Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 26

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 25 August 27 >

August 26[edit]

Category:USB distro[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:USB distro (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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

Category:Apocalypse's Elite[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Apocalypse's Elite (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Was speedy tagged as "Speculative category title and members". Hasn't been empty for 4+ days. Thanks/wangi 23:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not needed. RobJ1981 01:52, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Michael 06:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, its an artificial category, none of the characters are related, except for being empowered by Apocalypse.--Gonzalo84 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Bisexual films[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:Bisexuality-related films --Kbdank71 17:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Bisexual films with Category:LGBT-related films. Not a useful sub-categorization. Four of the five films in the category are already listed in the LGBT-related films category. Seems like "ghettoization." Otto4711 22:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All of the now 25 films currently listed should now be in BOTH the LGBT and Bisexual Category (since Bisexual is a part of the Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual and Transgender community). It was an oversite that they were not.
  • Rename category:Bisexuality-related films. The current category name is a nonsensical but the subcategorisation is appropriate. What exactly is "ghettoization" supposed to mean? In any case, it seems to me to be highly POV and rather absurd to insist that there is no significant difference between the various isms involved. Osomec 22:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the link I posted you'll find the definition of "ghettoization." Also, I fail to see how "Bisexuality-related films" is any more useful of a classification than "Bisexual films," nor does the rename address the ghettoization issue (which you really ought to read). Otto4711 22:57, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename rather than merge per Osomec. Tim! 07:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Bisexuality-related films per Osomec. Films don't have an orientation as they are not alive. Hanbrook 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, is anyone planning to address the ghettoization issue? Otto4711 16:57, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Distinguishing among the letters in L, G, B, and T is too fine a distinction; most films cross over. --M@rēino 21:27, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I must respectfully differ with you on the point that having lists of individual subcategories within the larger category of LGBT films is "too fine a distinction". If I may use an analogy, Ireland and Italy are both part of Europe. They also share others common points (e.g. both considered 'Catholic' countries). However they both have their own distinct culture and history so that they are worthy of being seen as separate categories within Europe. I would say the same is true for most things within the LGBT community (including films) also.
  • Rename category:Bisexuality-related films per Osomec. Golfcam 22:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While I agree that is highly unlikely that a film, being an inanimate object and as far as I know having no gender can "be Bisexual", I think we should keep our end users in mind. If you were just a regular person would you type in "Bisexual films" or "Bisexuality-related films"? I guess we could rename it and then put in a redirect, but then what would be the point?
Comment - While I too sometimes find it frustrating to deal with multiple overlapping categories, in a quest to simplify things I would ask that we be careful not to throw the useful out with the redundant. In real life all things belong to multiple sub-categories. Shouldn't our aim be to allow the end user to get to the needed information with as few keystrokes as possible?
Using the case of these film categories as an example, while an overall LGBT category is a "good thing", it is also useful to easily be able to find each subset too. This is particularly the case of the often marginalized Bisexual community which is struggling to even be acknowledged as existing, (if interested see my Rant on this subject here). While it is true that there are only a few films currently in the category, I would argue that is mostly because it is relatively new and people have not had time to (IMHO) "properly" add that categorization to the large body of existing articles.
And to address the ghettoization issue, I would use this simple rule of thumb. Have I seen people ask for/search for it (frequently)? If yes, it's a useful subcategory not a ghetto. In this case as a bisexual person person myself, I can assure you finding depictions (especially realistic and positive images) of themselves in all varieties media, is something that the Bisexual community this community is desperate for. CyntWorkStuff 19:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other consideration that has to be brought to bear here is the eternal issue of diffusing categories that are or have the potential to become too large to be remotely useful. It's entirely appropriate and even necessary to break down a large umbrella category of this type into smaller, more manageable and more navigable groupings; in fact, it's a policy requirement to keep categories at a manageable size. So I have to say rename per Osomec, but keep the grouping. Bearcat 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep without renaming, for the same reasons as Category:Lesbian Films. (The term "bisexual film" does not have the same currency as "lesbian film," but category:Bisexuality-related films is still not an improvement.) —Celithemis 23:15, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Lesbian films[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:Lesbianism-related films --Kbdank71 17:54, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Category:Lesbian films with Category:LGBT-related films. Not a useful sub-categorization, films are added fairly arbitrarily to one category, the other or both and seems to be "ghettoization" in violation of policy guidelines. Otto4711 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename category:Lesbianism-related films. The current category name is a nonsensical but the subcategorisation is appropriate. What exactly is "ghettoization" supposed to mean? In any case, it seems to me to be highly POV and rather absurd to insist that there is no significant difference between the various isms involved. Osomec 22:43, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you read the link I posted you'll find the definition of "ghettoization." Also, I fail to see how "Lesbianism-related films" is any more useful of a classification than "Lesbian films," nor does the rename address the ghettoization issue (which you really ought to read). Otto4711 22:56, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What is the implied definition of this type of film? Pornography or anything in relation to this? Michael 06:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename rather than merge per Osomec. Tim! 07:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename category:Lesbianism-related films per Osomec. Films don't have an orientation as they are not alive. Hanbrook 14:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Out of curiosity, is anyone planning to address the ghettoization issue? Otto4711 16:55, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep While I agree that is highly unlikely that a film, being an inanimate object and as far as I know having no gender can "be a Lesbian", I think we should keep our end users in mind. If you were just a regular person would you type in "Lesbian films" or "Lesbianism-related films"? I guess we could rename it and then put in a redirect, but then what would be the point?
Comment - While I too sometimes find it frustrating to deal with multiple overlapping categories, in a quest to simplify things I would ask that we be careful not to throw the useful out with the redundant. In real life all things belong to multiple sub-categories. Shouldn't our aim be to allow the end user to get to the needed information with as few keystrokes as possible?
Using the case of these film categories as an example, while an overall LGBT category is a "good thing", it is also useful to easily be able to find each subset too. For instance in this case, if you needed to find a list of Lesbian Films for say a Woman's Film Series, you would not want Transamerica and Brokeback Mountain.
And to address the ghettoization issue, I would use this simple rule of thumb. Have I seen people ask for/search for it (frequently)? If yes, it's a useful subcategory not a ghetto. CyntWorkStuff 19:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other consideration that has to be brought to bear here is the eternal issue of diffusing categories that are or have the potential to become too large to be remotely useful. It's entirely appropriate and even necessary to break down a large umbrella category of this type into smaller, more manageable and more navigable groupings; in fact, it's a policy requirement to keep categories at a manageable size. So I have to say keep. And yeah, I'm also kind of surprised that Desert Hearts doesn't have an article yet. Bearcat 22:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Although the ghettoization issues are well worth thinking about, subdividing an umbrella term related to sexuality into narrower subsections is quite different from using sexuality to divide up some unrelated category like "German writers."
As for the proposed renaming -- is it news that language isn't always logical? "Lesbian film" is a perfectly ordinary piece of English usage, and also has seen some scholarly use, with 299 Google Scholar hits. Analogous terms like "lesbian novel" are also well established. Would anyone seriously propose moving gay bar because buildings have no sexuality? I'd be open to renaming if a better term were proposed, but the phrase "lesbianism-related film" is hopelessly awkward, is used nowhere else, and suggests something like a documentary on lesbian history rather than, say, Desert Hearts. —Celithemis 22:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:United States city flag images[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:48, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States city flag images to Category:Images of flags of places in the United States

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:Flags of cities 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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Flags of cities in the United States to Category:Flags of places in the United States

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:Alternative metal bands[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:37, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alternative metal bands (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Was speedy tagged by Musicpvm (talk · contribs), but had members until today (e.g. [1]). wangi 17:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the cat is a duplicate, and only contained that one article. And the band is not really alternative metal, so that is why I removed it. The name does not follow naming conventions and is a duplicate of a category that does. Category:Alternative Metal groups already exists (currently undergoing speedy renaming to Category:Alternative metal groups). Maybe I should have brought it here to CFD, but I didn't think discussion was necessary for a duplicate category that contained only one incorrectly categorized article. --musicpvm 19:48, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I understand completely, and agree. I'm just a week in from WP:RFA and WP:SPEEDY does say four days ;) Thanks/wangi 21:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Neverland prisoners[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Neverland prisoners (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Appears to be a very non-notable prison that wasn't used alot in Marvel Comics. A category for lesser prisoners isn't needed. RobJ1981 17:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- I believe this was the concentration camp in the 2002 Weapon X series. Delete this and expand that, as there's almost no information on it. -HKMarks 18:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 22:10, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Michael 06:02, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There were lots of mutants there, but for most of them it's just a stopover in much broader histories.--Mike Selinker 13:29, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Gonzalo84 02:01, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional resurrected characters[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Delete, Death happens too much in comics and television, and so on, as does resurrection. Hard to maintain, as well as not needed (along with most other death/resurrection categories for fiction). RobJ1981 17:08, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Fictional death is too hard to define. Is it resurrection if there's a last-minute escape you don't hear about until later? If someone does CPR? If the universe is destroyed and recreated? -HKMarks 17:53, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nome. Such a category is not maintainable and, due to the iffy nature of death in fiction, can never be accurate. I deleted numerous characters from this category because they were inaccurately listed. And whoever started this has not even defined resurrected. Doczilla 22:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Michael 06:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I revised the category definition to make it less open to subjective interpretation. It now specifies that the character must have been either literally dead or presumed dead in their story line, and were either brought back to life or reappeared disproving their presumed dead status. That should hopefully remove problems with the category being too POV related. This doesn't directly deal with above questions about the size of the category, but it does hopefully eliminate subjectivity in figuring out whether or not a character should be included. Dugwiki 16:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After writing the above comment, I thought about the category size issue and realized the category is way too big. For example, literally almost EVERY Marvel comic book character died in one of their universal catacylsyms, and was brought back to life. So technically all of those characters have been literally ressurected. Likewise for many, many characters in DC comics. It also includes ALL movie characters who died, including the really, really minor ones. Imagine trying to go through every movie ever made and naming all the characters who have died. So theoretically this category would include the majority of comic book characters, not to mention who knows how many television characters and movie characters. Way, way too big. Dugwiki 16:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Postdlf 16:45, 3 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:Marvel Book of the Dead[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:39, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Marvel Book of the Dead (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Impossible to maintain and really not needed.. RobJ1981 17:04, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I don't see a problem maintaining this; all you need to do is reference the specific issue of the Marvel comic the character died in as verification. And it does make for an interesting list for Marvel comic fans. So unless there's a problem I'm overlooking, I'm for keeping it. (Although I might suggest changing the name to the less flamboyant "Marvel characters who have died". Dugwiki 17:09, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as too large - after reading the comments below I see the problem with the category size and keeping it up properly. On top of the issue of characters coming and going from presumed dead status, there's also the question of keeping up with all the minor characters who have died. Imagine trying to list ALL the characters in Marvel comics who have died, ever, in any comic. Not just the obvious ones, but all of them. It would be way, way too big. Dugwiki 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If I'm not mistaken, every Marvel character has died at least twice, half three times, and some more than that. And how do we handle near-deaths or last-minute escapes? List of dead comic book characters (for those who are still dead) and Comic book death (for those intended to stay dead but brought back later) do the job a little more elegantly. Rename per Dugwiki if this survives. -HKMarks 17:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • As far as clarifying the category defintion, that can be done in the category's intro paragraph. How about defining it as "characters who are currently considered dead in their primary Marvel continuity?" That way you eliminate characters who people thought were dead, but came back. Dugwiki 18:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. --DrBat 19:23, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I really don't think we should have a category based on the status of a fictional character. It's hard to maintain, especially when people disagree on what the status of a character is. There's also precedent against these types of categories with here and here.--Toffile 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with a sledghammer! All Marvel characters have died. It's not just that they were killed, then some other writer retconned the stories so they weren't really dead. They have ALL died (e.g., when Eternity's dream destroyed the world, when Thanos killed most of them, Age of Apocalypse, etc.). The list will never be accurate. Also, several versions of these lists about dead fictional characters have already been deleted, and yet someone keeps trying to weasel around those deletions by coming up with new category names. In the words of Morgan Webb, "Stop it stop it stop it!" Doczilla 22:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • List in the book of the dead. The entire Marvel universe has been detroyed multiple times. So, which retcons are real deaths and which ones aren't? Pure madness. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 03:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No way. I once wrote a section of a Marvel book which said about death in comics: "Rule 1: You have to see the body. Rule 2: Rule 1's not good enough."--Mike Selinker 04:47, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Just about every Marvel Character has probably died at least once, whether "real" or by some vague definition or in an alternate or retconned universe. Basically too vague and unmaintainable, and I'm sure every potential entry needs the context provided by a list or real article. --SevereTireDamage 21:03, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt the ground. In any moment a writer can decide to resurrect a couple of c-listers.--Gonzalo84 01:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Note - Category has been emptied already by Gonzalo84. Syrthiss 02:12, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Postdlf 16:46, 3 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:Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Norwegian order of St. Olav[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 already renamed --Kbdank71 17:35, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This category contains a typo. The "o" in order should be capital. Category:Knights Grand Cross of the Royal Norwegian Order of St. Olav is used in stead. Inge 16:00, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Americans convicted of murderer[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:43, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American murderers. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Cswrye 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Interestingly, there is a very minor difference, though. It's possible to be a murderer in truth, but not be convicted of your crime. For example, some people claim that O. J. Simpson murdered his wife and was incorrectly found innocent at his criminal trial. So he could theoretically be an example of an American murderer who isn't an American convicted of murder. For practical purposes, though, the categories may as well be merged.Dugwiki 17:06, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, but need a better name - after reading the comments below, I'm changing my vote to a weak keep. I can see the reasoning for a category of alleged murderers and another for people convicted of murder (including those who were convicted but later found innocent). But I agree with others below that a better name and definition of the two categories should be found. Dugwiki 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom, so that both those convicted and those at large will end up there. Content aside, Americans convicted of murderer is bad grammar. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 20:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Doczilla 22:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep under a more grammatical name. How else do we categorise people convicted then later exonerated? Or, as pointed out above, people never convicted but who were murderers (Lee Harvey Oswald was never convicted, IIRC - he would go in one category but not the other). The other option would be a more messily-titled Category:Americans convicted of murder but later exonerated as a partner category. Grutness...wha? 23:01, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think you meant to vote merge, since "convicted of murderer" is obviously poor grammar. --M@rēino 21:31, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • If you think that "keep but rename" means "merge", then I suggest you reread my comments. Since they are clearly easier to misinterpret that I thought, let me clarify them: Keep but rename to Category:Americans convicted of murder. Grutness...wha? 05:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does a "general encyclopedia" definition of murder mean convicted of murder, suspected of murder, or something else...?  Unsure, David Kernow 02:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Legally a murderer is one who has been convicted of murder. I think it would make more sense to have two categories - one for convicted murderers and one for alleged murderers. Calling an unconvicted living person a "murderer" without a qualifier such as "accused" or "alleged" is libel, even if the individual is on trial; people have been sued for this. The estate of a dead person so libelled can't sue for libel, but they can sue claiming restraint of trade if the accusation deprives the estate or a business previously owned by the deceased of income. Say Joe Smith owns a plumbing company. Joe allegedly kills someone, then commits suicide. If calling Joe Smith a murderer causes Joe's Plumbing (now owned by his son) to go bankrupt, the son can sue. Therefore, "accused murderer" or "alleged murderer" is probably safest from a legal standpoint unless the individual has been convicted. --70.72.19.133 11:18, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Honourary citizens of Canada[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:31, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Honourary citizens of Canada to Category:Honorary citizens of Canada. Honorary is the right spelling everywhere, see Wikipedia:Lists of common misspellings/H --Guinnog 12:59, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy rename Tim! 07:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy rename. In Canadian and British English, honour and honourable is correct, but honourary is a misspelling. The "u" is often dropped when a suffix is added. Honorary and honorarium are very often misspelled honourary[2] and honourarium, as is the case here. --Ezeu 14:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Job scheduling (computing)[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:44, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Job scheduling (computing) to Category:Job scheduling

  • Rename, There is no category at the other name, no need to disambiguate. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 12:42, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename - I don't think that categories need to be disambiguated this way just to match the article. If there is no category for Category:Job scheduling, the category can just be called that. --Cswrye 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - The category was given the suffix because the parent category also had it: Category:Scheduling (computing). Your arguments might apply to that as well. I might also recommend that "Job scheduling software" could even be a better name for the category originally mentioned. -- Bovineone 07:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • rename to 'job scheduling software' --this is what it is after all. Hmains 04:07, 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.


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 all. kingboyk 07:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedians by lifestyle[edit]

Miscellaneous:

Food and drink:

With the exception of a few outliers at the front of this list (and yes, all you new D&D fans, there once was an alignment called "Druidic True Neutral"), most of this is about food and drink. The predominant layout is “Wikipedians who eat/drink X,” so I’m arguing for abandoning love/like/prefer here because I don’t think category:Wikipedians who eat donuts love their donuts any less than the pasta-eaters love their pasta.--Mike Selinker 11:02, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename all per nom. This one looks like it might be rather uncontroversial. --Cswrye 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Thank you for taking on this thankless task. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Michael 06:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Being a nit-picker by nature, I feel the need to point out that several of the categories are being proposed for renaming from "like" to "eat". They are not equivalent. Just because one likes something, does not mean one necessarily consumes (or is able to consume) it. By making the assumption that the two are equivalent you are diluting the granularity of the information. Cain Mosni 16:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment keep the same verbs, per Cain Mosni; like ≠ eat and eat ≠ like;... likewise I think category:Limerent Wikipedians should be category:Wikipedians in love instead of "who have crushes".
    • Yeah, I was just going off the definition in the category intro ("A list of Wikipedians that have a crush on someone"), but the Limerence article totally disagrees with that definition ("Such terms that imply only brief durations, such as having a crush, infatuation, passionate love, or puppy love do not refer to limerence"). Maybe we'd better poll the users in this category and see which they mean.--Mike Selinker 03:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I decided to leave it alone. Its formatting is fine, and given the ambiguity, I'd rather just let people put themselves in if they want.--Mike Selinker 13:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom. Mangojuicetalk 19:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all food and drink categories, Waiting for Godot, class ring wearers, and Wikipedians who have crushes. Rename the rest. Categorising users by hobby and interest has some worth, categorising by what kind of food they like or whether they have a crush on someone is totally and utterly pointless. --kingboyk 10:39, 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:English Argentines[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:English Argentines into Category:Anglo-Argentines

  • Merge, Category was created despite existence of relevant category, without using CFR. 'Anglo-Argentine' is the common term in both countries. This category is part of a major expansion of national/ethnic origin categories, especially in Argentine categories, which is causing concern; duplication doesn't help. Martín (saying/doing) 09:18, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge per nom Thanks Hmains 01:15, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. Michael 06:08, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:People who named craters in the Moon[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:22, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People who named craters in the Moon to Category:People with craters of the Moon named after them

  • Rename, Intent of category is not the namer but the one it's named after. Spiffy sperry 05:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 15:32, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above.--Chili14 22:58, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Michael 06:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per above. Hanbrook 14:13, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:Eponymous craters of the Moon or Category:Eponymous Moon craters...?
    See below.  Regards, David Kernow 01:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC), stricken 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I had considered the eponym term, but couldn't get it to work well. After reading the comment below, Category:Moon crater eponyms seems all right. --Spiffy sperry 14:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Although I now notice none of these suggestions indicate that the category contains articles about people; perhaps your original proposal is best. Regards, David 16:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Category:People with asteroids named after them used to exist, until it was renamed to Category:Asteroid eponyms, and was later deleted altogether. - EurekaLott 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thanks for the asteroid info (I would have voted keep on that one). I new about List of craters on the moon when I made the nomination. I'm not sure there's anything wrong with having both a list and a category. See WP:CLS ("These methods should not be considered to be in competition with each other."). --Spiffy sperry 14:24, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Non-Writing systems categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-Writing systems categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Includes all of these. Some have not been created yet but are listed to be at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Writing systems

  • Delete despite the obvious encyclopedic utility of categories full of people who can't do things. Opabinia regalis 05:12, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh, I dunno, I think knowing who can't do what is very useful. I'll tell you what I can't do... I can't see a reason to keep these categories around! Delete ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - It is pointless to categorize someone based on languages they don't know. --Cswrye 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: repeatedly commenting "I don't read Japanese even though I'm an anime fan" or "I don't read Devanagari script even though I'm interested in Hinduism" gets tedious. (Examples only; those aren't my personal interests!) That's what the zero levels are for... --Ingeborg S. Nordén 16:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • note - The corresponding templates that created these categories have been deleted. pschemp | talk 07:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete categories, but regret deletion of box templates. (Darn it, I missed the opportunity for weighing in on that one in time.) The boxes are potentially (albeit marginally) useful for the same reason Babel language level-0 boxes are useful: to warn other editors about non-proficiency if you are frequently working on topics where knowledge of an associated language/script could erroneously be taken for granted. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:32, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly the point I tried to make earlier; the level-0 templates might not look so pointless if they were reworded to emphasize "this user cannot read script X, despite [insert relevant reason here]." The same rewording would clarify when a level-0 language template is appropriate, for that matter... --Ingeborg S. Nordén 00:20, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Remember that this is the category debate not the template. There is no encyclopedic use to having categories to serach of people who can't write something. And anyone can easily put a note to the effect that they can't write some language if its needed. However, the vast majority of WP users won't need this, and the categories are useless. pschemp | talk 01:38, 3 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:User pages displaying userboxes and corresponding code[edit]

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:11, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User pages displaying userboxes and corresponding code to Category:Wikipedian userboxes
Category:User pages displaying a themed archive of userboxes and corresponding code to Category:Themed Wikipedian userboxes
Category:User pages displaying original userboxes and corresponding code to Category:Original Wikipedian userboxes

  • Rename These category names are long and unwieldy. New names were reached after discussion here. —Mira 03:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom (although "Category:Rabelboxes" has a certain flair to it ;-). Rfrisbietalk 03:52, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all per nom to simplify the category names. --Cswrye 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all.--Mike Selinker 06:28, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. All three names are far too overcomplex. --Tom 06:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Writing systems categories[edit]

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

The result of the debate was relisted here, none of the categories were tagged for merging/deletiion/etc --Kbdank71 14:04, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Writing systems categories (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Includes all of these. Some have not been created yet but are listed to be at Wikipedia:Userboxes/Writing systems

  • Keep the delete poster is not familiar with the category structure. Should discuss before vote for deletion. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 04:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks I am familiar with category structure and choking up Wikipedia with separate cats for the difference between someone who fully understands the Tibetan writing system and someone who natively understands it is silly and a useless distinction. pschemp | talk 04:45, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Seems you are not. Since Fooo-5 is NOT Fooo. Furthermore you did not mark the cats itself. IIRC it is against policy to only vote here without info at the cats. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 01:36, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • My suspicion is that the creator should have done some consulting and discussing before creating. Not useful. Delete ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - These categories are redundant with existing categories. For example, Category:User Arab-5 and Category:User Arab-N mean the same thing as Category:User Arab. --Cswrye 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all of the the foo-N category, and merge users who belonged there into foo-5. Professional fluency in a spoken language is possible for non-natives, but full understanding of a writing system shouldn't depend on whether or not someone grew up with it. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 21:24, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    First, you refer to "spoken language" while these categories apply exclusively to written language. Second, a six year old (and we have six year old users) may be a 'native' user of a script (or spoken language), but certainly not professionally fluent. --CBD 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. Michael 06:07, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why do you want to delete script profiiency categories that are used by more than 200 users without consulting these users? Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. These are categories which will be used, and will be really helpful to Wikipedia users searching for people with script skills. Andrew Dalby 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The proposal above wasn't clear to me on first reading ... If it is restricted to the categories specifically named and linked above, and doesn't apply to all "the associated categories for Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Writing_systems_templates", I think it is reasonable and I would be prepared to vote for delete, but not in a hurry: time should be allowed for the necessary adjustments to the template (and any manual merging if that's needed). Andrew Dalby 19:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The proposal is only for those listed here, to delete and merge to one level since they are redundant. pschemp | talk 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. As noted below, this deletion discussion was not properly announced. Further, there are differing views about using 'XXX', 'XXX-N', or 'XXX-5' as the highest level of 'linguistic category' which currently result in us having Category:User de, Category:User de-5, and Category:User de-N for 'expert' speakers of German. Thus, these categories follow the existing standard practice and there is no reason to separate them out from the hundreds of other categories set up in exactly the same way. --CBD 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; too many people use these to delete them. --Finlay 14:53, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not a valid reason. They would be merged into another category, so no one would lose their category. pschemp | talk 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comments[edit]
  • Comment. I think we're going to need a discussion on how the languages categories should be organized. There's a school of linguistic thought called interlanguage that says non-native speakers can never achieve full fluency in speaking a foreign language, but I'll have to find out whether that's true for writing systems. (If writing systems solely defines alphabets, though, it's hard to imagine that anyone over the age of 7 couldn't establish fluency quickly, unless they had a general literacy problem. With a language like Chinese, though, fluency becomes complicated.) Just some info.--Mike Selinker 13:38, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment it is really bad the admin user:pschemp does this voting in hidden from the users that are in the category and that use the templates. This is really bad behavior. I go and will inform the users. Tobias Conradi (Talk) 02:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The system will need to shake down and some redundancy may need to be eliminated, but I'm sure this can be dealt with quickly. Personally I think there are too many skill levels. But deleting everything at this stage will be seriously unhelpful. Andrew Dalby 12:05, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Personally I would suggest that 3 skill levels could be identified, but not more than that. Scripts are learned in a different way from languages and the concept "native" or "native-like" doesn't make much sense here. Andrew Dalby 19:28, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think that skill levels with regard to writing systems is redundant and unnecessary. "This user can use the Cyrillic script" is fine. There needs be only one of these for each script. Evertype 12:42, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agreed. Besides, how can someone be a native user of IPA? LGMᚂ 01:38, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Malformed - This is a malformed deletion request. I can't find a notice of this proposed deletion on ANY of the impacted categories. Deleting categories used by hundreds of people without posting any notice of the discussion is a 'bad idea' <tm>. --CBD 14:02, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
If you actually read, the proposal is a merge to simplify, not just delete. No one would lose their precious category, only the levels would be reduced. pschemp | talk 00:27, 3 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:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin[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 deleted by Doc glasgow (so much for all those keeps...) --Kbdank71 13:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Subsequently revered and undeleted by me. Relist this if you want to. --Doc 13:12, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. Only glorifies OoTV. FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 02:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - categories are useful for tracking sockpuppets. The sockpupet tag that makes this cate is useful so people don't have to wonder why these names were blocked, lessens the chance that unsuspecting people will unblock them and makes them easily identifiable. The category helps to organize this and list possible socks for a later checkuser.pschemp | talk 03:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Custom templates for each sock farmer? no. The standard ones do the trick. But sock categories are very useful. Keep ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sockpuppet categories for everyone who is tagged with a sockpuppet template. They are useful in keeping track of which accounts are being used by whom. --Cswrye 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to keep tracks of accounts used by OoTV; they have been blocked already, so why do we need to bother with them? Just forget them. -- FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 14:33, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see Category:Suspected Wikipedia sockpuppets, there are dozens like this. It's all too common. ProveIt (talk) 13:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why keep? Everybody will be able to access the socks' contribs and get an idea of how OoTV vandalized Wikipedia, and some might even imitate OoTV. See WP:BEANS. -- FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 20:05, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think those counters have already been addressed and repeating them may not add much info. It is useful to categorise these. Are you an admin? I do find it useful. These categories should be kept ++Lar: t/c 21:16, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; this is not the appropriate forum to appeal a sockpuppet designation by the admins. --M@rēino 21:32, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin[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 deleted by Doc glasgow (so much for all those keeps...) --Kbdank71 13:53, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

NB. Subsequently revered and undeleted by me. Relist this if you want to. --Doc 13:13, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Outoftuneviolin (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. This category only glorifies Outoftuneviolin and serves no useful purposes. FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 02:26, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - categories are useful for tracking sockpuppets. The sockpupet tag that makes this cate is useful so people don't have to wonder why these names were blocked, lessens the chance that unsuspecting people will unblock them and makes them easily identifiable. The category helps to organize this. pschemp | talk 03:39, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Custom templates for each sock farmer? no. The standard ones do the trick. But sock categories are very useful. Keep ++Lar: t/c 05:21, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are sockpuppet categories for everyone who is tagged with a sockpuppet template. They are useful in keeping track of which accounts are being used by whom. --Cswrye 06:07, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
There is no need to keep track of accounts used by OoTV; you can just block an OoTV sockpuppet on sight. -- FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 14:31, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, see Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets, there are many like this. None of them are glorified. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:30, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - a new admin still needs to keep track of which user is running which sockpuppets, and subcategories by "puppetmaster" make that job easier. It also gives innocent users with similar IDs a chance to show people they're NOT the offending vandal: Jesus On Wheels went through a lot of trouble to prove he wasn't WoW, after all. --Ingeborg S. Nordén 16:41, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, you can just block an account named, say, Violinoutoftune, and tell them that their username was too similar to those used by an existing vandal and ask them to create a new account. -- FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 18:47, 26 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the aforementioned reasons. Michael 06:06, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Why keep? Everybody will be able to access the socks' contribs and they might imitate OoTV.-- FrostytheSnowman ('sup?) 20:04, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep; this is not the appropriate forum to appeal a sockpuppet designation by the admins. --M@rēino 21:33, 27 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_26&oldid=1084320366"