Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 September 1

< August 31	September 2 >

September 1[edit]

Category:Japanese rock[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 keep --Kbdank71 16:44, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Japanese rock to Category:J-Rock

User:Cyrus XIII did a cut-and-paste move on article J-Rock, and I don't see the existence of a talk page, so I suppose this might be controversial. So, should this category be kept at "Japanese rock" or "J-Rock". In either case, the other should remain as a categoryredirect

- 132.205.45.148 22:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My vote would be "keep" (naturally) and I have outlined my reason for the recent changes on the talk page of the Japanese rock article. Aside from that, I am truly sorry if my approach caused any sort of inconvenience. In the future, I'll investigate my options for addressing such issues more thorougly. - Cyrus XIII, 2:17, September 2nd 2006 (CET)
Keep at Japanese rock. Though popular, J-Rock is a context-dependent nickname. --Dhartung | Talk 13:18, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep at Japanese rock. I think of J-rock as a back formation from J-pop, and a not entirely welcome one from the viewpoint of the rockers.--Mike Selinker 02:29, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The current name is easier to understand. Wimstead 17:35, 5 September 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:Modern Palestinian anti-tank rockets[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 16:42, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Modern Palestinian anti-tank rockets to Category:Palestinian anti-tank rockets - there are no ancient Palestinian anti-tank rockets for sure. The prefix seems superfluous. -- Ynhockey ^(Talk) 21:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename and while we're at it eliminate the useless intermediate cat Category:Modern Palestinian weapons. --Dhartung | Talk 13:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. It seems there is an umbrella Category:Modern weapons which contains many of these subcats by country and weapons system. Possibly some kind of WikiProject-related activity? In any case these ought to be considered together, as I'm not certain this is the best naming scheme. --Dhartung | Talk 13:48, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 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:EarthBound items[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, empty --Kbdank71 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, empty. »c tails!« =hello?= 21:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crazy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per weirdness. Michael 04:35, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and then Delete (Yes, I realize that it's empy currently, but voting on its potential use.) - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- How can you listify an empty category?! --kingboyk 07:20, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --kingboyk 07:20, 4 September 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:EarthBound locations[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 16:12, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, depopulated and redundanted by the list. »c tails!« =hello?= 21:28, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per crazy. - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 04:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Combination 18:51, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Listify and Delete - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- It's been listified. The only article in that category is the list. »c tails!« =hello?= 04:17, 4 September 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.

Vandalised user pages[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 15:09, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedians whose user pages have been vandalized (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Category:Wikipedia bots whose user pages have been vandalized (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete, Two more categories which were recently renamed that in my opinion ought to have been zapped. We don't categorise vandalised articles, and I see no need to catalogue vandalised user pages either. kingboyk 17:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If we don't categorize vandalized articles, I don't think we need to categorize vandalized user pages. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless categories. --musicpvm 23:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, seems like an invitation for more vandalism. Michael 04:37, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
KeepInfact categories name which is a sort of club for wikipedians should not be a problem;if it is not obscene or illegal.If people want to group under a banner it is always welcome,provided they do not induge in things which may be considered improper.Since there seems to be nothing improper in this category,i don't think it should be deleted. HW 15:35, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. "Useless"/"no need" doesn't cut it. I do not buy the argument that this category is a vandalism incentive. Note the parent template, {{user vandalized}}, was speedy-closed as keep for overwhelming consensus in an MFD one day before this CFD listing opened. There seems to be a change in audience. ~ PseudoSudo 16:19, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- This category indicates user pages that should be watchlisted. John254 17:59, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Potentially a list of all user pages, depending on how one defines vandalism. Too large to be useful. And as per Cswrye - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no way these categories can assist in the editing process. They're mere category clutter. - EurekaLott 03:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PseudoSudo and John254. -- Shadowlynk 10:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it isn't harming anyone, it breaks no rules, and a number of users find it useful. Timrem 21:48, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per John254 and Timrem --real _decimic 22:27, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unencyclopedic trash. Unmaintainable anyway -Doc 11:23, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the principles of WP:DENY. It's not a "badge" to get vandalized and this category just lets vandals know that they're having some sort of an effect beyond being reverted, blocked, and ignored. --Cyde Weys 18:38, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete These categories reward vandals and do nothing to move Wikipedia towards its goals. Merchbow 22:13, 7 September 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:Meantone intervals[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 16:41, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This category is redundant, given List of meantone intervals (except Wolf interval, which could be mentioned there), but also every interval in the standard scale is also a meantone interval. There is no reason to categorize them by their "meantone"ness. You would need to understand what meantone tuning is in order to understand this categorization, and if you understood meantone tuning already you would already know that these are meantone intervals. Rainwarrior 17:44, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(On further review, Wolf interval is actually on the list as Wolf fifth, so they're all there already. - Rainwarrior 00:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC))[reply]

Listify to List of meantone intervals, and Delete - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 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:History of Japan by year[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 16:40, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:History of Japan by year into Category:Years in Japan

Merge, For consistency with other categories in Category:Years by country. Tim! 17:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for consistency. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Must be consistent. Ian Cairns 00:49, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for consistency. Michael 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge for consistancy. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate 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 Not categories: not appropriate for CFD. I've nominated two for speedy deletion, changed one to a redirect and left instructions with the user to use WP:RM. TimBentley (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programmable Array Logic[edit]

Delete,"Programmable array logic" should be "Programmable Array Logic", as it is a proper noun (and trademark).Johnlogic 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programmable array logic 2[edit]

Delete, I goofed in creating this page, trying to swap "Programmable array logic" and "Programmable Array Logic"Johnlogic 16:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Programmable array logic 3[edit]

Delete, I goofed in creating this page, trying to swap "Programmable array logic" and "Programmable Array Logic"Johnlogic 16:08, 1 September 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:Parishes in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford[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 16:39, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Parishes in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockford

Category:Parishes in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dubuque to Category:Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dubuque

Category:Parishes in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Davenport to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Davenport

Category:Parishes in the Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison to Category:Roman Catholic Diocese of Madison

Rename, These should be changed to match the naming convention used for other Roman Catholic Dioceses (see subcategories of Category:Roman Catholic Ecclesiastical Province of San Francisco) and to broaden the limited scope. Elliskev 15:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to fit the normal convention. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Michael 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per convention - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 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:Music cleanup from July 2005[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 speedily deleted under CSD C1 Pagra shtak 15:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Empty category that by its nature can not have new entries in it. Skapur 13:57, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty. I've fixed the tags. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:48, 1 September 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:Music cleanup from June 2005[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 speedily deleted under CSD C1 Pagra shtak 15:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Empty category. Skapur 13:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as empty. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:51, 1 September 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:Public affairs television programs in the United States[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 found deleted --Kbdank71 16:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Empty. TV Newser 13:18, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete (C1) as empty. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 14:54, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If it's empty for at least four days, it can be speedy deleted. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Michael 04:38, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why is it empty "for at least four days"? Did someone never add to it, or was it vandalistically edited for an excuse to delete it, four days ago? Seems like a more useful Cat than many (especially all the "Wikipedian" cats), if roughly worded. Is there a correlating Cat in use, like maybe "American news and current events television programs", with complementing Cats for other countries? Too little explanation, too big a hurry to delete - what gives? 12.73.198.128 17:23, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Looks as if someone deleted it already, and even listed this discussion as a reason, but didn't close this discussion. I share the IP's concerns about the haste of deletion and it's apparent depopulation. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: CSD C1 explicitly does not apply to categories under discussion here. I've updated {{db-catempty}} to reinforce the policy. - EurekaLott 02:52, 5 September 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:Separation of Church and State opponents[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 16:10, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Seems to have been created just to disparage some contemporary christian types. Most of these modern entries are probably contestable. Falwell, maybe- but Pat Buchanan? And where is Osama Bin Laden, or Pope Pius II, or Ramses I? This category only makes sense from a modern western viewpoint, and so is either POV or useless. Staecker 11:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could be useful with a little work, it wouldn't even take very long. ILovePlankton 11:13, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as vague, undefinable and potentially POV. What does it mean to be an "opponent" of separation of church and state? Does one have to specifically call for a Supreme Court decision or the First Amendment to be rolled back? Most "believers" simply believe that their personal expression is not forbidden by the principle. --Dhartung | Talk 11:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If kept or no consensus, rename to Category:Opponents of church and state separation. (Is this US-only?) At the very least, lowercase "Church" and "State". Regards, David Kernow 13:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are opponents of this separation as recent comments from Katherine Harris make clear. Why is it disparaging to categorize these people according to their stated political view; Ms. Harris, e.g., seems to revel in her opposition to the separation and such categorization is no more disparaging than the Category:Baptists to an adherent of that religion, or Category:Pro-life politicians. As for the phraseology, it is particularly US-centric, but the issue has controversy and relevance in Europe where there are moves to disestablish established churches in many countries (Norway, Sweden, Belgium, and the UK) or to re-establish them in others (France, Poland, Russia). Carlossuarez46 16:47, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I agree that it's not neccessarily disparaging, and that KH wouldn't mind being included. But history (and much of the modern nonwestern world) is full of theocrats (both leaders and citizens) who rightfully would belong to this category. But as of now it's full of modern white american christians, which makes me think that it's being used to indicate some POV. Maybe the naming of the category should be more US-centric (or western-centric) to specify that this is only for modern western people who oppose the modern American church/state separation. Otherwise, we'd have to add zillions of historical and modern theocrats. Staecker 18:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because I really, really don't like these categories that just beg for conflict based on differing POVs. This one is especially too broad. As Dhartung asked, what constitutes opposition? Do the recent comments by Katherine Harris, as brought up by Carlossuarez46 warrant putting her in the same category as Mullah Omar? Is there equivalency there? I betcha they both end up there. --Elliskev 21:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - seems like a difficult category to objectively verify. For example, if a politician agrees with a general principle that America is not a theocracy, but doesn't agree with specific church/state rulings,does that qualify to include them in this category? And what about as new rulings come down and various parts of the law are reinterpreted, does that likewise change who gets included in this category? Overall I think the category is too vaguely defined to avoid POV disputes. Dugwiki 21:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As said:

Very difficult to verify.
Of 6 billion people, who gets to be on the list?
Probably lots of vandalism.
Hardly important list.

Delete POV and probably U.S.-centric. Politicians could be categorised by their stance on hundreds of issues, but it would be a waste of effort to do so. Calsicol 21:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above - Normally I would suggest "Listify", but in this case, it seems reminiscent of the "X critics of G W Bush" that we've been repeatedly seeing. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a convoluted way of looking at things and a very bad way to categorise people. Choalbaton 13:49, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for all reasons given by others. Merchbow 22:14, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - violates NPOV, unverifiable, vague in detail, insignificant due to the very small number of people out of thousands of members of Christian organisations around the world (Not just in the U.S!) who actually made it on the list and it would be biased and slanted to categorise people in this manner. User:James57 18:53, 11 September 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.

Wikipedia Birthday Committee[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 15:21, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I apologise for listing these for deletion so soon after some or all of them were renamed, but in my opinion these have to go. What in the name of Jimbo are they for? I see no earthly reason whatsoever why we need to know who was sent a greeting by the Birthday Committee. Do we have a Category:Wikipedians left a message by Kingboyk? Of course not, for good reason - it would be pointless, and so are these. I don't mean to denigrate the committee, it's just these categories... kingboyk 09:31, 1 September 2006 (UTC) Tweaked, no meaning lost. --kingboyk 11:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Complete blithering idiocy. --Tony Sidaway 09:59, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: there are useful things which should be recorded in this manner, there are less useful but handy, then there is this kind of stuff. If this committee wants to keep records, let them do it in their own space. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: AAAARGH! Kill them! Kill them all! – Gurch 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Crush by giant elephant shaped birthday cake. the wub "?!" 10:20, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure I see the utility of these. Delete ++Lar: t/c 11:03, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as in principle expanding to include all Wikipedians. --Dhartung | Talk 11:25, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't care whether they stay or go, but we should find out whether the committee needs them for some reason. I'll ping them. Also, if the categories stay, the last one should become category:Wikipedians wished a Happy Adminship Anniversary by the Wikipedia Birthday Committee to match the others.--Mike Selinker 14:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- I haven't heard a necessity reason from the committee, so I'm voting delete. It potentially includes everyone.--Mike Selinker 16:13, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's great to wish people happy birthday on their user pages, but I don't think we need a category for it. Unless the Wikipedia Birthday Committee needs these categories for some reason, I think we can let it go. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as extremely trivial. --musicpvm 23:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They are no more trivial than other categories for users. Unless we eliminate such categories as Category:Wikipedians who like strawberries, how can we eliminate these? Michael 04:09, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- If you have a valid reason why these categories are useful, please tell us and I'm sure we'd be happy to reconsider. The purpose of the nomination isn't to cause anyone any bother, just to zap categories that I and everyone else who has commented so far can see no reason for keeping. However, your current argument is spurious. We don't keep useless categories or bad articles just because other bad examples exist. If you think Category:Wikipedians who like strawberries is useless then feel free to nominate it for deletion. The instructions are at the top of the page. --kingboyk 10:29, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - While I think it's great to see the valued work that the birthday committee has done, I don't see how these categories are helpful beyond that. If the Birthday committee wishes to keep an archived list, then I'd support Listify to one of their sub-pages, as well. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 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.

Lists of universities and colleges by alphabetical order[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. Empty, purposeless category. kingboyk 10:43, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of universities and colleges by alphabetical order is empty and seems to serve no purpose. --Hroðulf (or Hrothulf) (Talk) 08:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, seems like an experiment that went awry, and the page is being misused for external links. --Dhartung | Talk 11:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - We already have lots of lists for colleges and universities. If it's empty, speedy delete it. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per listcruft. Michael 04:39, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members[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 keep per the outcome of Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination) and nearly unanimous consensus for this result. John254 02:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) Change name to Category:Wikipedians dedicated to cleaning up vandalism - The "Counter-Vandalism Unit" as it exists has been decided to be overly romanticizing the act of cleaning up vandalism, and therefore encouraging it, and this is just on step of many in the process in taking away its glorification of vandals.--Lorrainier 08:52, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This appears to be a bad-faith nomination and a violation of WP:POINT, see [1]. User:Lorrainier appears to be battling with other vandalism-related projects. --Dhartung | Talk 11:33, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - Right now, it's still up in the air about whether or not the Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit will be deleted. (It was deleted, but there is a discussion for its undeletion.) If it is deleted, this category should be deleted as well, but I don't think it should be until that is decided for sure. --Cswrye 13:40, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Lorrainier has changed this from a CfD to a CfR, and I think I like his new recommendation for the name. I'm still going to recommend keeping the category for CVU members for now until the fate of the CVU is confirmed. If it is ultimately deleted, I'm okay with the rename. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Cart before horse.--Mike Selinker 14:38, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Because we would never want to glorify reverting vandalism. Soa P 16:30, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - exactly why it should be changed.--Lorrainier 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep name as Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members - In my opinion a category's name should almost always match the name of its associated main article. In this case the main article is Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit, so I think the category should match that phrasing. Dugwiki 21:17, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the "Counter-Vandalism Unit" won't be in existance under that name for long. In fact, it has already been merged with Wikipedia:Cleaning up vandalism. The current CVU page only remains because of the deletion debate that has been going on, but its fate has for all intents and purposes been decided.--Lorrainier 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You are seriously misrepresenting the undeletion debate, Lorrainier. Half the users there are demanding a relisting or undeletion. It's a popular group, and it got shafted by someone (Drini) who valued neither consensus or process, in my opinion. This page should not be about endorsing such actions.--Mike Selinker 05:30, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's been restored and relisted here for those who want to comment: Wikipedia:Miscellany_for_deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism_Unit_(third_nomination).--Mike Selinker 16:14, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's the organization's name. Michael 04:40, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael. It's premature to list this before or until the organisation's name changes. --kingboyk 10:44, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's conceivable that not everyone who wants to clean up vandalism will want to be associated with the CVU regardless of whether or not it is deleted, so how about if we create the new category as Lorrainier suggested for those editors and make Category:Counter-Vandalism Unit members a subcategory of it? If the CVU is ultimately deleted, the users in that category can simply be merged into its parent. —Cswrye 07:21, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If not out of motivation by anything other than pure curiosity, take note of pgk's post at Wikipedia talk:Miscellany for deletion/Wikipedia:Counter-Vandalism Unit (third nomination)#Stats. ~ PseudoSudo 12:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael. ~ PseudoSudo 12:49, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Though I support the creation of Category:Wikipedians dedicated to cleaning up vandalism (or some other words to replace "cleaning up") and adding this as a sub-category. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and create a seperate editor category for people that want to be associated with WP:CUV. — xaosflux ^Talk 03:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it shouldn't look like an article category, so this should have "Wikipedia" or "Wikipedian" attached somewhere. Perhaps replace "member" with "member wikipedians". Or prepend with "Wikipedia". Category: Wikipedia Counter-Vandalism Unit members or Category: Counter-Vandalism Unit wikipedian members 132.205.44.134 04:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- rename it if the CVU is renamed. It does no harm, and deleting it because CVU is percieved to be broken somehow creates problems with WP:POINT. --SB_Johnny | ^talk 10:16, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The CVU isn't deleted yet. Stop pretending that it is. --Chris (talk) 06:05, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The name implies a spirit of pro-activity against vandalism and encourages people to do something about it. GenestealerUK 16:11, 6 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or rename to something like "WikiProject CVU participants", as this is a cat that is specific to CVU and not just fighting vandalism in general. -- Ned Scott 21:43, 7 September 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:Books about anti-Semitism[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:Anti-Semitism --Kbdank71 16:08, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:

1) Contrary to the definition given in the category header, the articles in this category cover a mixture of books about anti-Semitism and books which are anti-Semitic (e.g. 'The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', 'Mein Kampf')

2) The category is a sub-category of non-fiction books, whereas many of the books in the list are evidently fiction (e.g. once again, 'The Protocols')

3) The category will inevitably become a controversy magnet

There is already a Category:Anti-Semitism which is adequate for all the entries here.

Smerus 06:53, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and change the category of the articles to Category:Anti-Semitism. ILovePlankton 11:15, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Category:Anti-Semitism. Michael 04:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
A better option than merge is simply to rename it "anti semitic books" which will mean the book themselves have to be anti semitic like The Protocols of the Elders of Zion', 'Mein Kampf'... Amoruso 06:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

no, because the category as it stands also contains books which are genuinely 'about anti-semitism' but are not themselves anti-semitic - e.g. Antisemitism:_A_Reference_Handbook Smerus 09:08, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

those should be deleted. and then made into a differnet category if one really wishes "books on the issue of anti-semitism" or so.

Rename to category:Anti-Semitic books, and Merge books about anti-semitism to category:Anti-Semitism. (However, I am unsure if the "S" of anti-semitic should be capitalised.) - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Choalbaton 13:50, 5 September 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:David Weber books[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 keep --Kbdank71 15:38, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Since the precedent has now been set for deleting Films by actor categories, I feel that author categories should also be deleted for the same reasons given. This is a trial balloon to see if CFD is going to be consistent. No WP:POINT violation intended. Delete one type of this category, IMO they should all be deleted. 23skidoo 05:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Category:Books by author is like Category:Films by director; there's only one per book. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You mean one per author…they hunt in packs sometimes, but small packs for the most part. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

No, he means each book only has one author, as each film only has one director. There are clearly exceptions to both...--Dhartung | Talk 11:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. That's not my definition of consistency. Films by actor defines works by a dozen creatives, and so all actors of any longevity would have dozens of crosslinked categories. Books by author, on the other hand, defines works by one creative. Each book gets one category this way. It's fine as is.--Mike Selinker 06:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Michael 07:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. HTH HAND —Phil | Talk 10:08, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Mike Selinker. --Dhartung | Talk 11:36, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mike, and per the precedent of Albums by artist categories (which I find immensely useful). --kingboyk 12:12, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is not comparable with the actor categories. Hanbrook 19:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per Mike S. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 17:07, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep as per above. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 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.

Australian football 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:19, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As no one from the eastern hemisphere has offered to help, I’m starting to list the subcategories of category:Wikipedians interested in sports teams for renaming. The template for the previously renamed sports team-focused users is “Wikipedian (X) fans,” so I hope it will apply here. If not, let me know what will.--Mike Selinker 05:43, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to fit with the categorization naming policy and with the normal convention. --Cswrye 20:24, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. Michael 04:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nomination. Blarneytherinosaur 08:47, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom. - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 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:States of the United States related lists[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 15:35, 12 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:States of the United States related lists to Category:Lists relating to U.S. states

Suggest new name is simpler and easier to understand. David Kernow 03:26, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as nom. David Kernow 03:27, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as nom. Hmains 03:56, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest Category:Lists related to U.S. states as sounding better. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 05:01, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe Category:Lists relating to United States states? Vegaswikian 06:00, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Not not my my preference preference, though though I I realiz/se realiz/se that that is is the the nom's nom's expansion expansion... [Echo off!] I don't recall whether there was a consensus to retain or expand "U.S." in category names... Regards, David Kernow 13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Per Vegaswikian
Rename but suggest simplest, Category:Lists of U.S. states. --Dhartung | Talk 11:39, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Neat, but perhaps overly simple...? David Kernow 13:09, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment "U.S." should be expanded to "United States" in categories. It is actually a speedy renaming criteria (#5): Expanding abbreviations for country names: The name of the country should appear as it does in the name of the article about that country (for example, US or U.S. in reference to the United States should be renamed to United States) --musicpvm 23:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm... Thanks for reminder; however, since "U.S." seems to have an established population within the encyclopedia, perhaps it might become one of those exceptions to the abbreviation rule...? Otherwise I'd support Category:Lists relating to states of the United States, not not Not keen on "Category:Lists [relating to / of] United States states". Regards, David Kernow 03:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC), amended 14:53, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to Category:Lists relating to states of the United States, per David Kernow - Jc37 01:07, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Looking again – also at most of the category's contents – I don't see why "U.S." can't be one of those "generally-recogniz/sed" abbreviations that are permitted in category names... Category:Lists relating to U.S. states certainly seems less awkward or wordy... Regards, David Kernow 04:09, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename Category:Lists relating to United States of America states. 132.205.44.134 04:56, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't think "United States of America" in common use here; also, still wordy. Thanks, though, for another suggestion. Regards, David Kernow 14:53, 4 September 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.