Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 10
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
June 10
[edit]- 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:Toronto Blueshirts players. - EurekaLott 19:04, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- These ought to be merged, no preferance as to how. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:35, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There were no other Toronto Blueshirts besides the NHA version, so it's not necessary to DAB. Merge into Category:Toronto Blueshirts players. BoojiBoy 00:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Toronto Blueshirts players per BoojiBoy. -- Usgnus 03:15, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge over to Category:Toronto Blueshirts players seems to be the logical choice. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:44, 12 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.
- Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 23:01, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 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:Idol series winners. Conscious 16:28, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Arual 14:52, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
Object - Needs discussion along with other Idol series. Not eligible for speedy.Neutral. I don't watch the show, I just contested its eligibility for speedy. BoojiBoy 15:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]- Agree - Category:Idol series winners is a more representative name, although I wish there was an even better name than 'Idol series'. -- ArglebargleIV 05:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. The article is Idol series, but the parent cat is Category:Idol television series. Should we be consistent? -- Usgnus 13:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Good catch -- consistency is good. I like the title "Idol television series" better myself, but either way, for consistency's sake, the two categories+article should all be based on either "Idol series" or "Idol television series". -- ArglebargleIV 13:56, 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.
- 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:Idol series contestants. Conscious 16:30, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 22:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- User:Arual 01:30, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Object - "Pop Idol" is the title of the British version only and the category includes other Idol programmes from around the world, e.g. American Idol, Indian Idol, etc. The category needs a better name but "Pop Idol contestants" isn't it. BoojiBoy 14:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Idol series contestants ? User:Arual 14:49, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree on the stated proposal, but I would agree with the suggestion of Category:Idol series contestants. -- ArglebargleIV 05:10, 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.
- 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 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it were just the misspelling of "alleged" it would be a speedy rename. But it isn't. This category is based on speculations and rumors, not encyclopedic facts. In the case of living people, it's just asking for legal trouble. Delete. Angr (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom, silly category Jaranda wat's sup 22:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep yes it is based on speculations and rumors, but since so many articles mention the speculation and rumor of people's sexual orientation it makes sense to make a category so people can easyly find other articles of other people who are also believed to be gay. the mispelling has got to go. this category does not "ask for legal trouble" most of the articles allready mention the subjects' alledged sexual orientation such as the rumored affair between Missy Elliott and Tweet, furthermore the rumor of Tom Cruise's sexuality is simply being presented educationally and reporting allready widely available information such as Tabloids, Newscoverage of lawsuits, and even an episode of South Park. This is allready mentioned on the Tom Cruise and South Park articles. if that's asking for trouble then if then you should go to their talk pages and suggest those referances be removed. the category nis not silly because its not intended to just be there for the hell of it, its aim is to unite articles into a category where they are all related to one another allready. Qrc2006 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOT a rumor mill sorry Jaranda wat's sup 23:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep this category is as much a rumor mill as the articles that mention the rumors are.. Jaranda. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Silkymilkies (talk • contribs) 23:45, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This user account was created more recently than this CFD.
- Delete. Jeez, no. How often does this have to happen?--Mike Selinker 00:32, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Good Lord. BoojiBoy 01:41, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep as silly as it seems, if it goes, the "rumor" info in the articles should go too. All or none, my thoughts. 216.141.226.190 02:57, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Speedy Delete blatant violation of WP:NOT --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 14:49, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Get a blog. Intangible 14:59, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Runours may (infrequently) be appropriate for inclusion in articles, but never in categories. Twittenham 15:51, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete You gotta be kidding me. -Myxomatosis 05:16, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. As Twittenham said, articles allow the rumors to be sourced, categories do not, nor do they permit context and explanation of a rumor's importance. ×Meegs 06:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, or I'll allege that Qrc2006 is an elephant. ˉˉanetode╞┬╡ 07:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. 67.170.72.189 10:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Osomec 16:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nominator and protect from recreation. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Meegs - this could potentially be a list if it's properly sourced, but a category allows no such verification and is protected by a weasel-word. Ziggurat 03:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. King rich 00:32, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom.Timothy Usher 05:02, 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.
- 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 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Poker gameplay and terminology. -- ProveIt (talk) 20:02, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as (now) empty. David Kernow 23:29, 10 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 Rename. Vegaswikian 04:40, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- To match other members of Category:Performers by record label. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Luna Santin 10:15, 11 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 merge. Conscious 16:32, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge into Category:Brooklynites. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:16, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge -- as other recent discussions, the "-ites" and other adjectival forms are confusing and not particularly memorable. Or else, where are the "Michiganders"? --William Allen Simpson 02:14, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. Right now there are 199 Brooklynites and 2 People from Brooklyn. -- Usgnus 15:18, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Reverse merge per William Allen Simpson Athenaeum 16:18, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge per nom. demonyms are tidier (take up less space on pages) and it s not hard at all to figure out what they mean/are Mayumashu 15:17, 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.
Rename Category: Unbuilt aircraft
[edit]- 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:Concept aircraft. Vegaswikian 04:42, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename the category to incorporate a greater range of articles, as at the moment there is only one that qualifies. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 16:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- What scope do you have in mind? Regards, David Kernow 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, forgot to say. I was looking at making it cover all aircraft that did not make it into production. (Including aircraft for which prototypes were built and flew, but the project was never put into full production). --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If not Luna Santin's suggestion below, then Category:Prototype aircraft, perhaps with explanatory note at top of category page...? Regards,See below. David Kernow 20:43, 11 June 2006 (UTC), amended 01:14, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, forgot to say. I was looking at making it cover all aircraft that did not make it into production. (Including aircraft for which prototypes were built and flew, but the project was never put into full production). --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 14:48, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Category:Concept aircraft, perhaps? I'll bet there's a good deal that could be written on the subject, past and present. Or, find a more expansive area... "Concept X's," to include a wider variety of projects, or just "Prototypes," perhaps. Luna Santin 08:53, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I'd say concept because prototype would exclude those that were never built anyway. --GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 20:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Thanks for the clarification; looks like Category:Concept aircraft fits the bill. Regards, David Kernow 01:14, 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.
- 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 Deleted yesterday --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is just one of hundreds of pointless categories for models by (?) designer/magazine or the like created by one user recently. Cindy Crawford is in about a hundred. Does anyone feel like taking the time to nominate the lot? Osomec 15:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete as above. Osomec 15:17, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Let's do this one at a time, please. I'd prefer to figure out what to do with the "Omega" one first before we nominate them all.--Mike Selinker 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete We should certainly do them all at once, rather than one at a time Mike, but I don't have time to nominate them all. Twittenham 15:52, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Sorry, I meant "Let's settle the Omega one, and then do all the rest at once."--Mike Selinker 22:58, 11 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.
and
- 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 weak keep. Conscious 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Batman inspired is not a suitable category for Wikipedia, as categories don't allow annotations you can't annotate why someone is added, and since category inclusion should be self-evident and non-controversial, I don't see how it can pass muster. CovenantD 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete CovenantD 15:10, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak Keep On the contrary; it "should be obvious to a reader of the article why the article is included". That means that the justification and qualifications can be in the article, and it is one of the editorial decisions there whether it belongs in the cat. The sample I tried seems to pass.
- I made a Category called "Batman pastiches" after finding a "Superman pastiches" and I'm afraid I may have acted too soon. But I agree that the relevent article contains the justification for the categorization. Roygbiv666 02:29, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Batman pastiches sounds great to me.--Mike Selinker 14:22, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep -- ProveIt (talk) 18:10, 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.
- 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 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
POV, cartoon fancruft. CovenantD 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Unsure. I can see some value to it as a member of Category:Fictional characters by nature, and I can see logic in grouping GIR and Homestar Runner, but by the time we're putting Futurama's Fry into the group, it's turned into objective controversy.
- Sorry, forgot to sign. That's me. Luna Santin 23:43, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, far too objective for a category name. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 19:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Poorly titled and very subjective, plus open to abuse. Bob 21:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete for those reasons. --(trogga) 20:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - by what do we define an "idiot" - this could contravene WP:NOT.
- Delete per all above. Anonymous__Anonymous 17:19, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, but rename (move). +Hexagon1 (t)
14:40, 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.
- 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 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
More pop culture fancruft. Contains only movie and cartoon characters. Literary works are already covered under Category:Novels dealing with slavery. CovenantD 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Where else are articles about fictional slaves to be put? Osomec 15:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Clearly a major characteristic of these characters.--Mike Selinker 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Outriggr 06:08, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- "Contains only movie and cartoons"? That seems to be a farily clear statement of cultural elitism. One's personal preferences and/or opinions regarding what is "serious" entertainment are irrelevant to the organisational purpose of categories. I don't believe there is any reason to delete this category, nor does the nomination produce any arguments of weight.--Sean Black 10:13, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. It just needs to be more populated. Usgnus 15:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Per Usgnus. --Dakart 08:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep Depictions of slavery in fiction are not unique to novels. User:Dimadick
- Weak Keep Since when are Ben-Hur and Uncle Tom's Cabin not books? Septentrionalis 15:47, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. To be fair, Uncle Tom was added to the category after the nomination. -- Usgnus
- 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 Keep --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Duplicates existing category's description - there's not enough articles to justify a subcat. CovenantD 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep There are enough to justify a subcategory. It's certainly better to separate the real people and the fictional people than to jumble them up. Osomec 15:19, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Definitely don't combine real and fictional people.--Mike Selinker 19:29, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I should mention that this category was not very popular over at Wikiproject Comics and that's why I listed it here. CovenantD 22:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Can see where you're coming from, that is a small category, but mixing real and fictional people seems to bring up credibility issues for Wikipedia. Luna Santin 23:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. If keep is decided, modify the parent cat to encourage editors to put fictional characters into the subcat and reserve the parent cat for real people. -- Usgnus 17:27, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. We certainly do not need mixing historical figures with fictional characters. I think there are enough of the latter to maintain a category. User:Dimadick
- 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 Rename. Vegaswikian 04:43, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
To make it clearer that the category is for wikipedians, in line with Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#Special conventions for some Wikipedia-related categories. SeventyThree(Talk) 13:33, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Support Move. Yeah, go for it. It doesn't negatively change the meaning of the category, I think. --Crisu 16:40, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Support. It's more clear what the category refers to. Luna Santin 23:28, 10 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 Keep (soft redirect) --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect already exists and cat now empty; removing cat would prevent new articles being addedAndrewRT 11:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I assume you mean Category:Living People, which is the mis-capitalised, almost-empty version of the proper Category:Living people. It's also the one with the CfD tag on it, so I've gone ahead and modified the proposal. Also, deleting the category would only stop people who check their edits before saving. I'm sure that there have been discussions before about how to cope without the bot, but I can't seem to find them. SeventyThree(Talk) 13:53, 10 June 2006 (UTC)
- Very Strong Keep I stumbled across this category a while back and found quite a few articles in it even though it did not exist. A day after your comment that there are no articles in it there are now five (which I am now going to move). I don't think that deleting the category would solve anything as people were still adding to it even when it was a red link. I started conversations about this in two places Talk:Categories for deletion and Talk: Living people and got two differing responses about the best course of action. I think its best to keep the category until someone gets round to making a bot to automatically fix misplaced articles. Until then we just need to keep an eye on it and move any misplaced articles. RicDod 08:50, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Can't recreation of categories be blocked. Twittenham 15:54, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not really. It is possible to add articles to any category, whether the header text exists or not - Category:Sandbox does not have any header text, but it quite often has pages in. Protection from editing the header wouldn't help, and is only possible when the page exists. SeventyThree(Talk) 16:30, 11 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment I regularly patrol this cat for misplaced articles, and part of the problem is that articles added here are bluelinked because of the disclaimer. Very few people looking at the article are going to know that the cat is wrong unless it's redlinked. That said, there are a lot of such categories (all those in Category:Wikipedia category redirects); are they all to be deleted? Ziggurat 23:40, 12 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 (merge up) --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous categorization. Delete. Move the categorized articles up in level. Intangible 10:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Move the categorized articles up in level.--E Asterion u talking to me? 19:37, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep left wing terrorism documentation is needed. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 18:38, 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.
- 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 up) --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous categorization. Delete. Move the categorized articles up in level. Intangible 10:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep It is in two different hierarchies. Osomec 15:06, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Move the categorized articles up in level.--E Asterion u talking to me? 19:38, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom; to be crystal-clear, move articles to Category:American terrorists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep left wing terrorism documentation is needed. Psychomelodic (people think User:Psychomelodic/me edit) 18:39, 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.
- 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 up) --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ambiguous categorization. Delete. Move the categorized articles up in level. Intangible 10:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete. Move the categorized articles up in level.--E Asterion u talking to me? 19:39, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete and move articles to Category:American terrorists. Angus McLellan (Talk) 20:35, 10 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 Rename. Vegaswikian 04:45, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is for a family of English businesspeople, not for a place called Fry. Chicheley 09:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename as above. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chicheley (talk • contribs)
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename I would also suggest merging some of the shorter Fry bios into the main Fry Family article. --Erp 01:17, 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.
- 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. Vegaswikian 04:46, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is about a former royal family of Sweden (see House of Vasa). Chicheley 09:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC).[reply]
- Rename as above. Chicheley 09:12, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. Especially if that's what they're formally known as, I doubt there'll be disagreement. Luna Santin 23:24, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 23:36, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename to Vasa family instead. "House of" is kind of ambiguous and sounds more like a place category than a family category. --Cyde↔Weys 16:02, 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 Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
and
"Lindy hop" is not normally capitalized. The corresponding articles have been renamed. Cswrye 07:05, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename both per nom. Osomec 16:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- There is now a discussion on the lindy hop talk page about the proper capitalization of the term, which may result in the names of many dance articles being changed. Until that is resolved, I'm going to request that this name change be held off. --Cswrye 14:17, 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.
- 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 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I fixed the capitalization and made Category:Movie stills photographers. If I hadn't done that first, this should be a speedy rename. Clubmarx 06:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Luna Santin 23:14, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Incidently, speedy rename DOES work for merges. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:11, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per above. David Kernow 20:45, 11 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 Speedy deleted. Vegaswikian 04:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is not strictly needed, as GC can stand for an entry in the General Catalogue or as a listing of Galactic Clusters, both designations being obscure, to say the least. Zzzzzzzzzzz 04:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Chicheley 09:14, 10 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 (from templates and user pages) --William Allen Simpson 05:17, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the purpose of the category? The implication is that anyone not listed here supports racism, which is a dangerous thing to imply! I suggest the category is removed from the templates and deleted, or that a name without any such implication or ambiguity is used. E.g. 'Category:Wikipedians who think it is useful to tell other people working on an encyclopedia about their personal beliefs.' HappyDog 01:11, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, unencyclopedic, potentially divisive category (actually, it's the implication of the contrary category that is divisive). This simply isn't needed. --Cyde↔Weys 03:59, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- 'Delete as per Cyde↔Weys Chicheley 09:13, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep This can be useful for users who want to collaborate on certain articles, e.g. KKK. Oppose infers actively oppose rather than passively uninterested in the subject (like me) AndrewRT 12:00, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Wouldn't a theoretical Category:Wikipedians who are interested in racism serve that purpose much better?--Sean Black 10:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree with Sean Black... I think that a Category:Wikipedians who are interested in racism would be better. --Dakart 02:09, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Suggest Category:Wikipedians interested in racism as more succinct. David Kernow 12:16, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Collecting people with a shared point of view to collaborate on articles is not appropriate. Osomec 15:04, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete (Renaming it to Category:Wikipedians who actively oppose racism would set a bad precedent)--E Asterion u talking to me? 19:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep if i put up a Oakland Athletics category on my userpage it doesnt suggest that everyone else does not like the A's it just means i feel i like them so strongly that i want to say it outloud, similarly i dont think that myself not having a monolithic I OPPOSE RACISM sticker on my page and being a list of racism opponents suggest that i am racist or not. people that are say, Act now to stop war and end racism (ANSWER) coalition may want to go out of their way and put such a sticker on their user page. its silly to suggest that some people might think that if they dont say I OPPOSE RACISM then theyll be assummed as racists then you might as well get rid of all user categories under this logic since not having any particular sticker (yes i call them stickers) would suggest what they are or are not. this also suggest a point of view that racism is right or wrong and the last time i checked wikipedia has a very strong neutral point of view policy. Qrc2006 23:03, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not an objection to the 'stickers'/templates, but to the category. By all means continue to use the templates on user pages, but remove this category from the templates. Whilst this category is technically dividing all Wikipedians into 'those who have put an anti-racism sticker on their user page' and 'those who have not', the naming of the category implies that the division is 'those who oppose racism' and 'those who do not', which is a dangerous implication to make. --HappyDog 13:47, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- keep but if we keep it does that mean there can be a user category in support of racism? Silkymilkies 23:46, 10 June 2006 (UTC) Note: This user account was created more recently than this CFD.[reply]
- Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be neutral and this works against that by creating cliques. Twittenham 15:55, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. ReeseM 01:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete i'm opposed to racism too but there is no need for the category. It needs to go. -Myxomatosis 05:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Racism is bad, but WP should not be a petition to stop it. --Dakart 08:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per nom. Athenaeum 16:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep: GW_Simulations|User Page | Talk | Contribs | E-mail 21:19, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination is based of flawed argument (Restricting Options).
- Not sure what you mean - please elaborate. In what way is it flawed? --HappyDog 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Where, exactly, does it breach any rules we have here?
- This issue has not been raised because rules have been broken. Please re-read the reasons for nomination. --HappyDog 02:03, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Nomination is based of flawed argument (Restricting Options).
- Delete This page is a petition, not part of an encyclopedia; users may state their personal opinions on their user pages. Naui 21:56, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete per Naui CalJW 03:49, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete This category is not needed. I'm opposed to racism but this category is not needed for this Wiki. Besides I'm sure that there are no racists in this project anyway.Anonymous__Anonymous 17:18, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete Please.Timothy Usher 05:01, 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.
- 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. I have tagged the subcats and they are listed on June 20. Vegaswikian 05:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category and its subcategories duplicates the more complete Rivers categories, although some subcategories seem to be restricted to streams not called rivers, other include all streams. Rmhermen 00:34, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge all, but the sub-categories need to be tagged. ReeseM 01:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Merge.--Mike Selinker 06:20, 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:Counter Vandalism Unit Member/wikipedia/en to Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members
[edit]- 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:Counter-Vandalism Wikipedians. Since this is a user category, it needs to have Wikipedians in the name as pointed out in the discussion. This rename fixes the naming issue from the nom. I have no objections if it comes back if my choice here was in error. Vegaswikian 04:50, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Moved from speedy since it does not meet criteria. Also fixed typo. Vegaswikian 00:31, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Removes errors and unnecessary text from title.--Conrad Devonshire Talk 20:43, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename. Shorter, less confusing. Shouldn't it be obvious to anyone viewing the category that they're at Wikipedia, and reading it in English? Unless I missed something. Luna Santin 23:21, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename Category:Counter-Vandalism Wikipedians -- the recent policy change after extensive discussion requires Wikipedian as part of the name for user categories. --William Allen Simpson 02:10, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Rename per Luna Santin. Anonymous__Anonymous 17:20, 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.