The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Nominator's rationale: Consensus to move category:Less-lethal weapons to non-lethal weapons. Article also moved. Non-lethal is the WP:Common name. MarcusQwertyus 23:19, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And I would love to see the lethal launchers. Bottom line, the name has issues.Vegaswikian (talk) 05:04, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"Lethal launchers" would be a hand-held device launching fragmentation grenades or similar, like an M79 grenade launcher. If the term is just too technical, I understand it might need to be changed for a wider audience. However, "laucher" is indeed the term used in the industry for firearms or pneumatic arms launching grenades, batons, etc., and "less lethal" has, for probably more than a decade, been preferred over "non-lethal". Kind of the same idea as "safer sex"; the more absolute term was seen as possibly dangerously deceptive, implying that you're a-okay nailing someone in the head with a gunpowder-launched foam baton. The term "less lethal" was therefore adopted to let people know "this isn't intended for killing people, but be careful with it to make sure you don't." MatthewVanitas (talk) 15:09, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
keep as is, given the above arguments. Suggest its parent category Non-lethal weapons be renamed to Less-lethal weapons and the main article and its redirect be reversed. Non-lethal is a term of doublespeak; less-than-lethal or less-lethal is more truthful Hmains (talk) 18:24, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename to Category:Less-lethal launching weapons to clarify the name. Also Per Hmains rename parent category to Less-lethal weapons and reverse the main article and redirect. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 13:35, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Less-lethal launching weapons per Stuart.Jamieson. I fail to be convinced that there is a good choice for a new name presented so far, but this is better then what we have now. I'm not going to comment on the rats nest involved in renaming the article. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:20, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Delete. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:33, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Delete. I'm pretty sure we don't want to start categorizing films and television programmes by what TV format they have been broadcast in. This is similar to the categories that have been deleted that categorize films by what DVD format they have been released on. Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:02, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree per Olfactory. Original recording format may be Encyclopaedic, but Broadcast Format is fairly subjective. Nearly every film may be broadcast on HDTV at some point in it's lifespan. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 12:54, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Category was nominated for deletion but was closed as keep here. If it is to exist (and I'm still not convinced that it should), the category should drop the word "Former" from its name. When we categorize by profession, we almost never distinguish between "former" and "current". The fact that these all happen to be former Redcoats and that it is unlikely that a current Redcoat will have a WP article was a central reason I argued that the category is inappropriate in the first place. But since it is here, it needs to conform to the way categories are named. Good Ol’factory(talk) 22:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree There have been cases of notable current Redcoats Stephen Mulhern comes immediately to mind as he notably performed on the Royal Variety Performance in 1997 whilst still working full time as a Red coat, but in the past notable singers have had chart hits (Clinton Ford #27, Russ Hamilton (singer) #1), etc; whilst still employed by Butlins. It's not inconceivable that a current Redcoat could win a national talent show like the XFactor whilst still a Redcoat. Stuart.Jamieson (talk) 23:34, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. These appear to be joint ventures that have partners from different countries. Most companies are international in that that is where they market and where their owners are. So the rename would clarify that these are joint ventures that are owned by companies based in multiple countries. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
rename per nom. This seems reasonable and helpful, given the contents of the main article Multinational corporation, and there being no other article that specifically discusses 'international joint-venture company' Hmains (talk) 18:10, 23 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:keep.--Mike Selinker (talk) 19:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: category consists of one novelty hiphop song by a kid. unlikely to be more than one entry for many years if ever. ActiveBanana(bananaphone 18:52, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – part of Category:Songs by artist: "Please note that all song articles should have subcategories here, regardless of how many songs the artist has recorded". Occuli (talk) 19:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Category is not properly tagged. — ξxplicit 19:23, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Adrian (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. Dana boomer (talk) 17:13, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Rename to match the main article. If no early objections, the sub categories will need to be added to this nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nominator. Adrian (talk) 17:17, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Category:Wikipedians who are indefinitely blocked for a violation of the username policy[edit]
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep and __HIDDENCAT__. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:25, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: This is simply a list of disruptive or offensive usernames, many of which are an attacks on editors. Per WP:DENY, I see no need to categorise them. — Tivedshambo (t/c) 11:51, 12 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Agree with nom. If someone can tell me an encyclopedia-furthering use of categorizing these users, then I might be persuaded otherwise, but as of now I can't think of why it would be helpful to categorize users specifically blocked for violation of the username policy. VegaDark (talk)
Keep - However, use an automated script to delink those which have {{Z13}} (for UsernameHardBlocked) and {{Z18}} (for Vaublock). I don't know about {{Z12}}, though. As for the rest, there is high doubt as to whether they mean any harm. mechamind90 22:08, 13 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's a good reference and more effectively describes the rationale behind naming rules. Lexlex (talk) 21:35, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - if this nomination fails, then at the very least I think it should be a WP:HIDDENCAT - any objection to this? — Tivedshambo (t/c) 17:54, 16 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so a clearer consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 13:37, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's useful for maintenance and tracking purposes. A hidden cat is fine. —MC10(T•C•GB•L) 04:44, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Keep. Dana boomer (talk) 17:10, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale: The Rubashkins are not the Rothschilds whose scions have been notable over many generations and in many countries. One person owned one company and was involved in one court case. Looking at the history of the category (Crime families?) this category's purpose was meant more for propaganda against living people than the ability to group together disparate but related articles. The locus of articles is small enough that a category seems to be unnecessary at this time, especially as it has ramifications for living people. -- Avi (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nom. -- Avi (talk) 12:57, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it is misleading to imply or state that there is one notable person in this family, this is plainly wrong as evident in the fact that several of them have their own individual articles. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 14:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, the Rubashkin family is called “the Rubashkin kosher meat dynasty” by the The New York Times, no less [1]. Avi is of course joking, when he states “one person owned one company and was involved in one court case”. It's very difficult to count the members of the Rubashkin family who have been invoved in court cases - but one can try: Aaron Rubashkin, Moshe Rubashkin, Sholom Rubashkin sen., Sholom Rubashkin jun., Yossi Rubashkin, Gutol Leiter, Milton Balkany, Yaakov Weiss, Rosie Sandman, and I'm sure that I haven't got them all - and in how many, and how many companies they own. But the Rothschilds they are not, that's for sure, ajnem (talk) 15:28, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Avi states the problem succinctly. There is nothing being grouped together here. In the absence of anything being grouped together, the suggestion is that of disparagement. Bus stop (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, can you explain to me, which of the Rubashkins and which of the Rubashkin owned companies Avi was referring to? ajnem (talk) 16:59, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia has categories for notable families, such as Category:Hearst family and Category:Rothschild family, especially when they're a business dynasty, as is the case here. The R. family has three generations in the business. (Royalty tends to be covered under titles like House of Saud.). --John Nagle (talk) 17:51, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Convert to template -- the cateogory contains a Jewish charity, which received donations, and probably should not be here. Otherwise the contents are the participants in a company, apparently involved in a fraudulent bankruptcy. They could conveniently be linked through a navbox template. We have allowed some family categories and deleted others, for exmaple one related to Harriet Harman, the British politician. Peterkingiron (talk) 18:35, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' because there is little evidence they are notable as a family and due to the WP:BLP/WP:COATRACK concerns outlined by nom.--brewcrewer(yada, yada) 22:30, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In addition to the NYT article linked above, see [2] and [3]. There are of course others, but then you'd know that if you had bothered looking. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 07:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because they are WP:NOTABLE, Google proves it, the media has been saturated with the news about the cases involving them for a few years now. In the North American English-speaking Orthodox world, every single Orthodox and Haredi paper runs guaranteed weekly ads about this or that meeting or fund set up to help them and bring their plight to the readership, on the same level of concern as the Pollard case, the Dreyfus affair and the Beilis trial. The "Rothchilds" have nothing to do with this, the Rubashkins' notability is 100% WP:VERIFY-able. Perhaps there can be discussion and debate about what the appropriate sub-categories should be, or the content of articles can be debated and improved, but that is not a reason to delete this category. IZAK (talk) 09:07, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The now-deleted article mentioned by the nominator was indeed dubious, but I don't see any reason why the category should be deleted. The family is discussed as family in various sources.--Arxiloxos (talk) 14:57, 20 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is enough here to establish a defining relationship between the various articles included in the category. Alansohn (talk) 03:51, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Rubashkin family is notable for good and for bad. There are articles on several of their members; that alone is enough for there to be a category. There are also some articles on their companies and scandals. Linda Olive (talk) 23:03, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was:Rename. עוד מישהוOd Mishehu 07:51, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator's rationale:Rename. Suggest renaming to match main article Haram, Norway. The article Haram is about something entirely different, and this category could easily be confused as having that meaning. Good Ol’factory(talk) 04:13, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Occuli (talk) 22:16, 19 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 03:52, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
