Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 20

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 19 August 21 >

August 20[edit]

Category:Movies Writers[edit]

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 rename/merge to Category:Writers of books about films --Kbdank71 17:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Movies Writers into Category:Film critics

  • Merge, I've never heard of a "Movies writer", and can't offhand see how it would be different from a film critic. The text in the category makes it clear that it is not a category for people who write screenplays. If the category should be kept, the capitalization is still wrong. And if there is a distinction to be made of writers about film who are something other than film critics, that distinction needs to be made clear. - Jmabel | Talk 23:53, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. The category appears to be about authors who write books about films. That's quite different then a film critic. Vegaswikian 00:07, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it is about people who write books about film, then what about a rename to Category:Authors of books about films? — Reinyday, 05:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose "Film critics", but find a better name - As above, the category is not about film critics, it's about people who write books about films. That being said, I agree with Reinyday that the name "Movies Writers" is a little confusing. "Authors of books about films" might make more sense, unless someone has a better suggestion. Dugwiki 16:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Many books about cinema are written by (media) film critics so the distinction is not worth making. Golfcam 18:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As much as I hate the number of cat in many bios, a film critic who also writes books would be in both categories. There is a difference. Vegaswikian 22:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, The cat only contains two people, and I don't really see it growing. --musicpvm 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If not merged, this category is still in need of a rename, but do its two current members write only books about film...?  David Kernow 23:30, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom as fork/duplicate. Choalbaton 21:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete Ill-formed duplicate. Nathan Mercer 10:33, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/delete, at least for time being, as category name ill-formed. David Kernow 12:23, 25 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.

Terrorist categories[edit]

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 --Kbdank71 17:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All should be deleted. I do not believe a detailed explanation is necesary. --Cat out 23:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. - Jmabel | Talk 23:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Palmiro | Talk 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I suppose if someone wants to, the contents could be moved to Category:Rebels. — Reinyday, 01:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete. Cannot be applied in an NPOV manner.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 02:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The description on the category makes it pretty clear to me whether to put someone in or not.--Mike Selinker 02:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: But the description for Category:Rebels also applies: While "rebel" is a general term, a rebel may be called a "terrorist" by the authority figures and may call him or herself a "freedom fighter". — Reinyday, 05:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
      • Comment: No, I don't think the criteria are sufficiently clear or neutral now, and I don't think it's possible to improve them enough to make the category viable. Let's look at the criteria that are currently listed

* Use of unlawful violence or the threat of unlawful violence.

* Targeting civilians. * Absence of a state of war (specifically conventional warfare), thus excluding war crimes.

* Designed to coerce, frighten, or "send a message" to the public or a government (thus excluding organized crime performed for personal gain).

      • 1) No explanation is given of what is lawful or unlawful in this context.
      • 2) This criterion is sometimes clear, but, in other situations, it can be very difficult to tell whether civilians were targeted or whether they were injured incidentally. All modern warfare results in some civilian casualties and property damage. In any event, this criterion clearly includes things like the nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, the firebombing of Dresden, French actions in Algeria in the 1950s, torture at Abu Ghraib (unless all the victims were soldiers), and infrastructure damage during the U.S. bombing of Serbia and the Israeli bombing of Lebanon, etc., etc. Really, any effective CI operation (such as Chechnya, etc.) is very likely to end up targetting civilians.
      • 3) "Absence of a state of war" is very vague. If you asked Osama bin Laden or Mohammed Atta, I'm sure they would tell you that they are/were at war with U.S. Does that make the World Trade Center attacks war crimes rather than terrorism? It's also not clear what the parenthetical comment is supposed to mean? Is that some kind of suggestion, or does it modify the meaning of the phrase before it? If the latter, why not just start out by saying "Absence of a state of conventional war"? Still, if this is what we mean, wouldn't a category called Category:Unconventional warfare be more appropriate? Given the massive numbers of people who have been killed and terrorised throughout history by conventional warfare, what is the purpose of giving it the neutral name of "war" while using the emotional hate-word "terrorism" for unconventional warfare, except to introduce a subtle bias in favour of one and against the other?
      • 4) It's often unclear whether the motivation of an attack is to send a message or not. For example, if I kill a burglar breaking into my home, is that sending a message? No, my goal was probably just to remove the direct threat; moreover, the burglar's dead now, so it's too late to send any messages. However, what if I kill a soldier who I think has invaded my country. That does remove a direct threat—no soldiers, no invasion. It could also be seen as sending a message to the government that sent the soldier in the first place. How to determine which is which? Also, there is a fair amount of overlap between organised criminals and militants. A lot of militants probably hope to benefit personally from winning, although they are using an extremely high-risk strategy .—Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I am an optimist, although I feel Nat Krause is right. If we can limit this category to specific criteria, we may be able to contain it. Nationality, incidents, and group names are preferred and can be very useful, as well as allow for verification. Less useful are attempts by other editors to classify terrorists not by crime, but by other unrelated data types, such as ideology (religion, etc.) which duplicates other categories and leads down a slippery slope, inviting further POV. —Viriditas | Talk 13:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, if terrorism is to be discussed in Wikipeda.--Robcotton 18:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Umpteenth nomination. These people need to be grouped so the articles can be accessed. Golfcam 18:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The number of previous nominations is irrelevant. The last nomination had 10 votes to delete and 6 to keep, so it was kept as no consensus.—Nat Krause(Talk!) 20:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If terrorist organizations can be categorized as such, then certainly can be the members thereof. Incinerator2.0 00:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These repeated nominations are tiresome. The previous nominations are relevant as a marginal deletionist majority in just one of many nominations should not be accepted as a "consensus" that determines the final outcome. Osomec 10:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete or change of name There is absolutely no way the label terrorist can be applied in a neutral manner unless the people self-label themselves as terrorists, which is exeedingly rare. The name could be changed to something to reflect the fact that they have been labeled as terrorists (probably with some sort of guideline as to what ammounts to a legitimate label, as opposed to some random person saying it). But to just have the category be "terrorists", we as an encyclopedia are labeling these people under a title that is almost always pejorative, and which is incredibly controversial. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 22:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the question is whether a terrorist can be an objective category. There are 100 odd definitions of terrorist with subtle differences in acts which can be defined as such. There's an interesting discussion on Talk:Boston Tea Party about whether that should be classed as a terrorist act or not. I see two main problems with the category. First is the distinction as to who has applied the label, Category:People described by the US government as terrorist could be an objective and verifiable category, but just terrorist by itself must always be contentious, would an Irish republican describe the IRA as terrorists? Would much of the Muslim world describe those in Alu Grabe as terrorists?
To apply these and related categories across the board which we would need to do would mean that the question of whether the state of Israel, or even the US has been terrorising those in the Gaza (see List of acts labelled as state terrorism sorted by state#Israel. Recall that the world terrorist was first used in the Reign of Terror in the French Revolution so it was first used to describe terrorism by states. This is not a question I think we should address, but the logic of this and related categories implies that to achieve NPOV the categories need to be applied evenly.
The second question relates to what acts class as terrorism, and whether it is possible to achieve an objective line. On Talk:Boston Tea Party I described a range of protest tactics
  1. Peaceful protest - marches, generally within the law, though banned in some countries
  2. hunger strikes - i.e. actions which only affect the participant
  3. Boycotts - refusing to buy something, often with economic consequences
  4. Trespass - gaining unauthorised access, generally a minor offences
  5. Blockades - preventing access
  6. Verbal assault
  7. Criminal damage and sabotage - destruction of property, no direct threat to people
  8. Physical assault (not premeditated, with not threat of repetition)
  9. Threat of physical assault, or repeated campaign - can install fear of loss of life

where is the line drawn between terrorist and not terrorist? It could be argued that a Boycott is a terrorist act as it is likely to provoke fear of loss of livelihood, extreme I know, but it illustrates the difficulties with this category.

To me this is a classic case of where a list should be used in preference to a category following Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes. A list can clearly describe who has called the person a terrorist and describe the type of acts committed. A category just becomes unreferenced name calling. --Salix alba (talk) 00:21, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just found this page on words to avoid. First off, it's a style guide so it can't be seen as policy, but the section on terrorism explains well why this should be deleted or changed as I suggested above. Ungovernable ForceThe Wiki Kitchen! 03:56, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subjective, pejorative POV, too general to be useful in research, it amounts to applying a big red letter A. --Blainster 06:47, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep These people should be grouped together and there is no viable substitute term. Nathan Mercer 10:34, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete² - A total POV. At least rename to suspected or designated terrorists -- Szvest 11:12, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all The definition in terrorism is imho good enough to keep these categories. gidonb 00:50, 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.

Category:Tasman Rugby Players[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tasman Makos players. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:29, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Question -- Is this part of a process to organize? Because only one of the four players in the category plays for the Makos. -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I was going by the information here. If that's wrong then we should do something else. -- ProveIt (talk) 06:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Since I know almost nothing on this topic, I've put a request for comments on the Rugby Union Portal. SatyrTN (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.

Category:Domestic league seasons[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:16, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Seasons in football (soccer)? I'm not sure if this is a duplicate or not. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:14, 20 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.

Category:Animals by country[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Animals by country to Category:Fauna by country

  • Rename, All the subcategories have already been renamed to "fauna of". Hawkestone 22:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --musicpvm 05:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and redirect, as I reckon "animals" is more generally understood than "fauna", but "fauna" more encyclopedic. David Kernow 22:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC), updated 20:52, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 10:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per as above. Kinda agree with David K but this is supposed to be an encyclopedia... ;) — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Have added redirect to my support above. Regards, David Kernow 20:52, 23 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.

Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 17:09, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Article titles with lowercase initial letters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. This is another lamentable template-generated category. First up I wish to emphasise that this is not a maintenance category. It is merely a note and no-one can do anything to edit the article so that the problem no longer exists. Because the template is always first in the article this will always appear first in the list of categories, but surely no one can dispute that this one is useless to readers. Note that I am not proposing deletion of the template. Please, please, please can we show some interest in improving the presentation of Wikipedia for the benefit of the tens of millions of readers, at least in this case when there is no benefit whatsoever in not doing so. If the technical issue which prevents the articles being named correctly is resolved, the category can be recreated then, but at present it is nothing but a barrier to navigation and piece of awkward presentation. The articles have no meaningful encyclopedic connection with one another, only a coincidental technical connection. Chicheley 23:02, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There are currently several ways of fixing this problem. The issue is just getting the higher-ups to add it to the software. -- kenb215 00:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Disrupts articles while serving no useful function. Christopher Parham (talk) 02:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. SatyrTN (talk | contribs) 03:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment wiktionary can already deal with this, but we can't? 132.205.93.88 04:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as I have always disliked this category. The template is useful. This category is not. — Reinyday, 05:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment: Shouldn't this be done in batch form with all the categories in Category:Articles with unsupported titles? — Reinyday, 05:28, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Delete The category serves no purpose. Deleting the category will not make the links to the category disappear, they will just turn red. That doesn't solve the problem. I looked over the discussion about the template and saw requests to remove the category from the template. There are comments that say that the category would be needed later to fix all the articles. This is not true. The articles can be found later using "what links here". I've taken the bold move to delete the code that categorizes the article from the template. The articles should start depopulating themselves from the category. If any remain, it is probably because "subst:" was used. These should be replaced with a non subst'ed version of the template and then they will be removed from the category. I'm copying this comment to the template talk page. -- Samuel Wantman 10:32, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Unfortunately, I've taken similar action in recent days with the other templates similar to this, and my changes have been reverted. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:16, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • It's been about 12 hours and my change hasn't been reverted. Perhaps you could make the change to the other categories, comment on the talk page, and invite people to discuss this here. Let's get this settled! -- Samuel Wantman 21:53, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Done, we'll see what happens. Christopher Parham (talk) 22:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Great. The remaining articles need to be converted to non subst'd use of the templages before the category is deleted.--Samuel Wantman
  • Delete because this is not a maintenance category, and the template alone will suffice to allow the titles to be fixed when/if the software upgrade is installed. --M@rēino 15:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Golfcam 18:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:46, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Osomec 10:55, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Should changes ever be made to the software the category would be quite useful. Categories like this serve as an organizational tool. Categories provide much better organization than whatlinkshere. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 14:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can only think of one situation in which this would be useful -- if it became possible to have lowercase article titles. In that situation you would need to go through all such pages and change them. I don't really see how a category would be more useful for this task than whatlinkshere; they both very simply list all the relevant pages. Christopher Parham (talk) 17:51, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If changes ever are made to the software, this category and the templates will quickly be made obsolete. What organization will be needed at that time? All the articles will need conversion, and you'll find them all with "What links here". What sort of organization will be needed before then? We are not "mucking about", we are trying to solve a problem. Talk to us and help us solve it. -- Samuel Wantman 19:33, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only organization that will be needed at the time is to add the category to the template and recreate it. It will take about twenty seconds. Choalbaton 21:44, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Even that won't be necessary because you'll be able to find every article that uses the template by clicking on "What links here" from the template page and then seeing where it has been transcluded. -- Samuel Wantman 02:09, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: From the way this discussion is going it looks very likely that the category will get deleted. If this category is to be deleted, all the usages of this template that were subst'd have to be converted to a transcluded version. I've removed the categorization from the template again, and request that it not be reverted. It will take a while for the category to get depopulated, and then we need to go through the articles that remain and convert them. The category should not be emptied until it is totally depopulated this way. If, by some chance, the discussion changes course, the categorization can easy be reverted, but I request that it not be reverted unless that happens. Thanks. -- Samuel Wantman 21:54, 24 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: depopulating a category during a debate is against the guidelines and can be considered vandalism. Do not do it again. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:40, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Fine. I thought I'd help out and convert all the subst'd templates. But I can leave that work for you to do after the vote here is done. BTW, where is the debate? Also, the rationale for the guideline is that people want to see what articles are in the category to see if the category makes sense. That is not the situation in this discussion because anyone can see what would be in the category by going to the template and clicking on the "What links here" tool which I linked in my comments above. There's no need to take a threatening tone as nothing I have done is outside the spirit of the guidelines. -- Samuel Wantman 07:17, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Pointless and trivial. Nathan Mercer 10:35, 25 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. gidonb 00:52, 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.

(IHL) team categories[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:55, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename The reasoning behind the (IHL) in these categories is that these team names have been used in other lower minor leagues. However, since no other teams in those lower minor leagues (WCHL, ECHL, CHL, UHL) have categories for their players, it should be inherent that the categories in question are for the IHL alumni of those teams. If there ever comes a time when those lower minor league teams get categories for their alumni, they can be the ones with the parenthetical distinctions. Since the IHL was a high-ranking minor league in its day, however, it should receive top billing in category naming. Skudrafan1 20:31, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename These all were by far the highest-profile teams to use these names. BoojiBoy 20:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. -- JamesTeterenko 00:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. CptUnconscious 16:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Flibirigit 03:46, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Choalbaton 21:44, 23 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.

Category:United States town seals[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:53, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States town seals to Category:United States city and town seals by stateCategory:Seals of places in the United States

I like! I've changed the rename. Thanks! -- SatyrTN (talk | contribs)
  • Rename per Vegaswikian. — Reinyday, 05:17, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per Vegaswikian, seems a good solution. Gimmetrow 15:02, 21 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.

Category:United States city seals[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 16:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States city seals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Sorry - got a little over-eager to get them organized :) -- SatyrTN (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.

Category:Transgenic Wikipedians[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 16:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Transgenic Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete - This is a Wikipedian joke category. Even the description in the category header states that this only exists for humor. Cswrye 17:48, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - This seems to be a category solely for the Userpages, and I think some latitude for the user side it probably acceptable. is there any Wikipedia policy precluding humor on Userpages?(yes, I'm serious, I really have noclue if there's a WP:NHOUP ThuranX 03:11, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - There are not necessarily rules like this for user pages, but categories are part of the Category namespace. As it stands now, there are no separate guidelines for Wikipedian categories, which means that they are technically supposed to follow the same guidelines as categories in the article namespace (although the enforcement of that has been sporadic). The movement lately has mostly been to remove joke categories, although there is some debate about it. I wrote a proposed guideline for Wikipedian categories, although there hasn't been much discussion about it yet. My proposal adds some leniency to Wikipedian categories, although it still calls for the removal of joke categories. --Cswrye 16:48, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per ThuranX; I'm pretty sure there's no rules against joke categories, and I think Wikipedia would be a sad place if we got rid of all of them. CameoAppearance 00:16, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Serves no practical purpose. Joke useboxes don't need to spill over into the category namespace. - EurekaLott 03:06, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There are several other humorous userboxes that include categories; and, besides, is there any kind of policy that states users can't place themselves into certain categories simply because the categories in question are funny? If there is, I'm not aware of it. CameoAppearance 11:07, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment - The guidelines for categorization do state that categories must be useful. Keep in mind that categories are part of the category namespace, not the user namespace, and joke categories are mixed in with legitimate categories. I don't have a problem with humor on Wikipedia. In fact, I don't mind humorous userboxes because they only affect the user pages that they are place on. But categories are different in that they not only affect the users who put themselves in that category. They also affect people who browse categories for other purposes. --Cswrye 15:56, 23 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.

Wikipedians with current projects[edit]

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 withdrawn --Kbdank71 16:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm withdrawing these nominations. I don't think I've thought through the implications on the WikiProject categories, and will relist (or someone else can) when a more universal proposal comes to mind.--Mike Selinker 01:49, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I kept the "o" and "t" capitalized due to the COTW acronym.--Mike Selinker 17:26, 20 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.

Wikipedians by condition[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:29, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename:

and delete:

On the Meyer-Briggs one, I believe MBTI is the exam, not the condition. I didn’t bother with the Meyer-Briggs subcategories, as the one person I know who bought into MBTI exams referred to herself by the abbreviation rather than the spelled-out version.--Mike Selinker 16:51, 20 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.

category:Metallica instrumentals[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to merge this into both category:Metallica songs and the sparsely populated category:Instrumentals, as no other artist is equally subcategorized. Thoughts?--Mike Selinker 16:14, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge into both per nom. --musicpvm 17:11, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. — Reinyday, 23:42, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge as above. — RevRagnarok Talk Contrib 02:45, 23 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.

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of the Airport Vandal[edit]

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 speedy deleted by Samir (The Scope). I tagged the category page with a speedy tag, so that there's no reason to nominate it at WP:CFD. -- ADNghiem501 03:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of the Airport Vandal (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Shady Records[edit]

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 kingboyk was bold --Kbdank71 16:19, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Shady Records artists, convention of Category:Artists by record label. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:09, 20 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.

Category:Members of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour[edit]

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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Members of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour to Category:Recipients of the Order of the Red Banner of Labour

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 cultural icons[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 15:25, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American cultural icons (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Years using Yearbox template[edit]

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 delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:56, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Years using Yearbox template (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Villains who turned good[edit]

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 delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Villains who turned good (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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:Real Canadian Wrestling championships[edit]

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 delete following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/RCW Women's Championship, category is empty. Tim! 18:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Real Canadian Wrestling championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Category for wrestling championships that are in themselves not notable. Lid 06:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep unless the articles are deleted first. Carina22 10:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable promotion, so it's a non-notable category. RobJ1981 04:22, 21 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.

Category:Jewish Christian topics[edit]

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 rename -- Drini 14:28, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Jewish Christian topics to Category:Judeo-Christian topics[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:Internet wrestling championships[edit]

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 delete Tim! 18:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Internet wrestling championships (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Category that only applies to internet wrestling championships, which in itself are rare and not notable and deleted. The category is useless. Lid 06:06, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as empty and likely to remain so. In the event that the page inside doesn't get speedied, upmerge to Category:Professional wrestling championships. Luna Santin 07:10, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Choalbaton 21:45, 23 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.

Category:Roc A Fella Records[edit]

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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:54, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Roc-A-Fella Records artists, to match Roc-A-Fella Records and Category:Artists by record label. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:39, 20 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.

Category:OpenStreetMap maps[edit]

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 consensus to move, unsure how, if someone wants to run with it, hooray for them :) --Kbdank71 15:20, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:OpenStreetMap maps to commons:Category:OpenStreetMap images

Post-closure: I've added moving this category's contents per the above to my to-do list. David Kernow 17:58, 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.

Category:Fictional works[edit]

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 --Kbdank71 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional works (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • This category was split off from Category:Fictional, and groups together some unlikely categories. (Fictional brands and fictional software in the same category?) The parallel Category:Works does not exist. Upmerge back into Category:Fictional. - EurekaLott 01:57, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Tim! 07:44, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The comperable categories are Category:Works of art, Category:Works by artist, and Category:Works by year. That last category houses: Albums, Books, Bridges, Comics, Computer and video games, Films, Musicals, Novels, Paintings, Plays, Poems, Singles, Songs, and Telenovelas. — Reinyday, 05:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Merge into Category:Fictional - Correct me if I'm wrong, but by definition isn't anything that is "fictional" technically a "work"? If it's fictional, someone thought it up somehow, making it a "work" so to speak. After all, there isn't a category for "Fictional things that aren't works", is there?Dugwiki 16:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: No, everything fictional isn't a work. A fictional disease or a fictional title is not a work. A work is a creation. As with my above list, creations include "Albums, Books, Bridges, Comics, Computer and video games, Films, Musicals, Novels, Paintings, Plays, Poems, Singles, Songs, and Telenovelas." However, since there are only a handful of categories here, it seems silly to subdivide it. — Reinyday, 17:22, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
    • Ok, I see what you mean. For example, Sherlock Holmes is a fictional character, but by himself he's not a "work". Rather, he's character that appears within various works. Thus Sherlock Holmes can be listed in Category:Fictional (or a subcategory), but would not appear in Category:Fictional works. Therefore I've withdrawn my "merge into Fictional" suggestion. Dugwiki 22:38, 23 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah. So if Holmes published a poem, then his fictional poem would be a fictional work. — Reinyday, 04:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge. "Fictional works" is a far superior title as at least it is a noun. Christopher Parham (talk) 00:07, 27 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.

Category:Botswana educators[edit]

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 Tim! 18:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Botswana educators to Category:Botswanan educators

  • No vote. Moved from WP:RM. Vegaswikian 01:56, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename for consistency with Category:Botswanan people by occupation and other subcats. --musicpvm 05:55, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Carina22 10:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Per discussion on talk page, Botswanan does not exist in Botswana English - as with Hong Kong or New Zealand, the adjective is just the country's name (or Batswana or Setswana, for people or language/culture), eg: "Botswana government", "Botswana territory"[1], "Botswana football"[2], "Botswana justice"[3], "Botswana authorities"[4]. Proper nouns (although individually not a good guide) are universally Botswana, not Botswanan: Botswana Housing Corporation, Botswana Defence Force, Botswana Democratic Party, Botswana Netball Association...
    Botswanan does exist in UK dictionaries, but doesn't seem to be used by people who have anything to do with Botswana. Since one usage is wrong in the local English, and the other usage neutral in all Englishes, there doesn't seem any justification for going with Botswanan. So unfortunately there is a major renaming job to be done with the other categories, to either "Botswana X" or "X of Botswana". But better now than when even more cats have been made... JackyR | Talk 16:54, 20 August 2006 (UTC) (got logged out while editing)[reply]
  • Keep per JackyR; spot on witrh proper usage. I would add that "Botswanan" looks dmn ugly as well as being wrong. The last thing we should do is rename in this way. --Guinnog 21:22, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • No it doesn't, it is a perfectly conventional construction. Hawkestone 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Hawkestone 22:33, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JackyR. — Reinyday, 05:05, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Rename per nom.ThuranX 03:05, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JackyR. Palmiro | Talk 00:39, 24 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.

Category:Adventure Game Studio related[edit]

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 rename Tim! 17:51, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Adventure Game Studio. All categories are for related articles... -- ProveIt (talk) 01:09, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. If they're not related, why would they be in the category? ;) Luna Santin 01:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. — Reinyday, 05:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
Rename per nom. I created the category, and I agree. D'oh! --Amaccormack 14:11, 21 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.

Category:Ruff Ryders[edit]

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 rename. --RobertG ♬ talk 09:52, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Ruff Ryders artists, convention of Category:Artists by record label. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:22, 20 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_20&oldid=1136105063"