Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 May 30

< May 29	May 31 >

May 30[edit]

Category:Shaped CDs[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: delete. If it's desired to add a list to Shaped CD, I can provide the articles. Kbdank71 14:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete - overcategorization by a trivial or non-defining characteristic. Otto4711 (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify into article. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:59, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Listifying would jsut lead to an AfD for a list of non-notable trivia. ThuranX (talk) 15:11, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- How would adding a list in the article cause something to be deleted? Vegaswikian (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Shaped CD's Seems defining to me, Maybe "non-circular CD's" would be better. I don't know how prevalent these types of CD's are but it may be worth having a category of them. I for one didn't even know they existed. This may just be the only category of this type on the internet. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 06:43, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

In looking through the articles currently in the category, several of them don't mention being shaped at all. Others mention it in one line. A few were released as shaped in other formats, not CD, so I removed them. In many cases the shaped CD release was simply one out of a variety of releases across formats. Overall it seems that this is something that's interesting about the CD but is not defining of the CD or the material contained therein. Otto4711 (talk) 21:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Trivial characteristic. There's nothing else in common between the CDs that are non-circular. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:56, 7 June 2009 (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:CD copy protection[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: rename. Kbdank71 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CD copy protection to Category:Compact disc copy protection

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviation. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the idea to expand all "CD" to :Compact disk" is already mentioned below. Is there really need to repeat it for each instance separately? Debresser (talk) 22:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes. Each item needs to be nominated and discussed. You will note that for two such categories I have not proposed the same solution. Nominators are free to include additional categories in their nominations, but if that does not happen then additional nominations can be made by anyone else. Vegaswikian (talk) 22:59, 30 May 2009 (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:CD manufacturing[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: merge. Kbdank71 14:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:CD manufacturing to ~~Category:CD~~ Category:Compact disc

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Small category and no real need to split CD parent category. If kept, rename to Category:Compact disc manufacturing to match main article Vegaswikian (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Agree per nominator. Debresser (talk) 22:42, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
makes sense, but why isn't category CD renamed to Compact Discs? ThuranX (talk) 15:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That is a rename that was proposed earlier. I have to use the name that currently exists. Also remember that there is a discussion about using Category:Compact disc or Category:Compact Disc.Vegaswikian (talk) 18:12, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Since Category:CD was renamed to Category:Compact disc, that should be the target for the rename. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:53, 8 June 2009 (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:European space programs[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: rename. Kbdank71 14:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:European space programs to Category:European space programmes

Nominator's rationale: Since the UK is part of Europe, a founding member of ESA, and is involved in a number of these programmes, the category has far stronger national ties to the UK than to the USA, and hence its title should use British English per WP:ENGVAR. G W… 18:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support rename per WP:ENGVAR. Alansohn (talk) 20:08, 1 June 2009 (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:Igbo writers[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. Kbdank71 14:20, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Igbo writers to Category:Igbo-languages writers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found this in an occupations category with other writers. Nicely populated with poet subcategories, etc. But there seem to be more than one language in these categories, and there's apparently an entire "Igboid" languages group. Until these could be diffused, let's at least name it consistently, as languages plural.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:18, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the only problem is many of these writers don't write in Igbo! Chinua Achebe, Ben Okri and Olaudah Equiano, to name but three, are rather well-known writers in English. None of the 4 A authors appear to have published a word in Igbo. There is no substitute for looking at a category before nominating it. In fact looking at these categories I'm having trouble finding anyone who has published in Igbo. Most seem to be college professors in the US. Johnbod (talk) 17:28, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it was incorrectly placed in Category:Writers by language. As Johnbod points out many of these wrote in English. It is also quite conceivable that there were non-Igbos who wrote in Igbo (eg missionaries who translated the Bible into Igbo). By all means create and populate Category:Igbo-languages writers in Category:Writers by language. Occuli (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per two previous comments which are absolutely right. Debresser (talk) 20:07, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this is not a language-specific category. Alansohn (talk) 04:13, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment should it be "Writers of Igbo origin"? and categorised in Writers by ethnicity? Peterkingiron (talk) 00:00, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep distinct as it is not intended to be a by-language classification. However, Alansohn's suggestion needs consideration; is his formulation better than "Igbo writers" which (a) has potential to be confused with stating that they write in Igbo (not to editors familiar with our naming conventions for writer by language categories, but certainly to a reader browsing the article) and (b) being formatted in a similar way to "Nigerian writers" etc. looks confusingly like our nationality categories, yet on the other hand (c) is perhaps unnecessarily wordy? TheGrappler (talk) 20:17, 4 June 2009 (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:Punic writers[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: rename. Kbdank71 14:21, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Punic writers to Category:Punic-language writers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Added to Category:Writers by language after the recent 2009 May 21#Writers by language. Thus far, this is the only ancient language.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree unlinke in the above case, because here the Punic writer wrote in Punic language. Debresser (talk) 20:09, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom.--Lenticel ^(talk) 06:53, 31 May 2009 (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.

User talk pages with spam notices categories[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 for now. Kbdank71 14:23, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete all - I have no idea why these categories were created, but they seem pointless and unworkable. Creating a category system for users with various types of warnings on their talk pages is not only not useful, but also unnecessary. According to the parent category (the other subcategories of which I believe are pointless and should be deleted as well, but I'll save that for another nom) say "This category's subcategories track user talk pages warned for spamming, conflict of interest or advertising-related warnings"- but it doesn't explain why. Why on earth would someone go looking through, for instance, Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam2 notices looking for somebody? User categories are intended for users to be able to seek out someone for some reason that benefits the encyclopedia. There is absolutely no reason that I can think of of why these users need to be grouped together in order to make it easier to find them. It seems like the person who created these categories wanted to use them to gather some sort of statistics rather than actually use them for the purpose user categories are intended for, but even this would be flawed. That's becuase registered users can remove warnings from their page at any time, so whatever statistics these are intended to produce would be incorrect anyway. Additionally, why do we have these categories for only the spam-related notices? What makes these types of warnings distinguishable enough from, say, uw-vandalism1 or uw-unsourced1, to justify a category? When trying to come up with a possible justifiable use of these categories, the best thing I could come up with is that they could perhaps help fight apamming, but upon thinking on that further I realize these wouldn't even do that. WP:AIV works to report spammers just fine, and user categories should not be "bottom of the page notices" to alert admins patroling AIV when they go to a talk page to see which or how many warnings a user they are considering blocking have (particularly because these have no date indication- such a warning could be a day old or a year old, for all we know). Finally, whatever use these categories are intended for, the sheer number of users in these categories makes going through them more or less unworkable. This is a bad system of categories to try and maintain and we shouldn't attempt to generate statistics by use of user categories, particularly incorrect statistics. VegaDark (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think I agree with that. A bit long winded! The only times I am hunting some problem it is an individual that I am dealing with. That is him, his mal-edits, and contacts. I have no interest (at that time) in others doing the same thing. Twiceuponatime (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Query -- any particular reason to take this straight to CfD without first asking me why I did this? That's certainly not mandatory and you were in your rights to do this, but I know I would have extended the courtesy to you had I seen a category I had questions about. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 19:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I was considering doing so, but I felt that nothing you could have said would have convinced me that these were worth keeping, so I deemed it unnecessary. I would have done so if I felt uncertain about the usefulness of the categories. I've nominated hundreds of categories for discussion and I rarely if ever consult with the creator before doing so, and I highly doubt the vast majority of other nominators here had discussed the categories they nominated with the creator prior to nomination either. The only real benefit to doing so would have been if I had managed to convince you, and you requested them all to be deleted via G7 to make this nomination unncecessary. I wouldn't really consider consulting with you about these prior to nomination a "courtesy", as any argument in favor of their usefulness can obviously made here just as well as prior to nomination, and even if you managed to convince me these were useful, I can easily withdraw. VegaDark (talk) 19:51, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- here's how I use these categories:

I use the CatScan script to pull up new additions to these categories; for example:

Users receiving Uw-spam1 notices, last 24 hours
Users receiving Uw-spam2 notices, last 24 hours
Users receiving Uw-spam3 notices, last 24 hours
Users receiving Uw-spam4 notices, last 24 hours
Users receiving Uw-spam4im notices, last 24 hours
Users temporarily blocked for link-spamming, last 24 hours
Users indefinitely blocked for link-spamming, last 24 hours
Users indefinitely blocked with uw-soablock notices, last 24 hours

Then I quickly add all these pages to my watchlist. If the users subsequently get more warnings, I know to look at their contributions to see if the problem's bad enough to warrant addition to the spam blacklist. I want to see warnings even at the lower levels ({{uw-spam1}}, etc.) since some of our most egregious spammers move to new accounts or IPs before ever getting to a level 4 warning.

I try to more closely scrutinize the pages with new blocks or higher level warnings every day or two. At a minimum, I'll try to identify all the spammed domains and tag them with the {{LinkSummaryLive}}, {{IPSummary}} and {{UserSummary}} templates. These tags help WikiProject Spam volunteers better track our spammers as they skip across IPs and user names. I also evaluate this set of problematic accounts for domains that should be blacklisted, either locally on en.wikipedia or globally on Meta-Wiki (I'm an admin on both).^[1][2] Domain blacklisting shuts down persistent spammers more surely than account blocking and with less collateral damage than page protection. It pays off in less work for our editors reverting, warning and arguing with spammers.

Here's a list of domains blacklisted locally this month: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist/log#May 2009 -- that's a lot of future spam averted (with still more blacklisted on Meta).

Since implementing this set-up, I have become much more productive in identifying, prioritizing and dealing with the most problematic spammers.

Finally, I'll note that there has been discussion in the past about developing a bot to go through the edit histories of the accounts in these categories and building a database of spam domains to screen for the most egregiously spammed domains. (That's off in the future and I don't know if it will happen.)

I see no harm to the project in maintaining these categories and substantial benefit in keeping them around. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have left links to this discussion at MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist and Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Spam.^[3][4] --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 20:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Your goal of reducing spam is quite legitimate, but I can't help but question if this is the right way to go about doing so. You've basically stated that these categories are only useful if you run a particular script (aka, you are the only one who can really make use of these categories, which right there puts me on high alert that it is a category system we shouldn't maintain) and from the sound of it, it is pointless to keep users in these categories for more than 24 hours (unless someone develops a bot that can go through the thousands of users therein), yet I see no method of removing them past then, so the categories are set up to simply build up indefinitely with users. I could potentially support a system that removed users after their contribs were screened, and the categories were renamed to reflect that it was only recent, but I don't like the current system that keeps them in there even after being screened. And, as I mentioned previously, users can remove the warning and/or category from their talk pages, so it isn't entirely accurate in that regard. Keeping this set of categories also opens up the question of "Should we create the same series of categories for other warnings?" For instance, a user could argue the same rationale with the theory that screening such users' contribs could help with the abuse filter detecting common strings of vandalism. A legitimate goal, but not necessarily the best way of doing so. I think a better method of doing this (bots do a large quantity of warnings, no?) is have a bot record on a page when they give out a spam warning and you can go through this list. This would also avoid the user removing a warning from their page concern. It can also record a timestamp so you can continue to see those added in the last 24 hours, and we wouldn't have a system of categories that only people with a certain script can take advantage of. I also question how necessary it is to distinguish, say, someone with a spam1 warning with someone who has a spam2 warning. It seems these types of categories could be merged at the least to one category. You say you like to "try to more closely scrutinize the pages with higher level warnings", but by your description it sounds like you go through all these users' contribs anyway, it seems like we could merge the spam1-4 categories together and the advert1-4 (and im) categories together and it would still produce the same basic result with less categories to have to deal with. I'll agree that you personally are making use of these, and that they are more useful than I originally anticipated, but I still must advocate some sort of reform to the system as it works currently- I think it could be done in a better way (via a bot method I mentioned) or at least by merging some of the categories. VegaDark (talk) 20:48, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - One other thing I will note is that the uw-coi and uw-coi-username notices, from reading the text of their warnings, don't directly relate to adding spam whatsoever. A conflict of interest warning seems like it would more likely than not be given not when someone is adding spam, but for making edits that make the subject of the article more favorable than what is accurate. It seems like one of the other warnings would be a lot more appropriate if they were actually spamming, thus I would advocate the deletion of at least these two, if nothing else. I don't see how sifting through users' contribs in these cats could be helpful to finding spam sites to add to the blacklist. VegaDark (talk) 21:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Where the coi notices are useful is in the case of users who re-create spammy pages multiple times -- they often don't get a spam notice but a COI note instead. If they're really persistent (3 or more re-creations), it's useful to blacklist the domains of the businesses they're hyping. That frequently frustrates further page re-creations when the link embedded in their page hits the blacklist.

Having said that, I frequently don't have time to get to these. Besides that, it would be more directly useful to embed a hidden category in the {{Spam-warn}}. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a bot-builder or script-writer, so I can't build the replacement tools you've described. Can you do that? It would be great if you did.

In the meantime, sub-optimal or not, I'm getting a lot of useful work done using these categories. It won't get done if you delete these categories without first coming up with a good replacement. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 21:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll see about how feesable creating such a bot would be. VegaDark (talk) 21:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep these categories until a workable replacement takes it place. As the potential programmer of a bot that would ease much of the workload, I can imagine now that the categories would become temporary holding places until a bot could catch wind of what's going on. In the meantime, is there any reason to have it as multiple categories instead of a single category, like "Category:Talk pages of spammers"? —harej (talk) 21:46, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Re: multiple categories vs. one big one:

I start with the "worst" categories and work my way down to the mildest. If I get interrupted, I can count on having at least hit the worst offenders. If this stuff was lumped into one category, it would be much less useful. I'd have to look more closely at every page every day as opposed to prioritizing my work.

This is just a hobby for me and I have limited time. We used to have 3 or 4 other admins that put a fair amount of time into dealing with hardcore spam. They've all burned out or moved on, so I'm stretched pretty thin. As of 2 years ago, we were getting >1000 external links added per day; I'm sure it's more now. Tracking different levels of warnings allows us to collate and leverage all the individual actions of hundreds of recent changes patrollers who are not necessarily looking at the big picture, spamwise. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 22:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the process you described above, you just add all these to your watchlist, which you can't organize between severe/less severe warnings once there. Or do you go "Add all 4im to watchlist, go through contribs, remove users, add all 4 to watchlist, go through contribs, remove users, add all level 3 to watchlist"... etc? VegaDark (talk) 22:08, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I try to add everyone to my watchlist with a tabbed browser -- takes 10-15 minutes. Then I start with the blocked accounts looking carefully at edit histories and tagging thier pages with spam-tracking data templates; for an example, see User talk:Artistarena (I sitll haven't finished with that account).

These templates include links to a number of specialized tools that I use to ferret out what other accounts the spammer's using and what other domains he has we that need to track. If appropriate, I add the domains to the local or meta blacklists.

I work in a sequence: blocks-4im-4-3-etc. until I run out of time. Usually I get through at least the 4th level warnings and occasionally all the way to level-1 warnings.

Once on my watchlist, you're right -- I have no way of knowing whether the account that's later warned previously got a block or just a level 1 block. I'll look quickly at the new warning and the latest edits to see if I'm interested in investigating further. I seldom remove anyone from my watchlist (it's got 8,000+ pages on it, most of them dormant user talk pages and deleted spam articles). I'm always interested in a spammer that comes back after 3 or 4 months of dormancy and starts up again -- that's a pattern typical of our more persistent spammers.

I also have a few honeypots on my watchlist -- articles like Search engine optimization and Mesothelioma that hard-core spammers just can't resist spamming.

Prioritizing and blacklisting the hardest cases has a beneficial, secondary effect. These guys all talk on various black hat linkspam forums; the more resistance they encounter here, the more they complain about "Wikipedia's link-nazis". With a lot of work on our part, we've gotten some of the most prolific black hats to conclude we're just not worth the hassle to spam.

Meta has a very efficient bot-based system for monitoring and prioritizing cross-wiki spam (meta:Talk:Spam blacklist#COIBot) and several admins that do a good job with that stuff. For en.wikipedia-only spam (a much bigger volume), we just have to work as efficiently as we can with the tools and volunteers we have. We're always looking for more help! --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Two more comments: I'm not a limitless bot, so I miss stuff on days I travel or have less time for editing. I'd guess I've probably hit just 75% of the pages I wanted to during the last several weeks. I see some pages with uw-spam4 notices where the spammer had no prior warnings on that or other accounts; I ignore these. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 23:25, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A. B., you clearly work very hard because you believe in a spam-free Wikipedia. I am proud of you, but I think you can make a better use of your time by delegating some grunt work to a bot. I would be willing to make a bot that analyzes warnings (severity of spam), contributions (what links were deposited), and frequency, and have it all prepared in a report that you and other spam fighters would be interested in. This would probably take a while to code. Also, I want to know exactly what you would want the report to say, and how frequently one should be generated. —harej (talk) 01:03, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the offer, which seems to resolve the situation well. VegaDark (talk) 01:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have been following some spam link activity in the last few week and there really are a lot of users posting self-serving external links, and weaving their promotions into dubious references. A. B. does a sensational job at combating the spammers. These categories are unusual, but they do no harm, and it would be hard to use them as a precedent for other less helpful work. We need to use what tools are available (including these categories). They can be considered for deletion again in the future when other tools are available. Johnuniq (talk) 02:09, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep They hardly do harm, as they are hidden categories, and they do say 'User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices', not something like 'spammers who have been warned at least once!'. They are a rather 'clean' and useful way of grouping editors who have been warned for 'spamming' (actually, A. B. might need another category, I'll discuss that with him ..). The only other way of finding these is via Special:Whatlinkshere/Wikipedia:External links, which gives MANY false positives, and is much more difficult to scan automatically for new members. Another 'solution' may be using a bot that scans edits to talkpages for the additions of spam-warn/block templates, and that saves them to a page, but that does not have the overview where you can see from the page. Moreover, categories are not google-scanned, so it does not result in web-searchability (which spammers don't like, but may be worse for regulars who get accidentaly included ..)

Spammers are in a completely different ball-park then vandals, though there is overlap. While the large majority of vandals are not systematic, for (true) spam there are many cases which are long term, recurring problems, sometimes going over years, using multiple accounts and IPs, &c. &c. The overlap are the 'spammy' additions of e.g. youtube links (in summary, links which are not added for a commercial or real promotional goal), where the edits are often better categorised as special cases of vandalism). It is therefore not a good argument to say that we do not do this for vandalism.

Let me give an example to show how useful these categories can be: from the second page of the category Category:User talk pages with Uw-spam1 notices) I notice 125.236.172.186 and 125.236.173.221, two IPs not too far apart, so they may be related spammers (lets check!). Both have indeed been spamming dirtyharryfilminglocations.wordpress.com (each a couple of XLinkBot warnings)... looking further (using the special linksearch: Special:LinkSearch/dirtyharryfilminglocations.wordpress.com), the list extends to 125.238.248.16 (categorised), 125.238.248.104 (categorised) and to 125.236.173.61 (no category, reverted, but no spam warning by XLinkBot as it was just one edit), 125.236.172.251 (no category, reverted, but no spam warning by XLinkBot as it was just one edit) (some from the pre-categorisation time, I guess). I even don't use external tools here to find a larger, more campaign-like, spamming then would have been visible from almost any other tool (User:COIBot does something similar, but would probably also have been beaten by this one). Not having any form of grouping would not have shown this type of patterns.

I am going to clear some spam based on this quick finding! --Dirk Beetstra ^{T C} 14:00, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Especially Category:User talk pages with uw-coi-username notices. Not too concerned about the others but that one is useful for tracking the names of the companies users have tried to use as usernames, so naturally it doesn't include any IP's and is useful for reference of possible COI users. -- OlEnglish ^(Talk) 05:41, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per A.B., at least until a better system is found for dealing with this. He does amazing work dealing with spam and does a great bulk of work maintaining the blacklist. Stifle (talk) 13:25, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep per A.B and Beetstra.--Hu12 (talk) 18:05, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, but mark all as hidden categories. I was on my way to nominate these for deletion myself when I saw the notice, but AB's explanation above seems to be a valid reason to keep these for the meantime. However, these really shouldn't be appearing as categories on talk pages (seems to be assuming bad faith to newbies who may not know better), so we really should be marking these with the __HIDDENCAT__ magic word. Hersfold ^(t/a/c) 03:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment -- all these categories are already tagged with the {{hiddencat}} template per Wikipedia:Categorization#Hiding categories. If you are seeing the categories on talk pages with these warnings, then look at the "Misc" settings tab of your Wikipedia preferences settings -- you probably have "Show hidden categories" checked. The category pages themselves are also tagged with the {{NOINDEX}} tempate. --A. B. ^{(talk • contribs)} 04:54, 8 June 2009 (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:Compositing Window Managers[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: rename. Kbdank71 14:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Compositing Window Managers to Category:Compositing window managers

Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's a general concept, not a proper noun. Warren -talk- 13:18, 30 May 2009 (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:Music Institutions and Category:Music school[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge categories into Category:Music schools

Nominator's rationale: : Substantial overlap / miscategorisation Ian Cairns (talk) 12:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Just delete All are properly categorized in local cats - mostly Category:Music schools in India. Rampant ISP over-categorizer. Johnbod (talk) 17:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Johnbod. Recent redundant creations, merely added to existing categories without any replacement. Occuli (talk) 17:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge articles into Music schools and Delete these categories. Debresser (talk) 20:12, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Agree debresser Redheylin (talk) 01:14, 3 June 2009 (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:Non-Sylheti British Bangladeshis[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:15, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Not an ethnic group, looks biased and discriminate towards Non-Sylheti Bangladeshis. Bangali71 (talk) 11:55, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- According to the log, recreation of previously deleted category G7, but no previous discussion here, so not eligible for speedy G4. Doesn't follow standard naming conventions, either.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:26, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Category:British people of Bangladeshi descent. Those in the Indian Restaurant trade are mostly of the Sylheti community or ethnicity (I am not certain which it is) and can appropriately be given that ethnicity (which should be a subcategory of the suggested target), but the rest are merely Banglasheshi, until we get more subcategories for other specific communiites. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:05, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Bad idea. Many are already in the immigrant tree, and therefore should not be in the descent tree. All others are already in the descent tree, so merging would merely be a duplication. It was easy to check, there are so few.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 06:47, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary race/ethnic category. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2009 (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:Musical forms[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: relisted on june 10. Kbdank71 13:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Arabic musical forms

Nominator's rationale: Category:Musical form holds musical forms. This plural category has been managed to keep only Arabic musical forms. Either major restructure or else rename Musical forms to Arabic musical forms. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:53, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and reparent per nom. It's doubtful if Yürük semai should remain in the cat in that case. Johnbod (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
AGREE that something needs to be done - as it stands this has caused confusion between form, style and genre. But also agree some forms in there are Turkish. Suggest Form in Asian music as the most useful missing category. Then Indian and Chinese forms can be added - it is not too many articles and it will be good to have them within Category:Musical form. Strongly recommend that the word "formS" be strenuously avoided. Thanks IC - good idea, very glad you mentioned it. Redheylin (talk) 01:12, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Split to Category:Arabic musical forms and Category:Turkish musical forms, both of which should be subcats of Category:Muscial form. A few of the articles belong in both the Arabic and Turkish subcats, the others only in one or the other.--Aervanath (talk) 17:42, 9 June 2009 (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:Live USB and Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions[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: relisted to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_June_9#Category:Live_USB_and_Category:USB-bootable_Linux_distributions.--Aervanath (talk) 17:45, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging either way

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Substantial overlap of content ro rhe point of duplication. Ian Cairns (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there's something very wrong with these. Live USB should be the parent of USB-linux, but instead it's a subcat... and there are OSes that aren't linux that are USB bootable. 70.29.208.129 (talk) 05:34, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Live USB to Category:USB-bootable distributions. Keep Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions. Call me old fashioned but that is what these are. Move the Linux ones to Category:USB-bootable Linux distributions and make it a child of Category:USB-bootable distributions. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:22, 6 June 2009 (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:CD[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: rename to Category:Compact disc Erik9 (talk) 20:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:CD to Category:Compact Disc

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Per main article. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 07:05, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. Johnbod (talk) 17:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it is unclear from the lead article whether "Disc" should be capitalized. The article uses "Compact Disc", "compact disc" and "Compact disc". Articles within the category also use various capitalizations. I'd also suggest adding the subcategories that use the abbreviation to this nomination because they should all be handled the same way. Otto4711 (talk) 19:56, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Good points. Johnbod (talk) 20:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of what the title is of the main article, the category should reflect it. As long as it is titled "Compact Disc", so should this be and if it changes to "Compact disc" in the future, this category should be nominated again. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:27, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is incorrect. We are not required to keep a category that is misnamed if the lead article is also misnamed. If consensus is that the lower case should be used then the article an be moved to follow. Otto4711 (talk) 17:07, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. Use "Compact disc" without capital and indeed rename all categories containing "CD". Debresser (talk) 20:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Note the parent article for Compact Disc is called Optical disc. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The parent or lead article is Compact Disc. Otto4711 (talk) 21:10, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A Compact Disc is a type of Optical disc. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:32, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Category:Compact disc -- Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories)#General naming conventions "Avoid abbreviations." -- The logo is "compact disc" (all lowercase). The USPTO registered trademarks are "compact disc" (all lowercase), "cd" (lowercase), "compact disc Recordable", "compact disc ReWritable", etc. Wikipedia:Naming conventions#Use standard English for titles even if trademarks encourage otherwise and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (trademarks)#Trademarks that begin with a lowercase letter require the article be renamed "Compact disc", with the usual flag that the first character is lowercase. Category has no such flag.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Compact disc as per WAS. TheGrappler (talk) 20:11, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Compact disc. Clearly the correct name. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:55, 6 June 2009 (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.

Indian writers by language[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: no consensus.--Aervanath (talk) 17:47, 9 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming:

Category:Assamese writers to Category:Assamese-language writers
- Category:Assamese literature only
Category:Gujarati writers to Category:Gujarati-language writers
- Category:Gujarati literature
- Category:Gujarati people removed, after checking all articles.
Category:Indian English writers to Category:Indian English-language writers
- Category:Indian literature in English only
Category:Kannada writers to Category:Kannada-language writers
- "Prominent writers of Kannada language."
- Category:Literature of Karnataka parent
- Category:Kannada literature
- Category:Kannada people removed as inconsistent with above.
Category:Kashmiri writers to Category:Kashmiri-language writers
- Category:Kashmiri literature only
Category:Malayali writers to Category:Malayalam-language writers
- Category:Malayali people removed
- Category:Malayalam-language occupations
Category:Malayalam writers to Category:Malayalam-language writers
- Category:Malayalam literature
- Category:Malayalam-language occupations
Category:Writers of Mithila to Category:Maithili-language writers
- Category:Maithili literature
Category:Oriya writers to Category:Oriya-language writers
- Category:People from Orissa removed, as this is not a Residence category
- Category:Oriya literature added, after checking all articles.
Category:Tamil writers to Category:Tamil-language writers (merge)
- Recreation of previously renamed category
Category:Telugu writers to Category:Telugu-language writers
- Category:Telugu literature
- Category:People from Andhra Pradesh removed, as this is not a Residence category

Nominator's rationale: Rename to match Category:Writers by language. See recent 2009 May 21#Writers by language.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 04:47, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename all except the Tamil one. I suspect that that is for Tamil people, not for writers using the Tamil language (it is a subcategory of Category:Tamil people). As such, it may need separate discussion. Grutness...wha? 09:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- That's the same as many other subcategories of Category:Writers by language. There doesn't seem to be a lot of consistency:
  1. Category:Assamese writers is also a subcategory of Category:Assamese literature.
  2. Category:Gujarati writers is also a subcategory of both Category:Gujarati people and Category:Gujarati literature.
  3. Category:Kannada writers is also a subcategory of both Category:Literature of Karnataka and Category:Kannada literature.
  4. Yet, Category:Malayali writers is also a subcategory of Category:Malayali people, while Category:Malayalam writers (added to the nomination) is also a subcategory of Category:Malayalam literature.
  5. Further investigation shows that Category:Tamil writers is a recreation of a previously renamed category. But the new creators only categorized it in Category:Indian writers by language, while the original was correctly in parent Category:Writers by language, so the recreation was missed.
  6. We don't categorize {{fooian fooers}} by ethnicity alone. If your guess is correct, and some of the Category:Tamil writers are writing in another language than Tamil, they would have to be carefully divided/merged many ways, such as existing Category:Indian English writers (added to the nomination) and possibly Category:Sri Lankan English-language writers.
- But for the purposes of this nomination, please assume that these members of Category:Indian writers by language are in fact Indian citizens, and writing in the language specified. Individual mis-categorization exceptions can be handled later as appropriate.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 13:30, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now the categories are too mixed up to rename at this point. The Tamil model is probably the way to go. The "Foo-language writer" cats can be set up as sub-cats & populated, & we can then see if there is enough left to justify a main category. The nom's suggestion just above just won't do. Is he willing to do the work? In many cases the articles don't contain adequate information to judge. I have moved some from Category:Tamil writers to the language cat, but there are plenty left, & this one certainly deserves keeping imo. At least one writes in Malay btw. Another problem is that Indian English is the correct term, though it is doubtful to what extent all those writers use that dialect. Johnbod (talk) 17:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Oh, as you're recategorizing during the nomination (contrary to the posted CfR), I'll be happy to help evaluate the articles!
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:13, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - The moves I made were to recategorize articles clearly wrongly placed according to the current category definitions. There is nothing wrong with that. Johnbod (talk) 17:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Annotated with relevant parent categories for comparison.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:50, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Done, except for Tamil.
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Tamil ones and probaly the others. Eg Ronnie Govender writes in English. It seems to me that in general 'Fooian writer' (a writer who is Fooian) and 'Fooian-language writer' will in general be different. We only need to consider the examples English, Spanish, German, Italian, French to see this (eg there will be Swiss writers for the last 3). Samuel Ajayi Crowther for instance appears to be a 'Yoruba writer', 'Yoruba-language writer', 'Igbo-language writer', 'Nupe-language writer'. Occuli (talk) 00:48, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- This would be fine if we could be sure all those categorised did in fact write in the language named as opposed to English, Indian English, etc. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Done
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 18:59, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, what you've done is just removed the non-Tamil language ones from the category entirely. This is totally different from me moving the Tamil-language ones into the proper sub-cat. Famous writers like R.K. Narayan now have no Tamil categorization at all, which is absurd. That we had two categories obviously indicated two different groups, you have now emptied the nominated category entirely. This is a gross breach of procedure; please re-instate them at once, and any others similarly removed. Johnbod (talk) 19:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - You are incorrect. According to my edit summaries:
    1. Kausalya Hart is now in Tamil-language writers (but needs citations).
    2. Parithimar Kalaignar is now in Tamil-language writers.
    3. Vaiyapuri Pillai is now in Tamil-language writers (but has no citations at all).
    4. There's no evidence that R.K. Narayan is notably Tamil. According to the article itself, his works were translated from English into Tamil (the NYTimes obituary says "His wife, Rajam, could not read English, the only language in which her husband could write...."). There are only a few actual references to his Indian English writings, although most of the article is missing citations. Somebody categorized him as "People from Chennai" (no citation) and "People from Mysore" (one external reference). Birth in a place (or later residence) does not qualify: Heritage categories should not be used to record people based on deduction, inference, residence, surname, nor any partial derivation from one or more ancestors.
  - Anybody else?
    --William Allen Simpson (talk) 09:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - Yes, all the others - about 10 I think. Of course Narayan was Tamil! You mean there's no evidence in our poor article! Try an internet search - [5] How Tamil do you have to be to be "notably" so? It was his mother tongue that he used every day of his life, as did all the people where he lived. Put him back, and all the others. Johnbod (talk) 11:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - At this point, it seems to me that I've been taken in — I find it hard to believe that an editor claiming over 50,000 edits is not familiar with Wikipedia:Notability.
        Is (Tamil ethnicity or language or residence) a major reason that an article about this person is included in the encyclopedia? Emphatically, no!
        Within Wikipedia, notability refers to whether or not a topic merits its own article. Articles should verify that they are notable, or "worthy of notice".
        
        If there's "no evidence" in the "poor article" (it's actually quite a long article about a very famous person), then it's not notable, and MUST NOT be included in a category.
        Category names do not carry disclaimers or modifiers, so the case for the category must be made clear by the article text. The article must state the facts that result in the use of the category tag and these facts must be sourced.
        
        In this case, there's no evidence Tamil was a "mother tongue that he used every day of his life"; the sole reference I've found states he had a Tamil grandmother, and that doesn't even mention whether she was on the paternal or maternal side. That is, there's very little detail anywhere.
        
        Moreover, the speech of "all the people where he lived" is not notable.
        
        Even with extensive, overwhelming information about a person's natal tongue, speaking is (in and of itself) not notable. Nearly everybody has a language, just as nearly everybody has a mouth. We don't categorize people by having a language (or a mouth).
        
        We categorize by what they've actually done. He didn't even know how to write in Tamil, and he's notable as an Indian English writer.
      - Enough.
        --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:47, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        You are very confused about the term you yourself introduced to the discussion. Notability only refers to and concerns article subjects. It has, in WP terms, no place at all in discussing aspects of the content of articles, nor categorization, where the key concept is "defining". Johnbod (talk) 20:07, 3 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Proof by assertion is a logical fallacy. None of the policies and guidelines cited above contain any such concept called "defining", nor do you cite references.
        --William Allen Simpson (talk) 07:45, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry, I assumed you had read the basic policies governing this page, WP:CAT ("What categories should be created") and WP:OCAT. Johnbod (talk) 11:05, 4 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        Of course, but neither is policy, and neither is cited above.
        --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:43, 7 June 2009 (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:Teen love[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Overcategorization. Several of its categories are parents at multiple levels in the category tree, and this does not appear to be a "distinguished category".

While there are a few articles and subcategories that are vaguely related to this subject, there don't seem to be others that reflect different age groups, such as Category:Adult love, Category:Child love, Category:Geriatric love.

If kept, consider renaming Category:Adolescent sexuality, so that the category has a natural main article of Adolescent sexuality.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 03:02, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Age-related love categories seem like an unhelpful direction. Will Beback talk 03:20, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for creating the category: -- This category was originally idealized as a sub-category of Category:Sexuality and age. Other age-oriented sub-categories of "Sexuality and age" may appear in the future, but how do we define it's time for creating the first one? It was also conceived as a way of joining under the same umbrella Category:Pederasty and other types of love relationships/sexual attraction between adults and adolescents. Finally, I believe concentrating legal, cultural and social issues regarding "teen love" in one only category may help research on the subject.Paulo Andrade (talk) 15:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

We don't provide "research on the subject" -- see Wikipedia:No original research.

The topic of ephebophilia is already well categorized for "other types of love ... between adults and adolescents."
The topic of pederasty is already well categorized.
"Other types" than pederasty would necessarily be female. I've not quickly found any main article, so the time may not be ripe.
The topic of teen-teen relationships may not have a category of its own, but is so common as not to be particularly notable.
Category:Ageism as a subcategory doesn't match your written criteria, and makes no sense at all!
This is beginning to feel like a WP:POINT creation. Your contributions seem to be exclusively in the area of pederasty and age of consent going back to your earliest edits.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 17:06, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Point 6 is irrelevant to the discussion and comes close to a personal attack. For which you have just received a third-level warning. Ask closing admin to disconsider point 6. Debresser (talk) 20:17, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I dispute Debreser's assertion that W. A. Simpson made a personal attack in point 6. WP:NPA says that discussing behavior, when relevant, is allowable. In this case, the category creator's edit history is relevant as he is close to a single purpose editor on this topic. Will Beback talk 21:52, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither did I assert. I said "comes close to". I have defended this formulation Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts#User:William_Allen_Simpson here. Debresser (talk) 19:20, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, just to be clear, for the reasons given in the same debate below. I'll take a look at Debresser's contributions and see if there's any substance to the concern.--Scott Mac (Doc) 21:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Response) - Look, I don't see it as related to original research. There is no material anywhere provided by myself (e.g. my own interviews, articles, etc.). Sure, this is my area of research but everyone has one, and that's why I like to edit articles related to this area, like anyone else within their areas. It would be strange if an engineer edited articles on biology or vice-versa. I just want to add something in a constructive way to the community (to the collectiveness), and maybe someone else after me would like to add another piece of knowledge to this subject. That's the purpose of Wikipedia after all, to be a source of knowledge for everyone. I honestly think this is a valid area of research, just like Category:Pederasty and so it's a reasonable motivation for keeping the category. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 01:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment: - I think this is a valid area of research for Sociology, Anthropology, Psychology, Journalism, cross-cultural analysis, maybe History, and other areas in the vast fields of Social Sciences or Human Sciences. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 13:15, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not clear how teen love differs from any other, so subjective. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Any category that has exclusion criteria This category does not include any kind of perversion, sexuality or sexual behavior involving pre-pubescent children. makes inclusion POV and subjective. There there is the inclusion of love which is an emotion. So, if a teen loves their pet, can it be included here? Then we include adolescents but exclude pre-pubescent but don't these two overlap and don't the criteria for inclusion in these vary by country? All in all way too many subjective issues. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:06, 6 June 2009 (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:Ecology by region[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. However if a better solution to the problems is found there is no need to wait in order to make that nomination. Vegaswikian (talk) 06:55, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Not likely to be populated any further and is the incorrect use of the word ecology. -- Alan Liefting (talk) - 01:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I disagree; 'ecology by region' is very much an encyclopaedic topic, and there is plenty of room for this category to be populated further. Robofish (talk) 02:03, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should go, but keep until suggestions made that would not leave contents stranded, as the nom would. There is no reason not to add other categories now. Johnbod (talk) 20:15, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as I voted in all similar categories mentioned before. Debresser (talk) 20:19, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The fact that some articles may misuse the term "ecology" is only a reason to rename the articles and purge them from the category. As I said on a similar nomination, this is a legitimate category. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:11, 1 June 2009 (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:Romances between adults and adolescents[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: Delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: The way in which this category is described seems to try and define something in terms that would avoid legality issues. It asks the editor to make a determination regarding the legitimacy of a relationship, the legality of it, and do so with a definition that simply seems convoluted to me. This is especially troublesome when considering some of the persons included in the category, some of whom skirted issues of legality in the relationship (Charles Chaplin and the number of women included from his life is a case in point). I don't think this category is particularly valid based on its definition of inclusion. Wildhartlivie (talk) 01:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Defense: - The category refers to actual romances that didn't end up in a legal conviction. It does not include persons who were judged and convicted for child sex abuse or any violation of statutory laws. A simple sentence can be added to its definition to clear this up (which I'm going to add right now). Secondly, the category does not violate policies concerning the Biography of Living Persons (BLP) either, once no living person was offended and all sources regarding the relationships are verifiable and cited in each article. In effect, the definition carefully separates these romances from perversions involving pre-pubescent children. I think this is a conservative approach regarding living persons.Paulo Andrade (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yikes. Strong delete, for WP:BLP reasons as much as anything else. Bad idea for a category. Robofish (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Teen love was created at the same time as a parent category. I think is shares amny of the same problems as Category:Romances between adults and adolescents. Will Beback talk 02:38, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Huge violation of WP:BLP. A troublesome category, at best. — Σ xplicit 04:37, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. PasswordUsername (talk) 08:39, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it doesn't categorise romances, it categorises BLPs. There's far too much danger here. Delete Category:Teen love for the same reason. --Scott Mac (Doc) 09:24, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Defense) - The category does not violate policies concerning the Biography of Living Persons (BLP) either, once no living person was offended and all sources regarding the relationships are verifiable and cited in each article. In effect, the definition carefully separates these romances from perversions involving pre-pubescent children. I think this is a conservative approach regarding living persons.Paulo Andrade (talk) 14:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- No evidence is provided that "no living person was offended and all sources regarding the relationships are verifiable and cited in each article."
  1. Melanie Griffith is a living person, and there's no reference for any self-admission of an adolescent relationship: "Griffith has not publicly responded to these allegations." Of course, it's hard to prove a negative....
  2. Priscilla Presley is a living person, and there's no reference for any self-admission of an adolescent relationship. Heck, there's hardly any references at all in the section "Life with Elvis". However, Elvis Presley#Marriage to Priscilla has a few more references (although still is missing significant references), and states "Priscilla later filed a lawsuit against Currie Grant for his claim in Finstad's book that he had sex with her in exchange for introducing her to Presley and won."
  3. Alanis Morissette is a living person, and the only self-admission of an adolescent relationship is about a crime. You knew that, as you add Hands Clean, where she states:
    "Whether you call it statutory rape or inappropriate behavior by an adult — it doesn't matter. I felt at the time I had only two choices — I pick either working with this person or not doing music at all.
  4. Not a good track record, and you're the only person that's added anything to this category (so far). Other people are at least as likely to make more such terrible mistakes.
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- probably should be speedy, before any more mistakes are made. We wouldn't keep a category about crimes that didn't end up in a legal conviction. We do have Category:Scandals and Category:Sex scandals, but categories there are more specific to a particular scandal. Also, it's badly named, as this articles don't seem to have romances as a principle topic, --William Allen Simpson (talk) 16:34, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Explcit. Jclemens (talk) 23:36, 30 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - In favor of keeping the category, I'd like to point out the following (On Griffith, Presley and Alanis):
1. On Melanie Griffith – Her relationship at 14 with a 22-year old Don Johnson was documented by a reliable source, a 1985 article by Time Magazine called “Cool Cops, Hot Show” (see [6]). See also [7] (section “wife”);
2. On Priscila Presley – The relationship of a 14 y/o Priscila with Elvis is documented in her own official website, which includes pictures (please see http://www.priscillapresley.com/gallery-item.php?gid=4). It was also documented by an 1996 article in People magazine (see [8]) and through an article in About.com (see [9]). Additional source: [10];
3. On Alanis Morrisette – The age of consent in Canada was 14 then, so in her case it was not really a crime at the time, as only recently AoC there was raised to 16. In the quote you cited, she was giving an opinion about relationships in general. Her relationship is documented through interviews to US Weekly and Askmen.com (see [11]). -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep struck since opinion expressed above. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:44, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Please don't cite things that aren't in the articles. Improve the articles, and see whether other editors agree. None of those references "document" anything, and are mostly passing references to gossip. People magazine? About.com? Heck, much of about.com was extracted from Wikipedia! Circular argument. Everybody has a "relationship" with each other, including parents and siblings. These are living (or dead) people, and as long as they personally deny that they had sex, or sue others about it, or disparage it, this stuff shouldn't be in the articles, or should be noted as a scandal. We should not categorize any people for their romances of any flavor....
  --William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I will dedicate myself to adding these sources and references to the articles mentioned above (and others alike) as soon as possible (probably in a few days). Secondly, there are already three articles in the Category:Pederasty that do exactly this, i.e. they categorize people for their romances: Historical pederastic relationships, Pederastic relationships in classical antiquity and Pederastic couples in Japan. Why not also in this case ("Romances between adults and adolescents"), which is even broader than these three ones? -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - Additional comment: I think this area of romances is a valid area of research, as much as the research on Pederasty for example, whose category has articles on plenty of individual personalities. This is my area of research and I honestly believe it could be for others. I think it's a good idea to group these articles in a separate category, but of course carefully separating them from cases involving charges of sex abuse or a legal conviction. I just want to add something to the community in a constructive way.-- Paulo Andrade (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep struck since opinion provided already. One vote please! Vegaswikian (talk) 18:47, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename ? - Maybe this category should be renamed for “Actual romances between adults and adolescents” or even “History of romances between adults and adolescents”. On the other side, I think it would not be a good idea to rename it to “Ephebophilia”, “Ephebophilic relationships” or something alike, because probably only Chaplin would fall into this definition, once he married three times with adolescents (out of 4 marriages), and this could indicate a preference towards adolescents, while in other cases the romance could be the result of a one-time event or of a feeling of indifference between adolescence and adult life, instead of a preference.-- Paulo Andrade (talk) 01:08, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

- Question: We don't have categories for romances between adults, so what benefit is there to have a category for romances between adults and adolescents? Will Beback talk 01:14, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Response - There is a category for romances in general (Category:Romance) with a main article (Romance (love)), which covers mainly, but not exclusively, romances between adults. In the case of romances between adults and adolescents, it's a particular type of romance, just like in the case of "Category:Pederasty" for male-male partners (which is even more specific, btw). I believe it should deserve a separate sub-category because it involves different age groups and consequently a specific area of research. I think it's a reasonable motivation. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 01:28, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

One difference is that we have a main article, Romance. We do't have an article Romance between adults and adolescents. Will Beback talk 01:46, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I can create this new article, but this would require more time in order to meet quality standards and include good sources. I have already part of this material, including new personalities outside the English-speaking world. However, I don't think the present absence of this "main article" hinders the categorization of the subject. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd further note that we don't categorize most people by their romances. There's no "married people" category, for example. While there are categories to cover people's sexual prefernces, we base those mostly on public or sourced declarations of preferences, not relationships. Will Beback talk 06:54, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is true, but a category such as "married people" would be extremely large, as it probably would encompass half of all articles about persons, thousands most likely. On the other hand, this is a specific case of relationships that are not so common, especially for personalities that deserve a Wiki article. The category "Pederasty" is even more specific and exists. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have added now a new paragraph in the definition of the category, alerting editors to keep in mind Wikipedia's quality standards as well as the policy of WP:BLP before adding articles to the category. Please let me know what you think of this paragraph and feel free to edit it or improve the text yourself. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 13:37, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

But I've no interest in "improving" a header for a category that should be deleted. We should not categorize any people for their romances of any flavor.... There's not enough notable material here for a category, and it's obviously an attractive nuisance.
--William Allen Simpson (talk) 19:40, 31 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That message (asking for a possible help) was originally for User:Will Beback, once maybe he/she would have this interest. And again I point to the three articles mentioned above within Category:Pederasty which already do what you say Wikipedia "should not" do. Why having three articles on pederastic couples and not one on romances between adults and adolescents? -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 02:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rationale for deleting was fixed - The rationale given by User:Wildhartlivie when he/she proposed this category for deletion was a lack of clarity about legality in the definition of the category. This problem is already fixed and no longer exists. Maybe those who voted before the problem was fixed should vote again, and maybe User:Wildhartlivie has changed his/her mind after the problem has been solved. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the problem remains:
1. "It asks the editor to make a determination regarding the legitimacy of a relationship, the legality of it, ...."
2. This would be a category that would require constant policing, an attractive nuisance.
3. Not appropriate for a category.
4. Perhaps a well-annotated list.

--William Allen Simpson (talk) 15:52, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Easy to examine: - (a) The editor only have to examine if there was a legal conviction or a charge of sex abuse (to exclude the article), or if the case refers to a real romance (date, marriage, affair, etc.) that has reliable sources (to include the article). It is as simple as that.
(b) Another point is: if a "well-annotated list" as you say is create as an article, where do you suggest should it be categorized? In Category:Sexuality and age? -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Contribution - After that, User:Will Beback suggested another rationale, arguing that there is not a main article about "Romances between adults and adolescents" in the scope of the category, unlike in Category:Romance where there is Romance (love). I would like to create this article (Romances between adults and adolescents) as a genuine contribution to Wikipedia, but this would take some time. So now I ask for a vote of confidence in my offer of contribution. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 13:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "romances" seems subjective as does "adolescent" and no people should be in such a cat, as none are a "romance" however that may be defined. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from User:Carlossuarez46, it seems that the only participant of the debate is William Allen Simpson. Other users that have voted before (including User:Will Beback and User:Wildhartlivie) did not vote based on the new improved text to define the category. -- Paulo Andrade (talk) 01:16, 4 June 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - categorizing "adolescents" based on happening to have dated an "adult" is trivial overcategorization. Otto4711 (talk) 21:58, 4 June 2009 (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.