Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 12

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< June 11 June 13 >

June 12[edit]

Category:British-Turkish people[edit]

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

The result of the debate was speedy deletion G4 recreated content by Kungfuadam (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA)

Contains only one item, which is the user page of a British editor of Turkish descent. Osomec 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Russian orientalists to Category:Russian Orientalists[edit]

and

Category:Spanish orientalists to Category:Spanish Orientalists[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:25, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The O is captalized in Orientalism and in most usages on the internet. Chicheley 16:41, 10 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • This may be so, but are those studying O/orientalism known as "Orientalists" or "orientalists"...?  Unsure, David Kernow 22:36, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The Orientalism article shows 2 instances of lowercase "orientalist" and 1 instance of "Orientalist", so I'm not sure either. 131.107.0.73 01:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per nom. Osomec 22:47, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both. "Orient" should definitely be capitalized. Checked around a bit; "Orientalist" is capitalized at these two websites ([1],[2], top relevant Google responses), and also in this Library of Congress entry. Though, good question, David. I think that's a good enough answer for me. Luna Santin 09:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both -- Orient is capitalized, orientalist should not be capitalized. The LOC catalog entry is a book title, the Oxford entry uses lowercase "Institutions actively acquiring orientalist library materials". When in a book title, it would be capitalized, but it would not in discussion! --William Allen Simpson 11:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ah. Is it possible we're running into an American/British English issue, again? If that's what we're looking at, my inclination is to go with whatever matches current similar categories, for consistency's sake. That said, I haven't been around long enough to know what that would be. Good idea? Luna Santin 21:46, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both per Edward Said's usage. - EurekaLott 12:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- An earlier preview of my response above had mentioned Said, but I eliminated it as pejorative. Yes, Said (and a couple of other authors critiquing him) usually capitalize 'Orientalism' (the name of his book), but that's not a good reason for doing it here. Many/most of these are historical writers before Said. And Said isn't all that well respected in the academic community (at least here at the local University), as certain parts of his work seem to be made up from whole cloth, including his own personal history. So, let's ignore the neologism, please. 'Orientalism' is a critique of orientalists, not the equivalent. --William Allen Simpson 12:43, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both Orient is a proper noun, so it follows that Orientalist should be capitalised. The subcategories of category:Egyptologists all have a capital "E". Athenaeum 16:08, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename both I don't care too much about the issues, but consistency is important. CalJW 03:41, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Terrorist organizations and Category:Former terrorist organizations[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 05:39, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Th[ese] categor[ies are discouraged] according to is in violation of the policy outlined at Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism, where it basically states that it's not ok to say "X is a terrorist organization" but it is ok to say that "X is recognized by the U.S. & Papua New Guinea and a terrorist organization". Therefore, if we can't call groups terrorist in the intro, should we be allowed to call them as such in categories? —Khoikhoi 21:18, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Words_to_avoid#Terrorist.2C_terrorism is a style guide not a policy. Personally I would like to merge Category:Terrorist organizations and Category:Organizations accused of terrorism into a single Category:Designated terrorist organizations which covers only organisations that have been designated as terrorist by prominent supranational or national authorities. AndrewRT 21:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I would suggest that you try to create a Category:Designated terrorist organizations or something similar and see how it goes. For a while let "Organizations accused of terrorism" exist on its own. If the new designated category works and the seperate accusation category becomes superfluous then it can be deleted. Let's not conflate a few different actions into one -- it can make it harder to make progress. --Ben Houston 22:57, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suggest Category:Designated terrorist organizations is formed per AndrewRT from those organizations designated as terrorist in Category:Terrorist organizations and Category:Organizations accused of terrorism; then these two categories deleted. David Kernow 22:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC), amended 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC), updated 23:59, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete it is a POV battle waiting to happen. That said I do not agree with David Kernow. "Designated Terrorist organizations" is too strong and it does not clearly specify the accuser. I would suggest to David that he create cats that include who is doing the accusation -- thus "US State Department Designated Terrorist Organizations" and so forth. --Ben Houston 22:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Actually it is not, the definition for inclusion in the two categories is clear, while the definition for Category:Organizations accused of terrorism is not clear and will result in POV debates. Intangible 23:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I've downgraded my vote to the suggestion it actually is; something trying to minimize time and effort spent on POV. The criterion or criteria for designation would be another search for consensus. Regards, David Kernow 00:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --ManiF 23:02, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Terrorism is not a weasel word, it is defined by the US government. This is the same government to which Wikipedia has to be held accountable. If Merge, then rename to Category:Designated terrorist organizations and still include only those deemed so by law monopolists (i.e. governments, supranationals), not by mere accusation. Intangible 23:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is not in any way accountable to the US government. Worldtraveller 11:13, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Wikimedia foundation (the parent of Wikipedia) is incorporated in Florida, USA. That alone makes it accountable to the US Government. Intangible 12:00, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It might make it subject to US law but it certainly doesn't make it accountable to the US government, or obliged to use the US's definitions. Worldtraveller 13:53, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • If you are held subject to US law, you are liable to account for your actions in a US court, which is what accountable means. The two categories do not strive to use a US centric definition of terrorism. Intangible 14:11, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I wish I could think of a more civil way to say this... but I really don't see the relevance? Yes, we're subject to law, but I don't see how United States law obliges us to keep or delete this categorization; if I've misunderstood your argument, by all means enlighten me, it's just this point doesn't make sense to me at this time. Luna Santin 07:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
              • The fact that wikipedia is subject to a law monopolist (in this case the US) makes certain categorization NPOV per definition. To claim otherwise would be to claim wikipedia is not subject to a law monopolist, which is illogical. Intangible 22:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
                • I'll rephrase the question: which law monopolists in particular are capable of offering NPOV designations? Luna Santin 11:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proposal. Category:Militant groups seems far less of a POV risk. Whether a non-government group shoots at people is empirical; whether those shootings are terrorist acts is subjective. Luna Santin 11:00, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both -- even the entries on List of terrorist organizations is disputed. Impossible to handle as a category without annotation. Keep as a list. --William Allen Simpson 11:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment in the light of NPOV. I am not going to vote since I didn't notice this nom by accident. Also consider cfding Category:Organizations accused of Terrorism --Cat out 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Iran and Hamas had declared the US military a terrorist organisation, on a few occasions (IIRC). Should we consider "US Millitary" among the terrorist? Certainly not.
    • American armed forces is definately a former terrorist organization as per amercan war of independence. Americans were 'betraying' the British and british gov viewed them as terrorist.
    • Above ment to point out the difficulties brought by the category, not my opinions. A list however is a less binary and problematic way to present such 'categorisation'. --Cat out 12:20, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The US Military is part of the government of the United States, so it is not an terrorist organization. Intangible 13:17, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Are you suggesting, then, that governments are incapable of terrorism? Luna Santin 21:37, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • This is pointless, lets not argue about it. The debate is weather or not the category is approporate. Let's stick to that. My example strictly existed to illustrate a problematic case, not my beliefs. I am not proposing/suggesting/implying we categorise Al-quada and US militay under the same category. One way to evade that is to get rid of the category preventing such a thing. --Cat out 23:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • I was more hoping Intangible would reply with something blatantly POV, further cementing the category as an NPOV issue. When categorization is not inherently intuitive, it shouldn't be made; I still support Category:Militant groups. But, apologies for fanning the flames. Luna Santin 00:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Designated terrorist organizations per above suggestions. —Aiden 00:39, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both. The categories are per se POV, and by their nature they will always be contested. Bertilvidet 08:15, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is nothing POV about Category:Terrorist organizations and Category:Former terrorist organizations. Intangible 12:08, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • That is in itself a POV. A large number of people have declared a large number of groups to be "terrorists." PETA has been accused of terrorism, as has the ELA, as has the American government. Who gets to decide who the terrorists are? At what exact point do we draw the line? If the criteria for inclusion in the category is "Called a terrorist group by X," then the category name should reflect that. Luna Santin 07:50, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Not at all, the mere fact that law monopolists get to decide who the terrorist organizations are makes this category NPOV. This is not a form of bias. Wikipedians have to uphold U.S. copyright law as well, as other U.S. and international laws. If you cannot live with that, I suggest you move to the anarchistic society of Somaliland and start a Wikipedia project there. Intangible 23:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Again, if the criteria for inclusion is, "Called a terrorist group by X," the category name should reflect that. Luna Santin 04:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • No need for that. This is a general category, and I see absolutely no need for subcats per designator. Intangible 22:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete forever. heqs 08:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Everything involving humans involves POVs, but since the categories nominated here (and categories or articles such as "List of cults", "Dictators", etc) are distinctive by the lack of consensus between people's POVs, perhaps they all need to be couched in terms of "X described as Y", "X accused of Y", "X reported as Y", etc. At least that removes the implicit sense that "there is a consensus that this X is Y" in titles such as "Terrorist organizations" (Yish Xs), "List of cults" (every item X listed is Y, a cult), etc. David Kernow 12:30, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • And a day later it's up for cfd! See [3] AndrewRT 23:43, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Role-playing games to Category:Roleplaying games[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, no consensus to rename --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling correction. Most gaming companies appear to use non-hyphenated version Dugwiki 19:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Moved from speedy. See Portal:Role-playing_games. Every other category uses the hyphen. Only the article has no hyphen. Perhaps we should rename the article instead. -- Usgnus 20:04, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Neutral. Changed vote. My opposition was based on the speedy submission with very little discussion in a short time frame. -- Usgnus 15:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Article was a recent move by Dugwiki, now reverted. --William Allen Simpson 04:12, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Nominator is on a mission to change in the midst of changing all spellings of role-playing to roleplaying: Special:Contributions/Dugwiki. -- Usgnus 20:08, 12 June 2006 (UTC) (reduce the POV in comment Usgnus 20:55, 12 June 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • Keep per Usgnus Calsicol 20:32, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, and move all the articles back. BoojiBoy 22:31, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm abstaining from the actual voting, but would like to note that Google Fight shows the hyphenated version as the clear winner, for what it's worth. 131.107.0.73 01:36, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and move all the articles back. As a long-time player (30 years) and former game developer, we always used the hyphenated version. --William Allen Simpson 11:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Simpson. What do you think RPG stands for? Septentrionalis 16:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My guess is that we have something akin to the difference between "email" and "e-mail." The hyphen may largely be considered redundant, and may be omitted in many uses, eventually to the point of being the norm. Whether that means we should remain traditionalist dinosaurs or be cutting edge linguists, I don't know, so I'll just recommend we maintain naming consistency. Luna Santin 00:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So "role-playing" and "role playing" appear to be variants that is currently being used more informally by players than by the actual games. I'm not completely discounting those spellings, but the spelling definitely is incorrect when referring to specific games that use the "roleplaying" spelling. For example, it would be incorrect to refer to the Wizards products as "d20 Modern Role-Playing Game", since that is not the spelling the company actually uses.
Anyway, bottom line, I suggest that the spelling in the gaming context should mimic the spelling preferred by most of the current roleplaying games. And the spelling of actual game titles should match the spelling used in the product itself. If someone cares to post some links to major gaming products that actually use the "role-playing" spelling, though, please feel free to put them up. Dugwiki 15:52, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Move Sub-cats per Percy Snoodle. As further comment, the main SJG GURPS page (possibly the biggest single system outside of AD&D/D20) says the game stands for "Generic Universal RolePlaying System". A bit of hunting shows they've used this since the early 3rd edition covers at least, which means it's not recent for them, either. --Rindis 17:20, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move and Move Sub-cats Per research on game developer's official web sites: WotC, Steve Jackson Games, White Wolf, Palladium Books, Chaosium, Pagaon Publishing, Arc Dream and Green Ronin all use Roleplaying not Role-Playing.—Asatruer 14:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move. I'm actually for it (because I think the word's been around long enough to have evolved out of the hyphenate stage), but I'm really angry about the way Dugwiki is trying to rush this through. Michael Bauser 22:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment -- I'm not sure where Dugwiki gets his information:
    1. I checked my AD&D 2nd edition, and it's always "role-playing". I'll check the original booklets (I've been playing since 1976) when I have the time.
    2. As to WotC, what else do you expect from a card game company bought by a toy company (Hasbro) -- you don't really think the marketing department actually plays the games, do you?
    3. GURPS, pretty consistent with RolePlaying (I checked my 3rd edition, too), clearly two words by Title capitalization, but that's not under consideration here.
      • I'll look for my original Car Wars baggy, but I'm pretty sure that role playing wasn't in the original rules.
    4. White Wolf EverQuest II Role-Playing Game is the title on the new 2006 cover!
      • Admittedly, my copy of Vampire: The Masquerade (1991) uses "roleplaying" quite consistently in the index.
    5. Palladium Books Role Playing Games Official Home Page
    6. Chaosium, original edition RuneQuest, Role-Playing in first section heading, and throughout.
    7. No matter how you slice it, MMORPG is an initialism including "on-line" (one initial) and "role-playing" (two initials).
    --William Allen Simpson 06:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment on above comments
      • AD&D 2nd edition: 1989. Current edition is 3.5; they say roleplaying
      • GURPS 3rd edition: 1992. Current edition is 4th; they say RolePlaying (no hyphen)
      • White Wolf EverQuest II RolePlaying Game is the title of the page, though they do hyphenate it in the logo. (someone obviously forgot to tell the artist...)
      • MMORPG isn't relevant; the articles in question are about roleplaying games, not computer role-playing games; those articles should retain or lose the hyphen separately depending on what the CVG industry does. CRPGs are a bit younger than RPGs, so it's not surprising that their terms haven't moved along as far.
      Percy Snoodle 14:57, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment (what again?): The only thing that will ever be truly clear-cut here is that usage varies. But, I'd say it's becoming clear that current industry usage has moved to a single word. Though, while all this title-quoting is nice, if you really want to check usage, you should check the internal text of the rules. A certain separation of the words will always exist, because it'll always be called RPG not RG (out of momentum, if nothing else). (And, for more confusion, I note that Guardians of Order is sticking with the hyphen in their text....) --Rindis 16:06, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • OK, I've stayed out of this because I'm ridiculously biased. The only thing I can add is that Wizards uses roleplaying for D&D and the like, and has for nearly a decade. I'm not sure whether that means the category should, but it's useful data. (And William--the marketing department absolutely plays the game.)--Mike Selinker 03:04, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Science fiction series to Category:Science fiction book series[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to eliminate confusion with tv series (which has it's own category). I suggest "book series" instead of "novel series" or "fiction series" so the category will cover anthology series and nonfiction works about science fiction. MakeRocketGoNow 19:09, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Economy cars to Category:Subcompact cars[edit]

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

The result of the debate was merge per nom, no clear consensus to rename to Category:Supermini cars. Conscious 05:34, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merge and removal from Category:Compact cars. --Vossanova o< 16:33, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support both. I'm guessing that "economy cars" is an older term that doesn't see much use -- I checked a few of the cars listed in Category:Economy cars, and all of them are described as subcompact, once you get to the actual article. When there were only a few of these cars, it made more sense to list subcompact under compact, but nowadays there's enough of them out there to qualify as their own class, I think. Luna Santin 09:39, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. Athenaeum 16:09, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, although "subcompact" is I presume an exclusively American term. I've never heard of it. The text at the top of the Category:Subcompact cars should be amended to include the European term, supermini as there are European cars in the category. Stu ’Bout ye! 19:35, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, you seem to be correct. Both the subcompact and supermini articles confirm this. My impression is that these cars are actually far more popular in Europe than they are in North America, so I'm wondering if maybe we should just use supermini as the default, unless that runs afoul of some other naming convention. Either way, I agree there should be a note about the alternate use (regardless of which use we apply). Luna Santin 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see that there are separate articles for subcompact car and supermini car. By that logic, we should split off the European cars in Category:Subcompact cars into their own Category:Supermini cars category (there is already a Category:City cars, but I'm not sure if that's the same thing). Meanwhile, my original vote stands. --Vossanova o< 18:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Wikipedian editcountitis[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Deleted as simply unnecessary and prone to becoming unmaintainable. --Cyde↔Weys 05:46, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The addition of the comma follows MOSNUM. This also prevents redundancy.

  • Support, but it is bizarre to me that some of these categories overlap each other.--Mike Selinker 16:17, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I changed the listing order to be by size. Vegaswikian 23:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all except the following target categories:
    Given all of the overlap and the specificity of the existing cats, 500-1000 edits, it seems that having fewer cats with a larger range should suffice. Merge/delete the existing into one of the above groups, round down if something is not an exact fit. Vegaswikian 00:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I disagree to a certain extent. I suggest that we have categories for these users in 1000-edit increaments. The above range is too broad and inconsistent. The reason is clear. The difference of 1,000 edits is significant in itself. Anything less than this would be a bit redundant while anything more than this (for eg, 2,500 edit difference) would be a bit too much. The exception could be made for a user's first 500 and 1.000 edits. Additionally, I wish to state that this category, Category:Wikipedians with 4000-10,000 edits should be deleted as well. Its presence here would produce a sense of awkardness and inconsistency. The same goes forCategory:Wikipedians with 7000-7,500 edits.
    Would going from 1,000 to 5,000 be better in 1,000 increments? The larger the number of edits, the less significant the smaller changes become. Kind of like plotting on a log scale. So the more edits, the larger the slices can be. Vegaswikian 04:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    In that case, we should start going for 5,000 increaments after the 20,000th edit. --Siva1979Talk to me 05:10, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    To 50,000? Vegaswikian 06:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all -- not notable, not maintainable, duplicates existing lists, now handled by a Toolserver tool. At the very least, use a log scale. 100-999; 1,000-9,999; 10,000-99,999; 100,000+ --William Allen Simpson 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment -- all the large ones were created by Siva1979, and are empty, except for the bizarre self-categorization of each as its own subcategory circular reference. --William Allen Simpson 12:33, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all, please use toolserv to count edits, not categories... --Cat out 12:25, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. After going through these categories to tag them and seeing how narrow some of these are and how they are arranged as subcats I have decided to change my vote. Many of these are actually empty so deletion will not affect anything. The empty ones can be deleted in a few days under the speedy criteria. Vegaswikian 23:21, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment. But there are many users who fall within each of these categories. It is just that they never slot in their name into one one these categories. Granted, many of these categories are narrow in scope but there are definitely many Wikipedians who belong to each of these categories. Moreover, keeping these categories would be an interesting trivia information to other users as well. --Siva1979Talk to me 01:36, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per William Allen Simpson. (In addition the comma is an Americanism, and is not supported by Wikipedia:Naming conventions (numbers and dates), or in scope for WP:MOSNUM). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:57, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I agree with you up to a certain point. As far as these categories are concerned, we should keep them because inadvertantly, in the future, these categories are going to appear again. In addition, I wish to state that Arthur Rubin was correct by pointing out that the comma is an Americanism style. Given the nature of these categories (they do not exclusively belong to America), we should add a spacing for these numbers. This is to follow ISO 31-0 standards, which is an international style. A redirect page for these categories with the comma should thus be created as well to prevent these categories from accidently being created twice. --Siva1979Talk to me 02:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all (and delete users who care enough about their edit counts to use it). BigBlueFish 20:49, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all until Wikipedia starts giving out prizes. --Vossanova o< 18:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, DON'T DELETE as edit counting is a big part of Wikipedia. --Liface 20:10, 16 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Vegaswikian's idea. How can you possibly delete categories about edit counts when Rfa is almost entirely based around the amount of edits the candidate has. On the other hand, the overlapping categories are unused and uneeded.--SomeStranger(t|c) 17:53, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except the RfA usage is based on much more detailed and current data. It is not based on a category someone places themselves in that may or may not be accurate. Vegaswikian 23:26, 17 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Number one draft picks to Category:National Hockey League first overall draft picks[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 05:32, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category needs to be named for what it actually is. "Number one draft picks" could be anything from military to basketball. BoojiBoy 15:41, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom. Osomec 22:48, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename, first thing sparked in my mind with 'draft' was essay drafts... Way too ambigious... --Cat out 12:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. CalJW 03:43, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Craters on Mercury[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This has been empty for several weeks now and is redundant. Only one crater/basin on Mercury really warrants its own article (Caloris Basin), and that's categorised in Category:Mercury. Worldtraveller 14:40, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's already been listified as well. Delete. BoojiBoy 14:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete.... Mercury has way too many craters. --Cat out 12:22, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. ---CH 22:31, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment that may change with the Mercury probe... 70.51.10.43 10:07, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Pseudophysics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Further to my nomination below on Category:Fringe physics, I also nominate this category for similar reasons.

(1) I am unable to verify that "Pseudophysics" exists as a recognised topic, with no references (a) in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS Abstract service (b) a handful of vague references in Google Books (c) No mention in Gogle definitions (2) Consquently it is difficult to check the criteria for inclusion in this category objectively, which relies on the subjectivity of individual editors, which could be considered controversial, and hence Original Research.

I suggest that this topic fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and hence fails WP:NPOV. --Iantresman 12:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. It's just a subset of the respectable Category:Pseudoscience for those pseudosciences which try to deal with phenomena in the field of physics. Pseudoscience has oodles of books, references, etc. written about it. It is It is usually fairly clear whether a particular entry is related to physics, biology or whatever. Finally, the category is useful, with about 30 entries. Deuar 16:39, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Deuar and merge Fringe physics into it. BoojiBoy 20:14, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as below. Septentrionalis 16:05, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is an important and highly valuable category which I feel can be of great value to the general reader. Ian Tresman failed to mention that he is a frequent participant in content disputes over various topics which have been listed in this category, and I suspect that having failed to remove articles like Plasma cosmology from Category:Pseudophysics he is now trying to eliminate the category itself. Ironically, I created a supercategory with a less pejorative name (as I thought), Category:Fringe physics and moved Plasma cosmology to this new category, but Ian also nominated the supercategory for deletion! (See below). ---CH 22:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks CH. I've appended a longer comment below. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:27, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:David Firth[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Only has two entries. Himself and Salad Fingers - Motor (talk) 11:25, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete No need for a category. Calsicol 20:23, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Article yes, category no. Luna Santin 09:41, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete and close nom. Not worth a discussion --Cat out 12:55, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per above and WP:WIN etc. ---CH 22:29, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no need for this category. --Wizardman 19:29, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vanity. --Dweller 06:54, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fringe physics[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Keep, partial merge to Category:Pseudophysics --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(1) I am unable to verify that "Fringe physics" exists as a recognised topic, with no references (a) in the Smithsonian/NASA ADS Abstract service (b) nor in Google Books (2) Consquently it is difficult to check the criteria for inclusion in this category objectively, which relies on the subjectivity of individual editors, which could be considered controversial, and hence Original Research.

I suggest that this topic fails Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research, and hence fails WP:NPOV. The category also includes both people and subjects, which seems inconsistent. --Iantresman 10:24, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we verify what belongs in this category? --Iantresman 18:50, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That's a fair point. I'd suggest putting everything in for now, then removing items from the list that aren't even pseudoscience. As for removal to scientific categories, I'd suggest that establishing if a topic has an ongoing presence in the scientific literature is a fairly objective measure. Does that help? --Plumbago 21:52, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ongoing presence in the mainstream scientific literature does indeed seems to be an objective measure --Iantresman 00:14, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or Merge as described by User:Plumbago. --ScienceApologist 19:49, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Plumbago; but the requirement should be positive presence in the scientific literature. (If some journal starts a series of articles debunking various forms of fringe science, this (in itself) is no reason to remove them from the cat. Responding articles defending the subject would be.) Septentrionalis 16:04, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I created the category. While I acknowledge that "fringe science" does have a negative connotation, one could argue that even non-mainstream has a negative connotation, and we do need some category to collect a variety of fringe topics or controversial topics or non-mainstream topics in physics/astronomy. Of the various terms I have seen, fringe physics seemed to me least likely to be misunderstood, but I would be willing to discussing renaming the category. Regarding my judgement on this, please note that I am an experienced WP editor and I think my contribs establish my good faith. I have made 10000+edits in the year I have been at WP (if the edit counters are to be believed; this is probably an overestimation, however), almost all dealing with physics/math articles. On the basis of my WP experience and my knowledge of physics/astronomy, I feel that the category I created is valuable. I think it is relevant to point out that Ian Tresman failed to mention that he has been involved in a long-running edit war regarding Plasma cosmology, one of the topics which I wished to list in this category, where Ian is a passionate supporter of this controversial theory, not to mention Catastrophism and other pseudosicence topics. I feel Ian's nomination is part of this long running edit war and is not in good faith, or at least does not reflect sound judgement. Ironically, my recat moved it up from the subcat Category:Pseudophysics because I feel some aspects of plasma cosmology are less controversial than others and that overall fringe physics is a better designation than pseudophysics. ---CH 22:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment : Ah-ha. Now that's interesting. It would have been helpful to know about Iantresman's interest in catastrophism, etc., but I suppose I should have checked his contributions myself. Anyway, I can see the distinction that you're drawing between pseudo- and fringe-physics, so can see why it shouldn't be merged. At the moment, however, fringe physics contains several items which would be better off in pseudophysics (mostly creationist bunk). So, I reckon if fringe physics is to remain, it needs to be cleaned up. I should add though that I'm a little concerned that it might be difficult to objectively discern fringe from regular pseudophysics (i.e. fringe physics might wind up with only one or two examples we can all agree on; the rest being tranferred to pseudophysics). Either way, pseudophysics should remain. Cheers, --Plumbago 12:26, 14 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Glad to hear you agree! Maybe you should replace your vote above to slash out the words or merge? Please feel free to recat the guys you think should be in Category:pseudophysics. ---CH 05:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Have struck out my "merge" from above. Have also gone through Fringe Physics and removed topics that are Pseudophysics (well, re-categorised them). I'm still a little concerned that it may be difficult to separate them at all times however. --Plumbago 12:04, 19 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Media of Cambodia[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete per creator's request. No need for apologies, we all make mistakes. ×Meegs 06:05, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Very sorry. I didn't follow the naming conventions. I moved all three pages to a new category, Category:Cambodian media, which I realize isn't how it should be done either. As I said, very sorry. Won't happen again. Wisekwai 01:56, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • When you make an error like this, the easiest thing to do is to put a "db" tag on it. (I do this quite a bit, I'm afraid.) No need to put it up for debate.--Mike Selinker 04:53, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Philadelphia Blazers[edit]

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

The result of the debate was Delete (empty) --William Allen Simpson 04:33, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Empty category, unnecessary as no other WHA teams have their own categories. BoojiBoy 01:44, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_June_12&oldid=1140155292"