnecessary.--Lorrainier 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This category is useful in guarding against vandalism. --M @r ē ino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- a "vandal hall of fame" only encourages more imitators, and the software already has a list of indefblocks. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Doesn't hurt anything, could be useful for record-keeping. --Ryan Delaney ^talk 00:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific, if you can show how that would be practically useful I will change my vote. --Doc 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - See my reasoning above. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The table of templates in the heading should be moved somewhere, it is rather useful. —Centrx→talk • 04:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, utterly useless. the wub "?!" 10:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia inappropriate username blocks

Delete - Why does Wikipedia need a list of every stupid username that has been created? Would it actually be of use to anyone?--Lorrainier 16:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Since these accounts were closed for their name, there is no reason to preserve them on the system, let alone encourage hits to their pages. --M @r ē ino 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -Doc 00:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - One advantage of having a list like is to see precedents. If another username is nominated for blocked due to being appropriate, it might help some people to see some past names names that were blocked to see if similar reasoning might apply to blocking the new one. Maybe that's not an important feature, but since it doesn't hurt anything, I have a minor preference to keep this category. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocks don't go into a great rationale. If you think something needs a username block I doubt anyway searches through the 8500+ names in this category to find one similar to see if they can justify it. Using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut seems the analogy here, why not look at WP:USERNAME to see if it could be considered inappropriate? That's somewhat smaller lists the high level cases complete with rationales, 1000 times more useful --pgk^(talk) 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, utterly useless. the wub "?!" 10:16, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians interested in coin collecting or numismatics to Category:Wikipedians who collect coins

I thought I'd listed this for renaming on this page, but I obviously hadn't, as pointed out by an admin and a member of the category. Here's a "relisting" to match all categories of category:Wikipedians interested in collecting.--Mike Selinker 15:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Endorse renaming. Bastique▼^parler _voir 15:35, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to simpler name per nom. Dugwiki 19:10, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Would also support Category:Wikipedians who collect coins. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 01:08, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry. Obviously it should be that. I fixed the nomination.--Mike Selinker 02:13, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename for simplicity per nom. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piacenza F.C. players

Category:Piacenza F.C. players to Category:Piacenza Calcio players

Rename, Proper name of club is Piacenza Calcio. Bigdottawa 15:26, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piacenza F.C.

Category:Piacenza F.C. to Category:Piacenza Calcio

Rename, Proper name of club is Piacenza Calcio. Bigdottawa 15:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia blocked imposters and all subcategories

Firstly, most of these are not imposters but boring trolls. User:(21:06:15) ***bumm13 has no friends IRL, basically or User:JoanneB sucks the chrome off Jake Remington's trailer hitch are hardly likely to be mistaken for the real things. These attack accounts are created by unrelated individuals and there is no point to lumping them together or categorising them at all (see also WP:DENY and the debate below at below) --Doc 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

delete all per me --Doc 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
delete. Those accounts were blocked, for good reason. They have no contribs. There's no point in collecting them all in a category and thus giving their creators way more recognition than they deserve. --Joanne B 10:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, public pillory. --86.134.56.248 11:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC) IP has three article edits.--Doc 11:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all snuff out the free publicity, these categories really contribute nothing to the task of eliminating vandalism. --Cactus.man ✍ 11:12, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. These categories are doing nothing but taking up space. I doubt anyone has ever used them for a serious purpose. At best, it's giving attention to whoever created these accounts, which will encourage them to create more. We really don't need this. (And what happened to that "Delete unused usernames" proposal? Ideally we need to erase these offensive account names altogether) – Gurch 11:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it's a public pillory, and the usernames are already hidden by Special:Listusers. I doubt you're going to flick through that in a hurry! --86.134.56.248 11:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC) IP has already opined--Doc 11:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Torch them all. Hyperbole aside, we don't need to keep statistics. Blocked users are blocked. Mackensen (talk) 12:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No earthly use. --Tony Sidaway 13:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - These categories help keep track of which users are blocked and why. The ones that aren't imposters should be removed, but this category will help distinguish the real users from their imposters. —Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Few of these are convincing imposters - most are just abusive trolling names. The ones that have edited a bit, and who might be confused for the genuine article can have 'imposter' marked on their userpage - but you make no case for categories.--Doc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - See my reasoning above. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"help distinguish the real users from the imposters", if the imposters have been indefinitely blocked why does this help? Isn't that fact that they have very few edits and got indefinitely blocked a bit of a give away? --pgk^(talk) 06:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Re: Cswrye, why do we care why they are blocked? As long as the block log is reasonably informative ("username violation", "page move vandal", "vandal only account", "dopelganger" etc) we don't need anything more. Thatcher131 (talk) 14:03, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, as a tool for use in anti-vandalism enforcement. --M @r ē ino 14:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contributions like this will be discounted, unless they explain how it is userful for that purpose. Assertions without reason do not convince. --Doc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

- Well, I'm not convinced by your reasoning, either. This category is useful because WP:AIV often works by looking for patterns. Remember, a blocked user can come back simply by creating a new user name. If that new user's first edit looks like vandalism, maybe it's a previously blocked vandal, or maybe it's an innocent newcomer who didn't know about the sandbox. How can we tell? Often, it's by following the pattern established by previously blocked accounts. --M@rēino 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - You seem to be somewhat confused as to what this category is, it is blocked imposters no need to look for past patterns relating to vandalism, if someone is an imposter of a legitimate account then it gets blocked. Perhaps you can give me a real (as opposed to abstract example) of when you have used one of these lists to list someone on WP:AIV ? (~~In my copy of the database dump from 16/8/2006 I can't see you having ever edited WP:AIV, I'll double check later to make sure I haven't made a mistake~~Indeed I had made a mistake, I'll look through them later and see if I can track down examples where this category may have been useful--pgk^(talk) 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)) --pgk^(talk) 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Addhoc 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. These categories serve no useful purpose other than boost the egos of the users being impersonated. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, more trouble than they are worth. Tom Harrison ^Talk 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete All per WP:DENY. Naconkantari 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that WP:DENY is an essay and is not an actual policy or guideline. Many, including me, consider it very unrealistic. --M@rēino 22:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  - Note there isn't even an essay for which prescribes populating these categories, which many find unrealistic including I guess all those who have moved for deletion --pgk^(talk) 06:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - the less recognition this idiotic vandals receive, the better, dammit!--Lorrainier 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The Uninvited Co., Inc. 16:08, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Waste of time. the wub "?!" 16:33, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Dugwiki 19:11, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the size of mine, er I mean delete can't see why we need these listed by user other than some sort of bizarre vanity --pgk^(talk) 21:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- giving them attention is counter-productive, and only encourages more imitators. -- The Anome 22:15, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom.--Lorrainier 05:24, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Political_Critics_of_George_W._Bush

Please delete. It's basically a vacuous category getting added to a lot of Democratic politicians like Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Gore, etc. Are we to name every Democratic party office holder here? Do we then also list them as Critics of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as well? The point is that _obviously_ they are critics, they are in the _opposition_ party. Now, Republican critics might be a useful category, or foreign critics. But this is silly. Derex 08:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Calsicol 09:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I could swear we just deleted this. Delete.--Mike Selinker 12:39, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I thought that this was deleted as well. --Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Addhoc 14:23, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This category could include thousands. Bastique▼^parler _voir 14:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In addition to the above comments, the category definition is too subjective. What constitutes being a critic? Any disagreement? For instance, Nancy Reagan doesn't agree with George Bush on stem cell research, but is otherwise a supporter. Should she appear in this category, since she's criticized him? And what about people who are in the other party but agree with Bush on some issues? This category is too open to POV interpretation. Dugwiki 15:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Note also CFD 2006-08-11 Critics of George W. Bush, CFD 2006-08-15 more critics of Bush, and of course CFD 2006-08-16 Intellectual's who wear blue socks on Thursdays that are Critics of George W. Bush. -choster 18:01, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. List is vacuous. --Tbeatty 18:05, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, or speedy as a recreation. It's not a new category just because you changed the title a little bit. Christopher Parham (talk) 18:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- And see also Category:Republican Critics of George W. Bush. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 00:56, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Requires original research to determine who is or isn't a "critic". Inherently POV. Morton devonshire 02:11, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia navigation templates

Category:Wikipedia navigation templates to Category:Interwiki category linking templates

'Rename'

Category:Wikipedia navigation templates to Category:Interwiki category linking templates or Category:Interwiki intercategory navigation templates — either of these is a better descriptive rename of the 'bad name' (Interwikily, speaking) that was renamed herein back in June from a 'worse name', one I'd misrembered and such.

These are part of the Template:W2 interwiki sharing and linking in compliance with WP:Btw, I guess, and a direct spin-off of the Maps recategorization project ongoing on the commons along with all the consequent image retagging. The templates tie the two sister spaces together, along with some forthcoming links that do the same for a small set of other sister's categories.

Moreover, this is not a good name off en.wp, particularly on the commons, for many people on those other sister's bemoan the chaotic-seeming give and take (and trolls and edit warring, and picyune discussions about not much) and so prefer not to be here. I can hear some people there grind their teeth every time they read this current name on the commons. <g>Template:IA) Retagging Can not be done by BOT, it messed up the template logic back in June.Template:IB) The good news is the tagging is automatically done by the few control templates, so the hand editing is simple when you know where to look. Template:I You get the cat moved, and I'll move the contents by fixing the templates. (What a deal!) // FrankB 08:13, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:UCL alumni

Rename to Category:University College London alumni. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 03:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per above. Michael 04:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable fencers

Category:Notable fencers into Category:Fencers

Merge, If they weren't notable, they wouldn't have articles. Move them to the parent or in specific cases to one of the other subcategories. After Midnight ⁰⁰⁰¹ 03:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. Michael 04:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. --Cswrye 13:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge as above. All articles are supposed to be "notable", so the word is redundant. Dugwiki 15:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. Twisted86 16:34, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom. the wub "?!" 10:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Slaves of the Musilm world

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.

Delete, My typo. It is category:Slaves of the Muslim world. Mukadderat 01:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you place the {{db-author}} template on the page, it will be speedily deleted. --musicpvm 02:37, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Michael 04:19, 30 August 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.