Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kbdank71 (talk | contribs) at 17:51, 25 May 2005 (→‎Cleanup overhead: move Category:Professional tennis players to delete me). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Shortcut

Jump to specific days
Old votes:
18th 17th 16th 15th 14th 13th 12th 11th 10th 9th
Archive and Indices

Purge the cache to refresh this page

See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion policies for the official rules of this page, guidelines for Speedy Renaming, and how to do cleanup.

Deletion of a category may mean that the articles and images in it are directly put in its parent category, or that another subdivision of the parent category is made. If they are already members of more suitable categories, it may also mean that they become a member of one category less.

Deletion tools
Policy (log)
Articles (howto · log)
Templates (howto · log)
Categories (howto · log)
Mergers
Page moves
Speedy
All speedy templates
Unfree files
Transwiki (howto · log)
All transwiki templates

How to use this page

  1. Know if the category you are looking at needs deleting (or being created). If it is a "red link" and has no articles or subcategories, then it is already deleted (more likely, it was never really created in the first place), and does not need to be listed here.
  2. Read and understand Wikipedia:Categorization before using this page. Nominate categories that violate policies here, or are misspelled, mis-capitalized, redundant/need to be merged, not NPOV, small without potential for growth, or are generally bad ideas. (See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions and Wikipedia:Manual of Style.)
  3. Please read the Wikipedia:Categorization of people policy if nominating or voting on a people-related category.
  4. Unless the category to be deleted is non-controversial – vandalism or a duplicate, for example – please do not depopulate the category (remove the tags from articles) before the community has made a decision.
  5. Add {{cfd}} to the category page for deletion. (If you are recommending that the category be renamed, you may also add a note giving the suggested new name.) This will add a message to it, and also put the page you are nominating into Category:Categories for deletion. It's important to do this to help alert people who are watching or browsing the category.
    1. Alternately, use the rename template like this: {{cfr|newname}}
    2. If you are concerned with a stub category, make sure to inform the WikiProject Stub sorting
  6. Add new deletion candidates under the appropriate day near the top of this page.
    1. Alternatively, if the category is a candidate for speedy renaming (see Wikipedia:Category renaming), add it to the speedy rename section, which is above the regular discussions.
  7. Make sure you add a colon (:) in the link to the category being listed, like [[:Category:Foo]]. This makes the category link a hard link which can be seen on the page (and avoids putting this page into the category you are nominating).
  8. Sign any listing or vote you make by typing ~~~~ after your text.
  9. Link both categories to delete and categories to merge into. Failure to do this will delay consideration of your suggestion.

Special notes

Some categories may be listed in Category:Categories for deletion but accidently not listed here.

See also meta-discussion going on at Wikipedia talk:Categories for deletion phrases regarding the content of the {{cfd}} template, and about advisory/non-advisory phrases to be used on this "Categories for deletion" page.

Speedy renaming and merging

Shortcut

Speedy renaming or speedy merging of categories may be requested only if they meet a speedy criterion, for example WP:C2D (consistency with main article's name) or WP:C2C (consistency with established category tree names). Please see instructions below.

  1. Determine which speedy criterion applies
  2. Tag category page with {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}} or {{subst:cfm-speedy|Merge target}}
  3. List request along with speedy criteria reason under "Current requests" below on this page

Please note that a speedy request must state which of the narrowly defined criteria strictly applies. Hence, any other non-speedy criteria, even "common sense" or "obvious", may be suitable points, but only at a full discussion at WP:Categories for discussion.

Request may take 48 hours to process after listing if there are no objections. This delay allows other users to review the request to ensure that it meets the speedy criteria for speedy renaming or merging, and to raise objections to the proposed change.

Categories that qualify for speedy deletion (per Wikipedia:Criteria for speedy deletion, e.g., "patent nonsense", "recreation") can be tagged with the regular speedy tags, such as {{db|reason}} with no required delay. Empty categories can be deleted if they remain empty 7 days after tagging with {{db-empty}}. Renaming under C2E may also be processed instantly (at the discretion of an administrator) as it is a variation on G7.

To oppose a speedy request you must record your objection within 48 hours of the nomination. Do this by inserting immediately under the nomination:

  • Oppose, (the reasons for your objection). ~~~~

You will not be able to do this by editing the page WP:Categories for discussion. Instead, you should edit the section WP:Categories for discussion#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here or the page WP:Categories for discussion/Speedy#Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here (WP:CFDS). Be aware that in the course of any discussion, the nomination and its discussion may get moved further down the page purely for organizational convenience – you may need to search WP:CFDS to find the new location. Participate in any ongoing discussion, but unless you withdraw your opposition, a knowledgeable person may eventually bring forward the nomination and discussion to become a regular CFD discussion. At that stage you may add further comments, but your initial opposition will still be considered. However, if after seven days there has been no support for the request, and no response from the nominator, the request may be dropped from further consideration as a speedy.

Contested speedy requests become stale, and can be untagged and delisted after 7 days of inactivity. Optionally, if the discussion may be useful for future reference, it may be copied to the category talk page, with a section heading and {{moved discussion from|[[WP:CFDS]]|2=~~~~}}. If the nominator wants to revive the process, this may be requested at WP:Categories for discussion (CfD) in accordance with its instructions.

If you belatedly notice and want to oppose a speedy move that has already been processed, contact one of the admins who process the Speedy page. If your objection seems valid, they may reverse the move, or start a full CFD discussion.

Speedy criteria

Shortcut

The category-specific criteria for speedy renaming, or merging are strictly limited to:

C2A: Typographic and spelling fixes

Shortcut
  • Correction of spelling errors and capitalization fixes. Differences between British and American spelling (e.g. Harbours → Harbors) are not considered errors; however if the convention of the relevant category tree is to use one form over the other then a rename may be appropriate under C2C. If both spellings exist as otherwise-identical category names, they should be merged.
  • Appropriate conversion of hyphens into en dashes or vice versa (e.g. Category:Canada-Russia relations → Category:Canada–Russia relations).
  • Correction of obvious grammatical errors, such as a missing conjunction (e.g. Individual frogs toads → Individual frogs and toads). This includes pluralizing a noun in the name of a set category, but not when disagreement might reasonably be anticipated as to whether the category is a topic or set category.

C2B: Consistency with established Wikipedia naming conventions and practices

Shortcut

C2C: Consistency with established category tree names

Shortcut

Bringing a category into line with established naming conventions for that category tree, or into line with the various "x by y", "x of y", or "x in y" categorization conventions specified at Wikipedia:Category names

  • This should be used only where there is no room for doubt that the category in question is being used for the standard purpose instead of being a potential subcategory.
  • This criterion should be applied only when there is no ambiguity or doubt over the existence of a category naming convention. Such a convention must be well defined and must be overwhelmingly used within the tree. If this is not the case then the category in question must be brought forward to a full Cfd nomination.
  • This criterion will not apply in cases where the category tree observes distinctions in local usage (e.g. Category:Transportation in the United States and Category:Transport in the United Kingdom).

C2D: Consistency with main article's name

Shortcut
  • Renaming a topic category to match its eponymous page (e.g. Category:The Beatles and The Beatles).
  • This applies only if the related page's current name (and by extension, the proposed name for the category) is:
    • unambiguous (so it generally does not apply to proposals to remove a disambiguator from the category name, even when the main article is the primary topic of its name, i.e. it does not contain a disambiguator); and
    • uncontroversial, either because of longstanding stability at that particular name, or because the page was just moved (i) after a page move discussion resulted in explicit consensus to rename, or (ii) unilaterally to reflect an official renaming which is verified by one or more citations (provided in the nomination). C2D does not apply if the result would be contrary to guidelines at WP:CATNAME, or there is any ongoing discussion about the name of the page or category, or there has been a recent discussion concerning any of the pages that resulted in a no consensus result, or it is controversial in some other way.
  • This criterion may also be used to rename a set category in the same circumstances, where the set is defined by a renamed topic; e.g. players for a sports team, or places in a district.
  • Before nominating a category to be renamed per WP:C2D, consider whether it makes more sense to move the article instead of the category.

C2E: Author request

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies only if the author of a category requests or agrees to renaming within six months of creating the category.
  • The criterion does not apply if other editors have populated or changed the category since it was created. "Other editors" includes bots that populated the category, but excludes an editor working with the author on the renaming.

C2F: One eponymous page

Shortcut
  • This criterion applies if the category contains only an eponymous article, list, template or media file, provided that the category has not otherwise been emptied shortly before the nomination. The default outcome is an upmerge to the parent categories, where applicable. Nominations should use {{subst:cfm-speedy}} (speedy merger) linking to a suitable parent category, or to another appropriate category (e.g. one that is currently on the article).

Admin instructions

When handling the listings:

  1. Make sure that the listing meets one of the above criteria.
  2. With the exception of C2E, make sure that it was both listed and tagged at least 48 hours previously.
  3. Make sure that there is no opposition to the listing; if there is a discussion, check if the opposing user(s) ended up withdrawing their opposition.

If the listing meets these criteria, simply have the category renamed or merged – follow the instructions at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Administrator instructions, in the section "If the decision is to Rename, Merge, or Delete"; to list it for the bots, use the Speedy moves section.

Applying speedy criteria in full discussions

  • A nomination to merge or rename, brought forward as a full CfD, may be speedily closed if the closing administrator is satisfied that:
    • The nomination clearly falls within the scope of one of the criteria listed here, and
    • No objections have been made within 48 hours of the initial nomination.
  • If both these conditions are satisfied, the closure will be regarded as having been a result of a speedy nomination. If any objections have been raised then the CfD nomination will remain in place for the usual 7-day discussion period, to be decided in accordance with expressed consensus.

Add requests for speedy renaming and merging here

If the category and desired change do not match one of the criteria mentioned in C2, do not list it here. Instead, list it in the main CFD section.

If you are in any doubt as to whether it qualifies, do not list it here.

Use the following format on a new line at the beginning of the list: 

* [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

If the current name should be redirected rather than deleted, use: 

* REDIRECT [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

To note that human action is required, e.g. updating a template that populates the category, use: 

* NO BOTS [[:Category:old name]] to [[:Category:new name]] – Reason ~~~~

Remember to tag the category page with: {{subst:cfr-speedy|New name}}

A request may be completed if it is more than 48 hours old; that is, if the time stamp shown is earlier than 00:42, 7 October 2024 (UTC). Currently, there are 52 open requests (refresh).

Current requests

Please add new requests at the top of the list, preferably with a link to the parent category (in case of C2C) or relevant article (in case of C2D).

Opposed requests

  • Sexual assault is a stand-alone article that does not redirect to sexual abuse, the definition of which states Sexual abuse is a term used for a persistent pattern of sexual assaults. I don't think they mean the same, but I'm hesitant to open up a full discussion on such a sensitive topic. It does seem that sexual assault doesn't have its own category, but does it need to? NLeeuw (talk) 20:48, 29 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I was referring to the category Category:Sexual assault Mason (talk) 01:29, 1 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On hold pending other discussion

Moved to full discussion

Ready for deletion

Check Category:Empty categories awaiting deletion for out of process deletions. In some cases, these will need to be nominated for discussion and the editor who emptied the category informed that they should follow the WP:CFD process.

Once the renaming has been completed, copy and paste the listing to the Ready for deletion section of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Working/Manual.


Discussions

< May 24 May 26 >

May 25

Category:Engineering stubs

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 --Kbdank71 13:30, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Deprecated - template is now redirected to more inclusive Category:Industry stubs. Grutness...wha? 21:52, 25 May 2005 (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:Lynch

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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:36, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Why is there a category of unrelated people who share a surname? How can this possibly be useful to anyone? --Polynova 17:58, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I created it and stand by it. There is precedent here: Category:People by surname.--StAkAr Karnak 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
To further explain why I nominated this category for deletion, I came across it from the Peter Lynch page and when I saw the category, I just assumed that Peter Lynch must be a member of some famous family — either that, or he has something to do with lynching. I should have included all similar surname categories in this delete vote as I'm equally opposed to all of them. I have no problem with family categories like Category:Bush family or Category:DuPont. --Polynova 20:02, May 31, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Not essential enough to form a category. Category:People by surname isn't a precedent, because it could have merely articles about surnames. -Hapsiainen 22:16, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Retain. But there is a precedent--and they're not articles just about surnames (go look at it.) ℬastique▼talk
  • Delete or listify. Just because other articles share the same characteristic doesn't make it a desirable one. Radiant_* 07:34, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Why not? SchmuckyTheCat 02:00, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
From Wikipedia:Categorization:
"Questions to ask to know if a category is the appropriate tool:
  • Is it possible to write a few paragraphs or more on the subject of a category, explaining it?
  • If you go to the article from the category, will it be obvious why it's there? Is the category subject prominently discussed in the article?
If the answer to either of these questions is no, then a category is probably inappropriate."
The subject of the category is the surname, and it isn't discussed in the biographies. I agree that categories are easier to keep up-to date than lists, but sometimes they just clutter up the bottom of the article. Such is the case now. -Hapsiainen 19:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete Although this is a pretty useless category It only has 46 articles in it which doesn't clutter things up too much. Therefor I dont see much point in deleting it at the moment. User:Dowew May 28th 2005. - Now that I have though about it and read other people's comment I change my vote to delete - this category serves no purpose User:Dowew May 30th, 2005.
  • Delete a category containing a particularly notable lynch family I would keep, but a bunch of unrelated lynches, I don't see how they need to be grouped together. --Laura Scudder | Talk 22:23, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The relation between all of these articles is coincidental. Therefore, the chances of anyone finding this page useful is slim to none. --InShaneee 04:41, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Leaving aside notions of these people being related or not, its still a useful category with serval well-written informatitive articles. What is useless to one person is very useful to another. Fergananim May 30th 2005.
  • Delete or listify. Postdlf 17:06, 31 May 2005 (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:Graphic novelist

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 --Kbdank71 13:38, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It has been pointed out to me that this category is redundant, and also that it is an area too poorly defined to be properly categorised. As its creator, can I ask for a speedy delete on a category? Hiding 17:20, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Hiding generously just stated my arguments for me. The distinction between a "graphic novelist" and a "comic book creator" (whether writer and/or artist) is highly subjective (and arguably meaningless), because so many graphic novels are serialised as monthly comic books. Tverbeek 18:15, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - SoM 18:24, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ℬastique▼talk
  • Delete - Considering that Mark Twain and Danielle Steel are both placed in Category:American novelists, I don't think we have any basis for distinguishing Eddie Campbell from John Byrne with categories. We may eventually get things to a point where we can categorize members of certain "movements" in comics history - Adrian Tomine, Jeffrey Brown, and Chester Brown, for example - but that's a different matter, based on real criteria like chronology and style. The only difference between being called a "comics creator" and a "graphic novelist" is that the latter carries connotations of maturity and sophistication, and it's not our place to segregate the mature and sophisticated from the im- and the un-. -leigh (φθόγγος) 16:29, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, the term graphic novel does not have a substantially different meaning from comic, except as marketing gimmick. Radiant_* 08:55, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
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:Faber

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 --Kbdank71 13:40, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Entire catagory...for two people. I'd imagine the user confused this with a disambig (though he seems to have been to the disambig in question) --InShaneee 17:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Support. It's just a misplaced disambig if you ask me. --Hoovernj 21:13, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ℬastique▼talk
  • Delete. Another surname category. -Hapsiainen 19:14, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Can you just remove the deletion tag? This is a bad-faith nomination. Why else do we have the "People by surname" category for? "Another surname category" is not an argument. It is not a disambiguation, it is a new surname category, which is perfectly useful. 2004-12-29T22:45Z 19:17, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
    • Please read the discussion in Category:Lynch deletion candidate paragraph. I don't want to repeat it any more. -Hapsiainen 08:04, May 28, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, and please keep the tag. We don't generally do categories of people by surname, because it really isn't an informative classification. Radiant_* 21:35, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Postdlf 17:07, 31 May 2005 (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:Airports of the Yukon Territory

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 to Category:Airports of Yukon --Kbdank71 13:43, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Renamed to Category:Airports of the Yukon to be consistent. Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 11:19, May 25, 2005 (UTC)

I don't feel too strongly about this, but renaming to a short form does seem inconsistent with the other provincial/territorial categories: for example, we have Category:Airports of Newfoundland and Labrador and Category:Airports of Prince Edward Island rather than just "Airports of Newfoundland" and "Airports of PEI", and it would be confusing to have "Airports of the Northwest" instead of Category:Airports of the Northwest Territories. Also, the Canada Post and ISO 3166-2 code for the Yukon is "YT" (i.e. Yukon Territory) rather than, say, "YU". I agree that everyone actually says "the Yukon" rather than "the Yukon Territory", though, so I'm happy to go along with whatever the majority consensus is. David 12:20, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Keep as is. Weak keep (see below) Agree with David - the official name for the place is Yukon Territory. "The Yukon" is a more amorphous name which covers pretty much the same area, but may not exactly coincide with it (could mean the catchment area of the river, for instance). "Yukon Territory" makes it clear that we are talking about the Canadian administrative region and areas within its well-defined boundaries. Grutness...wha? 12:43, 25 May 2005 (UTC) see below.[reply]
  • Comment. I don't have a preference either way, but if you change it to "Yukon Territory", you may want to look at everything under Category:Yukon. I can't see any other articles or categories that use "Yukon Territory" - though there is a mix of "Yukon" and "the Yukon". --Azkar 16:21, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, if that's the way Wikipedia does it, I'm swayed a little. I've made that keep a weak one, but I'm still (marginally) in favour of the correct name being used. Grutness...wha? 01:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I did a little bit of digging, because I was curious. When I was in school, it was always referred to as the Yukon Territory, but there's very little evidence of that usage in Wikipedia. At Talk:Yukon someone claimed that the government officially changed the name to Yukon "a few years ago." I visited the Yukon government's website (http://www.gov.yk.ca), and they refer to themselves as the Yukon, with zero reference to ever being called the Yukon Territory (I tried looking around to see if there was a date for this change). So .. in light of this, I'm casting a vote in favour of renaming. --Azkar 02:31, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • And because it bothered me that I didn't have a specific reference .. it was 2002 that the government passed a bill completely replacing the Yukon Act and ammending a whole slew of other laws to change all instances of "Yukon Territory" to "Yukon" [1]. --Azkar 03:07, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • In that case, I withdraw my vote of keep and am prepared to go with the flow (which seems to be the renaming). Grutness...wha? 13:54, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • I notice that the 2002 Yukon Act uses "Yukon Territory" in section titles, but "Yukon" (never "the Yukon") mostly in the text body. The territorial government prefers "Yukon" (again, not "the Yukon"), probably to deemphasise the fact that it's a territory rather than a province. Given that, I suggest either keeping the category name the way it is (which seems to be the legal name), or changing it to Category:Airports of Yukon (which sounds strange, but seems to be the way the Yukon government prefers it). David 12:20, 2005 May 27 (UTC)
            • The section titles I see are things like "Legislature of Yukon", "Supreme Court of Yukon", etc., so I'm not sure where you're seeing Yukon Territory. I did a search on the whole document and the only instances of "Yukon Territory" in the bill are where they're replacing "Yukon Territory" with "Yukon". I will agree, however, that this should be Category:Airports of Yukon, as Yukon is the correct name of the territory. I believe "the Yukon" is more correct as a geographical designation (much like "the prairies", "the Canadian shield", "the BC interior", etc.). I saw the territorial government use "the Yukon" in some of the pages on the history of the territory. --Azkar 14:03, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Airports of Yukon. If the official name is "Yukon", then there is no need for the "the". For example, you wouldn't say "Airports of the Ontario". --Kbdank71 17:01, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • SUPPORT, matches Category:Airports of Nunavut of Nunavut Territory. 132.205.45.148 17:54, 30 May 2005 (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:Central business district

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 --Kbdank71 13:29, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Duplicate of Category:Central business districts , nothing inside it. SimonLyall 10:03, 25 May 2005 (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:Pseudoscience

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 --Kbdank71 13:47, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Pejorative and POV title. At the very least, this category should be renamed. Personally, though, I think we should delete it. This category is a haphazard mix of articles on topics ranging from creationism to alternative medicine to divination. I honestly don't think these articles need to be categorized to gether. They all belong to appropriate category structures already. Is there any reason we need to have Feng Shui and numerology in the same category? --Azkar 00:35, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. "Pseudoscience" is the most NPOV term possible for fields which purport to have scientific bases but which the scientific community rejects. That is why Feng Shui and numerology are in the same category. Both purport to affect the real world through mechanisms that science does not recognize. It is a very useful category. Note that the addition of the Category:Eugenics to the Pseudoscience category recently underwent a careful discussion here with the conclusion that it was the correct designation based upon numerous citations. -Willmcw 02:55, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. This category is obviously necessary. --brian0918&#153; 03:29, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Only a quack would vote delete on this. SchmuckyTheCat 05:07, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename (Category:Ideas labeled as pseudoscience alternatively Delete. Reasons: 1. Term "scientific community" is itself POV, since it automatically excludes whoever is accused of pseudoscience. 2. The article will always have a geographical bias, what is pseudoscience in USA might be considered simply common sense in Niger and Hong Kong, and if the category would be called Category:Common sense i'm sure it would be deleted. 3. "Only a quack would vote delete on this." Comments like that prove that there is a strong attachment to the subject in persons who add articles to this cat, making their arguments.... well "pseudoscientific". Beta m (talk)
    • 1. The NPOV policy does not say "exclude all POVs", it more practically means "attribute POVs accordingly". So something being the scientific community's POV, as this is clearly labeled, is not at all outside the NPOV policy, so long as it is properly labeled as such. 2. Presumably mainstream scientists in Niger and Hong Kong are of more or less the same frame of mind as mainstream scientists in the USA. The term "pseudoscience" is one applied by mainstream scientists. "Common sense" is generally an appeal to the POV of a different community. 3. The fact that people consider this to be a nomination in bad faith has nothing to do with whether or not it is useful category. The fact that people have attachments to things do not make their opinions "pseudoscientific". You might consider reading what exactly the definition of "pseudoscience" generally is in this case before applying it haphazardly; I don't think you understand the basics of it. --Fastfission 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • However, it is ridiculous for me to start arguing the definition of pseudoscience here. I was just pointing out that the definition (no matter what it is) would fall in the category of power word, and in my opinion is an opinion and nothing else. Can we have a category Category:Things that Beta_M considers to be unproven, that will also be NPOV, since i can prove that i do in fact consider some things to be unproven. Beta m (talk)
  • Keep. What Willmcw said above. Atlant 11:22, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Pseudoscience is a well-defined term. --Ryano 11:57, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Just be vigilant about only adding those "fields which purport to have scientific bases but which the scientific community rejects." --♥ «Charles A. L.» 12:53, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep as per Willmcw. Filiocht | Blarneyman 15:06, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep Willmcw summed it up well. FeloniousMonk 18:06, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Retain ℬastique▼talk
  • Keep. The description clearly explains that this category is a sociological description and is not intended to reflect on whether the subjects within actually "are" pseudoscience (or whether there is such a thing as pseudoscience). Whether individual articles (i.e. Feng Shui) belong in this category is a per-article discussion (such as the one done on the previously cited page for Eugenics) and has nothing to do with the usefulness or validity category itself. --Fastfission 23:38, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --U.U. 07:38, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. I don't see the usefulness of this category. "I need something that isn't science. And then something else that also isn't science but has nothing to do with the first thing." Nah, I don't get it. --Kbdank71 17:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The category is not "something that isn't science". It is a set of purportedly scientific practices which are not considered by the scientific community as being "science" but are nonetheless believed in by a number of people. The grouping is not arbitrary and can be quite useful. For example, one might want to inquire about what sorts of activities are not sanctioned by scientists. Or the psychology of those who would follow such activities. And so forth. Whether or not you would ask any of those questions is beside the point; it is easy to imagine possible reasons for looking at these sorts of groupings. --Fastfission 18:14, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
not considered by the scientific community as being "science" sounds strangely similar to "something that isn't science", IMO. Regardless, though, I still don't see the usefulness. It's easier for me to imagine people wanting to know what is considered science by the scientific community. --Kbdank71 18:43, 27 May 2005 (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.
< May 23 May 25 >

May 24

Category:American World War II anti-tank rockets

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 --Kbdank71 13:26, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is far to specific, there will only be one or two articles in it. Also included for the same reasons are:

Oberiko 22:30, 24 May 2005 (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:Economic Stubs

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 --Kbdank71 13:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and empty. Previously used by {{econ-stub}}, the template uses Category:Economics and finance stubs as a result of a previous CFD discussion. --Allen3 talk 22:21, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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:Christian Missions

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 --Kbdank71 13:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

capitalisation -> Category:Christian missions Paul foord 14:22, 24 May 2005 (UTC) move this request up to Speedy Renaming above. You don't need a vote. ℬastique▼talk[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 conduct disputes

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 --Kbdank71 13:30, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Contains all (?) RFCs, past and present. The problem is that, unlike the lists on WP:RFC and archives thereof, this cat has no meaningful ordering and does not distinguish between current and old disputes. We could split them out as such, but that would merely make it redundant rather than misleading, so I think deletion may be appropriate. Radiant_* 11:43, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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:Disputed RFCs

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 --Kbdank71 13:32, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"This category is for RfCs whose certification is disputed." But RFC procedure deals with that; sticking it here is not going to help. Also, it contains only one RFC to begin with. Radiant_* 11:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

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:Emily Brontë novels

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 --Kbdank71 13:38, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An absolutely stupid category. We all know Emily Bronte wrote only one novel, so what's the point of the category? Unless this is changed into Category:Brontë novels, and takes into account all of the Bronte sisters' works, this has no room in Wikipedia. Mandel 11:09, May 24, 2005 (UTC)

  • Rename as Mandel suggests. Radiant_* 11:41, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename ℬastique▼talk 21:26, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep for consistency's sake. Emily Brontë's novel must show up in Category:Novels by author. Also, the Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums decided that an artist that has released only one album is still entitled to a category "albums by artist". That case is so similar that I would call it a precedent. I disagree with renaming the category to Brontë sisters novels because they didn't write them together and release them as "Brontë sisters". -Hapsiainen 13:11, May 30, 2005 (UTC)
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:Villages in Ireland

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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

We have the category Category:Towns in Ireland which only contains subcategories in Towns in province format (e.g. Category:Towns in Mayo, Category:Towns in Cork. These subcategories already contain villages, townlands, and many other municipalities and areas that do not fall into any of these categories. Having a separate category for Villages in Ireland seems redundant and not pursuant to the direction we're taking the Ireland articles. ℬastique▼talk 04:02, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

So what do you propose? Category:Towns and Villages in Ireland or something like that would sound sencible... or am i wrong? Beta m (talk)
Support --Red King 09:35, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose it is not sensible to refer to the many tiny hamlets and villages of rural Ireland as towns. Town is a very American and un-Irish designation for these villages.--File Éireann 20:16, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: However the designation, it seems ridiculous to provide separate categories for "Towns" and "Villages", as most people driving through would not be able to distinguish a large village from a small town. Furthermore, we have villages in the United States dotting the land in many places, notably northeastern States. (Which, incedentally, Pennsylvania and Virginia are "Commonwealths", but you don't see a category for Commonwealths of the United States), this designation is not particularly American or un-Irish. The designation was, I believe, originally created by an Irishman, and was designed to prevent the ridiculous form of overcategorization.
That all being said, I am proposing we rename the Category:Towns in County-name to Category:Towns and villages in County-name to please the nitpickers among us. ℬastique▼talk 21:10, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Support in the Republic of Ireland distinctions between areas other than counties, boroughs, cities and (the few offical) towns are largely disappearing. Town is a generic term, and recognise it as such. Djegan 21:08, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, for example in accordance with the Irish Census 2002, the Village of Tower in County Cork has well over 2,000 residents, much larger than most towns in Ireland. ℬastique▼talk 21:18, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept ℬastique▼talk's compromise and have a single category for towns and villages in Ireland. If this is agreeable to all, I will withdraw my opposition to the deletion.--File Éireann 21:17, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge and delete. -Sean Curtin 01:35, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
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:Monarch stubs

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 --Kbdank71 13:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and empty. WP:WSS now uses the more all-encompassing Category:Nobility stubs instead. Grutness...wha? 03:35, 24 May 2005 (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.


< May 22 May 24 >

May 23

Category:Rumored 2008 Democratic Presidental Candidates

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 --Azkar 04:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Speculative and likely to change often; this is not a category that will be of any use in several years. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, nor should it endulge in speculation, especially in categories. This sort of this is much better suited to U.S. presidential election, 2008. --BaronLarf 23:23, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

  • Disagree. If you followed your own link, you'd see that well-documented speculation is encyclopedic. For every politician on this list, there's a quote or a news article indicating that person is likely to run. Furthermore, this information is useful to users, so Wikipedia should continue to include it. -- Joshdick 20:28, May 25, 2005 (UTC)
I have no problem with Wikipedia including the information, just not in category form. U.S. presidential election, 2008 seems like a better place. --BaronLarf 01:42, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Categories should be reserved for more substantial characteristics than rumors. -Sean Curtin 01:18, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. In a category it does not belong. Convert to list or put into an article. RedWolf 05:31, May 26, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, for reasons stated above. --Kbdank71 14:25, 27 May 2005 (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:Movies in which a guy takesa woman on a really bad date to a place with other naked women

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 --Azkar 04:17, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm...vandalism in category form. Also, misspelled. Which is really my problem with the whole venture, I hate misspelled titles. And movies in which a guy takesa woman on a really bad date to a place with other naked women. Hate those too.--TheGrza 22:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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:Doujin soft

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 --Azkar 04:19, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed Category:Dojin soft according to the Japanese spelling conventions at Wikipedia:Manual of Style for Japan-related articles. There's also an article's worth of text in the category description which should really be in the article namespace (Doujin soft exists but as a redirect to the category, and anyway it should be spelled Dojin soft). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 17:18, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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:Networking

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 --Azkar 04:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into Category:Computer networks and deleted. It's clearly a duplicate where subject matter is concerned, and only has 10 articles to merge. Bert Vermeulen 15:03, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Support. For the reason above, plus it might cause confusion since networking also means networking of people, thus a theoretical possibility of sociology articles also claiming their place there. Beta m (talk)

Agree. Oleg Alexandrov 18:07, 24 May 2005 (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.

Battles in...

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 Restore --Azkar 04:24, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I propose these renamings, for the following reasons: (1) the categories were created under the names on the right and moved without a consensus of the editors who work on these articles; (2) the categories are intended for articles about battles involving a country, for example Category:English battles is for battles in which England was one of the combatants. The location of battles is less interesting than the participants; after all, many of the most interesting English battles have been fought overseas. (3) Some of the "Battles in" names are ridiculous or simply wrong. For example, where exactly is "Franks" supposed to be? None of the battles in Category:Battles in Genoa were fought in Genoa, and none of the Category:Battles in Athens were fought in Athens. So let's put these articles back in correctly-named categories.

Of course, a separate hierarchy of categorization based on location of a battle would be fine, if someone wants to create that. But there was no reason to destroy the existing categorization scheme in order to do that.

I am listing here just those categories that have been moved, or partially moved, following a vote on May 14. A number of other categories were proposed to be moved in that vote, but the move hasn't gone ahead yet. Please consider the general issue in this discussion. Gdr 14:00, 2005 May 23 (UTC)

Are there any others I may have missed?

  • Agree. The result of these moves was clearly silly and absurd. Uppland 15:04, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hm, this definitely bears discussion, by some people knowledgeable about warfare (which I'm not). Somewhere below is a vote for the renaming of 'fooish battles' -> 'battles in foo', on grounds that the latter makes for clear categorization (each battle has one distinct location, and at least two participating parties, and plausibly more). It sounds to me that 'battles in foo' is easier, but I'm no expert. Abstain. Radiant_* 15:14, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • So, is the proposal that the Battle of Agincourt should be in both Category:Battles in France, Category:French battles & Category:English battles? Fornadan 15:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. --Kbdank71 17:00, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, of course. Moving these was a significant mistake based on an faulty assumption. James F. (talk) 17:45, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. Far easier to maintain categories of battles by location, rather that who took part. There are many battles in which troops from many different nations all took part - which is easier, to list Gallipoli under "Battles in Turkey" or under "Turkish battles", "British battles", "Australian battles", "New Zealand battles", "Canadian battles", "Newfoundland battles" and "Indian battles"? Grouping it in its war (World War I) would make for even more ridiculous over-categorisation. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Categorisation should be accurate and useful, not merely easy. Location is sometimes important and sometimes not. Sometimes the modern country name is relevant and sometimes it is not. And how can anyone think that having a category for World War I battles is ridiculous? That's just ridiculous! CalJW 23:12, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree. During WW2 many battles have taken place between USSR and Germany in Poland. They were not Polish battles. I would suggest having some sort of category for those types of battles (i.e. battle on the "neutral" territory). Beta m (talk)
  • Agree. --Jniemenmaa 08:28, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Query -> I'm not a big categorization expert, but is it possible to have separate category trees for battles by someone, and for battles at some location? Kim Bruning 21:37, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course! It's certainly possible. Indeed it might be a good idea. But you can't get a category of battles at a location simply by renaming a category of battles by a nation. If you do you end up with nonsense like Category:Battles in Athens. That's why I propose that these categories be moved back to their original locations. People who want categories of battles at a locations are welcome to make them, but please not by destroying the categories of battles by nation! Gdr 22:57, 2005 May 25 (UTC)
  • Agree. This the restoration of what was before. The result of the thoughtless move was disaster in some cases. If someone wants a cat by place, by all means, but this was nlot the intention of original cats. mikka (t) 19:43, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

And by the way, I am reverting the inappropriate moves, leaving the "battes in..." whenevr fits. mikka (t) 19:51, 28 May 2005 (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:120 mm discs

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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 18:11, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Should merge with parent category on disc-based computer data storage. This cat name doesn't indicate its true content, and it's also wrong since it contains 'CD' even if CDs can be smaller than 120mm. Radiant_* 09:34, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

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.


< May 21 May 23 >

May 22

Category:Charities that do not test on animals and Category:Charities that test on animals

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 Convert to list --Azkar 03:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Convert to list and delete. This is not what categories are for. Neutralitytalk 03:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep alternatively Convert to list Beta m (talk)
  • Keep. These are both legitimate, informative categories. I see no reason to delete them. SlimVirgin (talk) 07:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete, potential attack magnet. Isn't a charity something that collects money for a cause? So how does any charity test on animals? Is it meant that they support animal testing? Radiant_* 09:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to list and delete - having a category for every controversial practice a charity might and might not do would clutter up the article (especially the negative--I imagine there are thousands and thousands of charities that do not perform animal testing, since the category name is too short to specify the context of medical research). A list can present the useful information. Also, whether a charity does or does not do something like this is bound to be disputed, which can be explained in a list format, but not in a yes-or-no categorization. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 17:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep. Informative and useful. Kaibabsquirrel 17:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list and delete - agree with DopefishJustin. Many more categories on similar controversial practices could be easily created. Moreover, thousands of charities are involved in funding medical research, and it is not at all clear that whether or not they sponsor testing on animals is a "fundamental" categorization. This information makes most sense in a list format.--Pharos 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Hi Pharos, I see your point, but I'd like to add that, for many people, whether or not a charity funds animal testing is the fundamental issue when it comes to deciding whether to give that charity money. This is one of the reasons I see these as particularly useful categories for our readers. SlimVirgin (talk) 22:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. This isn't a fundamental characteristic of these charities, and is pushing a POV (that animal testing is bad, and we should point out who engages in such activity). The information can be mentioned in the article, if it's relevant, but I see no reason to create category structures around it. --Azkar 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Convert to list and delete. I agree that the names are pushing a POV. RedWolf 06:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to list and delete, agree with DopefishJustin. -- Lochaber 09:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Incorrect categorization/title. 98% of charities have no relation neither to testing nor to animals. mikka (t) 19:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete An article about charities and animal testing would be legitimate but I'm not sure about a mere list, which would have no conceivable purpose other than to discourage people from donating to charities that do test on animals - which I wouldn't do myself by the way, so I'm basing my opinion purely on Wikipedia policy. CalJW 23:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. 1) the name is vague, misleading at best. Is the charity testing its donation method on animals? Meaningless. 2) If they mean medical testing, then ALL testing is on animals, because even if they don't test it on non-people, they test it on people eventually, and people are animals too. --ssd 01:43, 31 May 2005 (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:2001 by month

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 --Azkar 03:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Docu, who originally created this category, has backed off of it and has no problem with its deletion. I've depopulated it by recategorizing the month articles the way they originally were, in the first section of Category:2001. Note also the existence of List of months by year: 2000-2005. - dcljr (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean with "where they originally were" (the pages were uncategorized), but I don't mind the new way of categorization. -- User:Docu
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 Comics Celestials

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 --Azkar 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated due to merges, now irrelevant. --InShaneee 19:39, 22 May 2005 (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:Australian people stubs

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 --Azkar 03:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant duplicate of well-populated Category:Australia biography stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:16, 22 May 2005 (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:File sharing

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 - I don't see consensus, but Category:Peer to peer was deleted in favour of Category:File sharing networks and Category:File sharing programs --Azkar 18:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant duplicate of Category:Peer to peer. The latter is listed as a subcategory, but has largely the same entries. If someone were to make a strong case for deleting "P2P" as a category and keeping "File Sharing", I could live with that, but I prefer "P2P". -- Viajero | Talk 15:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. File sharing also would refer to swapping a CD with a friend... i fail to see how that is P2P in the computer terms. Beta m (talk)
  • Delete, looking at the content of the cat (and the lack of potential articles on swapping CDs with friends) I disagree with Beta M. Radiant_* 09:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, I agree with Beta m, these are distinct groups (or, rather, the former wholly contains that latter). James F. (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Question - are there any articles in this category which would only be "file sharing" and not P2P? I understand P2P is a type of file sharing but if there are as of yet no other types which have articles about them then there would be no use for a "file sharing" category. If, however, there are articles which are not "p2p" but are "file sharing" then all that is called for is a reorganization of the category structure (removing redundant tags). --Fastfission 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't found any. -- Viajero | Talk 00:45, 26 May 2005 (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.


< May 20 May 22 >

May 21

Category:Creature Objects

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 --Azkar 01:54, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Removed from speedy delete. Comment was "The category has never been used, nor has the template it contains, while there is a plentiful listing over at the Creatures Wiki addon page". --Henrygb 23:30, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Unnecessary double. Harro5 23:59, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
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:Dillard University

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 --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category was created for a list of Dillard University buildings, which have since been merged into the main article. The only other one is a forerunner institution. --Christopherlin 21:13, 21 May 2005 (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:Scientific neologisms

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 --Azkar 01:59, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is uninstructive and tells the reader nothing. Virtually the entire set of scientific terms newly used in the past 20 years would go in this category. There are tens of THOUSANDS of them! What's the point?--Deglr6328 19:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete ~ agreed. Then there's the matter of when does a neologism become a standard term. Courtland 03:31, 2005 May 22 (UTC)
  • Keep Has as much point as about half of the categories. Beta m (talk)
  • Delete, WP doesn't deal with neologisms. Radiant_* 09:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Pointless. Agree with nominator. mikka (t) 19:11, 28 May 2005 (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:Geography of Arabia

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 --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Arabia is defined as the Arabian peninsula. Yet in this category there are also Lebanon, Syria, and Iraq (Mesopotamia) that aren't in the peninsula. Inaccurate category that should be deleted.Yuber(talk) 15:50, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't it be renamed Geography of the Middle East? Luis rib 19:03, 26 May 2005 (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:Edmeston, New York Images

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 --Azkar 02:05, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All images have been moved to wikisource, currently contains 2 images. Unnecessary--nixie 13:18, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Shouldn't the images be in Wikimedia Commons instead? Both belong to public domain. -Hapsiainen 19:51, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
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:Lists of longest bridges

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 --Azkar 02:07, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is not needed. There is already Category:Lists of bridges which is not a big category. The 3 lists in this category can easily be found there. Samuel Wantman 06:12, 21 May 2005 (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:Doujinshi

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 --Azkar 01:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Replaced by the properly-romanized Category:Dojinshi (matching the article Dojinshi). DopefishJustin (・∀・) 05:51, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

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:University of Montreal

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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 19:16, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

→ Category:Université de Montréal
  • This should be renamed because the most common usage in English is not University of Montreal, but Université de Montréal. 132.205.45.148 16:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Outside of Quebec, I hear it all the time as University of Montreal. --Spinboy 16:45, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. "University of Montreal" is the most commonly used English name in most areas outside of Quebec. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 17:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree. I live in Ontario, and I don't think I've ever heard it called the University of Montreal. -- Cafemusique 23:21, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still thinking What's the actual name of the university? Beta m (talk)
  • Support. James F. (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I live in Western Canada and never hear of the university either way. RedWolf 06:22, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment. When searching for it, people don't have accents, etc on their keyboards, and this is English wikipedia. --Spinboy 19:27, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Spinboy is correct. I don't have an é on my keyboard, and if I search for "University of Montreal", I'm not going to find "Université de Montréal". With the article, that's fine, a redirect can be used. But that won't work for the category. --Kbdank71 19:52, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. I can't speak for everyone, but I can't say I've ever started out a search for information by looking for the category first. If I wanted info on the University of Montreal / Université de Montréal, I'd start at the article. If I saw there was a corresponding category, and I was interested in more information, I'd go from there. Université de Montréal is the official name of the university, and the name they use, exclusively (even on the English website). If searchability is really a concern, though, how about a soft redirect? Template:Categoryredirect can be used to direct people to the correct location. --Azkar 02:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Many umontreal.ca pages use "University of Montreal". English language, and English-keyboard layout are also quite relevant argument. Gene Nygaard 02:11, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. If the proper name of the school is "Université de Montréal", then related articles should be categorized by that name. Bahn Mi 06:07, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Support. Since the main article has been renamed Université de Montréal, the category should be also. Grstain 16:36, Jun 6, 2005 (UTC)
  • Oppose, I would support the argument if it were a true proper name, ie. "St. Jean's Université de Montréal", for a crude example. However, since it is just an university in a place, then the for the English Wiki, it would be the English equilavent, as it would be the French equivalent for the French Wiki. As far as the article's named being changed, as Gene Nygaard stated above, the English keyboard does not "easily" support the extended characters. <>Who?¿? 21:42, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • COMMENT, then UCLA is not a real university name, just a place name with university attached? Or NYU? or Oxford? Cambridge? LSE? 132.205.44.134 19:15, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Comment - I'm not biased because of nationality, and yes, I would argue the that UCLA is not a "name" as much as its a "thing" in a "place", that happens to use that as its name. I would not consider it to be a proper name, ONLY in the sense of how to use it in a foreign print. Ie, if I were to print "Fred's House" in French, I would use "Maison de Fred" (note I didn't use the extended chars (en keyb)), even though "Fred" is a proper name, its understood to those who ONLY speak French as "Fred House". So to refer to your example, if UCLA was in French, I would use the French equivalent of the name. Just my thoughts, I am not a literary genius or anything. However, for keeping the "proper name" of something in a foreign language, maybe we could use a category redirect from the English equivalent, and keep the French named cat.- <>Who?¿? 02:22, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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.



< May 19 May 21 >

May 20

Category:UK Radio Stations --> Category:Radio stations in the United Kingdom

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 --Kbdank71 13:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction as per naming conventions (ie. "UK", capitalization of both words in "Radio Stations"). Bearcat 22:35, 20 May 2005 (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:Numerical programming systems

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 --Kbdank71 13:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this category. Its content have been moved to Category:Numerical software.--Fredrik Orderud 20:30, 20 May 2005 (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:Formal logic

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 --Kbdank71 13:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Category talk:Logic:

The problems with the category are:

  1. Logic is an integral whole, where topics in formal and informal logic closely mirror each other, and it helps navigation to see similar topics side by side;
  2. Many topics in logic do not neatly divide into formal and informal, but instead treat the two side-by-side. If we have a subcategory formal logic, should these mixed topics go in or not? Since it is not a clean criterion for division we are best not using it for breaking up the logic category;
  3. As far as possible subcategories should be orthogonal to each other. Formal logic cuts across many subcategories (eg. Category:Modal logic, Category:Paradoxes, and Category:Philosophical logic) raising more issues of classification that will not be obvious to the user;
  4. Since the category does not help classification, it's main effect would be to add degrees of remoteness between related subjects.

Hence I think we would be better off without such a category.

See also the previous failed CfD Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 12#Category:Formal logic, which was opposed by User:Isaac Rabinovitch, who now supports this CfD on the grounds of the difficulties the category puts on classification. Since we now appear to have a consensus to delete, I am relisting this category. --- Charles Stewart 19:24, 20 May 2005 (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:0, Category:0 births, and Category:0 deaths

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 --Kbdank71 13:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no year 0. These categories can never possibly be populated. The explanation given on Category:0's page is that the birth year and death year templates create links to these categories. As far as I'm concerned, any one of the following alternatives is preferable to creating categories for non-existant years:

  • Creating a new template for the 1st decade of the 1st century that excludes year 0.
  • 'Subst'ing in the existing template, and manually editing the code on each page to remove year 0. Really .. how often is this template going to be updated?
  • Removing the template altogether. If you need to access the sister categories, the parent category is only one click away.

So ... Delete. --Azkar 18:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Azkar is perfectly correct. However, some ignorant person is bound to re-create these categories. Perhaps some kind of block is in order. -----Isaac R 19:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
delete right you are. The idea about a block is agood one, too. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 21 May 2005 (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:00s deaths and Category:0s deaths

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 Category:00s deaths --Kbdank71 13:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are of the same period. Which one should be removed and which one should be retained? --Hello World! 15:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • The 0 cat contains subcats for each decade in the first century, such as 00. This is probably because of some style guide. Radiant_* 15:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • 00s is used in the first century deaths template that's on both of these category pages. Neither of these are really great category names, but there aren't really any better choices. I think 00s deaths is slightly clearer, though. --Azkar 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep one, delete the other. Category:00s deaths is empty and should be the one that gets deleted, although in that case the template link will need to be corrected. -Sean Curtin 05:43, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
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:European royalty stubs

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 --Kbdank71 13:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and empty (the more inclusive Category:European nobility stubs is now used instead). Grutness...wha? 10:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I agree that we don't need two categories, but I have to point out that "royalty" and "nobility" are not the same thing. Perhaps a single "royalty and nobility" category?----Isaac R 22:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • True enough, which was why the royalty categories aren't good ones. By definition, royals are nobles, since royalty is the highest part of the system of nobility. Nobles aren't necessarily royals, though. So, as I saisd, the more inclusive category should stay. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 22 May 2005 (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 historical pages

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 --Azkar 18:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The subcats (i.e. old elections archive) seem useful. But what about the main cat? Many old pages in the Wiki get tagged with Template:historical which puts them in here, which means that this will eventually become a list of the entire Wikipedia namespace except pages recently edited. Is there any point in that? Radiant_* 10:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not quite - it will become a list of former policies, and pages in the Wikipedia namespace no longer used - a lot of pages still in use have not been edited recently. As such, it is basically a Wikipedian archive. I think there's use in that, so I'm voting keep, even if only to make sure that precedents are available and we don't simply rehash old policies that have been tried before and discarded. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • On second thought it may simply be more useful to strip the cat from Template:historical. (btw note we already have Category:Wikipedia rejected policies) Radiant_* 10:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • No need to rename, and it certainly shouldn't be deleted. James F. (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Rename to Wikipedia policy archives. For all the reasons listed above. [[User:BlankVerse|BlankVerse ∅ 09:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems that someone has already stripped the cat from the template, so all we really need is a few null edits to have an empty category. Of course, I'm fairly sure we don't have a consensus for this. I'll keep this open for while longer to see if anyone else wants to contribute. --Kbdank71 14:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er, not entirely. Lots of pages have cat:historical on them; this is only partially congruent with template:historical. I admit this isn't really an intuitive way of putting it (so it may need revising) but I tend to put CAT:hist on pages that are historically interesting and need to be locatable; and TEMP:hist on anything that people shouldn't be editing on simple grounds that noone will see their edits (otherwise people can contribute to a year-old conversation, not realizing it's no longer pertinent). Hope that made sense :) Radiant_* 21:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

In the interests of clearing off this discussion, I'm going to try and summarize things as I understand them, and offer a resolution.

  • Radiant! initially nominated this category due to a lack of utility - Template:Historical added this category to every page it was put on. Because Template:Historical is added to old / inactive discussions, as well as pages of general historic interest, this category would eventually fill up with all of Wikipedia's dusty corners.
  • Upon reflection, Radiant! decided instead to simply strip the category from the template. Pages that were of historic interest could be manually added to the category.
  • There have been a couple of suggestions to rename the category to something more intuitive. Being in the middle of this other conversation, though, there is no basis to determine a clear consensus on this point.

I propose the following:

  1. Since the only user to recommend the deletion of this category has since withdrawn that request (instead, looking at different ways of using the template / category pair), this discussion should be declared as a Keep.
    • One could argue that more discussion is required, regarding the use of this category and the template in question (personally, I'd suggest a different template be used for pages being flagged as simply inactive) - however, I believe this is outside the scope of this CfD nomination. I'll trust Radiant! to take the issue up with interested parties.
  2. A new nomination be created for the purpose of proposing a name change. There is interest in this, and a new nomination will allow for this to be discussed on a blank slate.

If no one objects to this, I'll execute sometime tomorrow. --Azkar 18:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Sounds good. Radiant_* 09:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)


Separating the template and the category was absolutely essential, so glad that's done. Considering how much goop there is other than policy pages, I don't think there's much need for a rename. Indeed, most if not all of the policy-related things there are not (current) policy, so the proposed name would be a bit confusing. I think this category just needs a good cleaning, but don't let me stop a nomination for rename if someone thinks that's worthwhile. I would be happy with just a "keep and tag {{cleancat}}" -- Beland 13:13, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)
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:Zionist terrorist organizations, Category:Islamic terrorist organizations, Category:Leftist terrorist organizations, Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations, Category:Terrorist organizations based in the United States, Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland, Category:Northern Ireland terrorists, Category:Terrorists by region and Category:Palestinian terrorists

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 --Kbdank71 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Category:Terrorist organizations was recently deleted (after a lengthy debate), should these then be deleted or renamed per the same reasoning? Radiant_* 07:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

  • Not all organizations labelled terrorist are military. I would call them category:Violent organizations, or even more precise: category:Violent political organizations (to exclude, like, mafia), with a clear criterion: organizations that declare or de-facto use violence (not necessarily armed) as an instrument in pursuing its goals. What do you think? mikka (t) 19:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I find 'violent organization' somewhat misleading... it reminds me of, for instance, hooligan-like sports fanclubs. Or anything related to the organization of martial arts tournaments. Or the NRA, possibly. Radiant_* 21:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
      • As far as the Northern Ireland ones go I suggest renaming to "Proscribed organisations of Northern Ireland" and "Reputed terrorists of Northern Ireland". Proscribed Organisations are beyond argument cos they simply are or are not Proscribed, although Reputed Terrorists might be a little more difficult, as in one side seeing someone as a Terrorist the other seeing the same person as a Freedom Fighter...just my two penn'orth..

Jcuk 21:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Just make sure all the groups are moved over properly and the cats aren't simply deleted, it's a great reference to see all the current groups like those listed under "Islamic Terrorist Orgs", but without the POV naming convention.--Sherurcij 21:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
  • How about Militant Political Groups. The BBC likes to use this describe terrorists. For example "Militants associated with the Militant Political Group Hamas have killed 13 people in a suicide bus bombing." Klonimus 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The BBC wouldn't use clumsy wording like that - more likely they would say "13 people were killed in a suicide bus bombing, carried out by members of the Palestinian militant group Hamas." GCarty 11:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • My suggestions:

GCarty 09:11, 31 May 2005 (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.


< May 18 May 20 >

May 19

Category:Sex Symbols

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 no consensus rename --Kbdank71 15:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Improper capitalization. Move to Category:Sex symbols. --Tabor 23:50, 16 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm moving this back out of Speedy, because I think we need to discuss whether this category should exist at all. This category is meant to hold celebrities that are considered sex symbols - current members include Johnny Depp and Marilyn Monroe. It's a somewhat POV categorization (personally speaking, neither of these two examples really do it for me), and doesn't seem all that useful, either. I would like to suggest deletion, rather than renaming. --Azkar 18:33, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree - delete. -Sean Curtin 01:48, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. POV although a list might work as a replacement. RedWolf 06:01, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
  • Convert to list. The notion of a "sex symbol" depends on the particular culture. I don't think it's POV to have a list or category that take a label that is generally non-controversial and indexes it here. Such non-controversial status doesn't apply to things like "terrorist organization"; when someone in a culture is labeled as a "sex symbol" there usually isn't the hue and cry that arises from the label being controversial. Courtland 14:35, 2005 May 21 (UTC)
  • Keep - the analogy with category:gay icons (which has survived CFD listing) is striking. Perhaps I'm showing my age, but I find it absurd for Marilyn Monroe to be categorized as a gay icon but not as a sex symbol. I actually find most culturally based categorizations somewhat dubious and would favor deleting all of them, but that is not what this vote is about. -- Rick Block 01:07, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I'll second your perception of absurdity :) Courtland 02:40, 2005 May 23 (UTC)
  • Convert to list this will allow a short note to appear to describe why the entry is a sex symbol. Beta m (talk)
  • Listify. Radiant_* 09:24, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's been seven days, and I don't see a consensus. As such, we're supposed to keep, however, the original nomination wasn't for a delete, it was a rename to fix capitalization. It seems silly to keep in that case, so would anyone mind if I just renamed it for now, and someone can renominate it for deletion or listing later if they want to? --Kbdank71 13:09, 26 May 2005 (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:New Zealand politics

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 --Kbdank71 13:10, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be renamed Category:Politics of New Zealand as per almost every other equivilant category, for consistency.--Cyberjunkie 16:57, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

True enough. Yup. Grutness...wha? 01:38, 20 May 2005 (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:Rochester, Category:St. Cloud, Category:La Crosse-Eau Claire

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 --Kbdank71 13:12, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The first two were meant to be for semi-major metropolitan areas in Minnesota, although both of those city names are fairly common (I've created new state-specific categories) The third one baffles me, as both cities are in Wisconsin and some distance from each other. —Mulad (talk) 16:24, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

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:Locations in New Zealand

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 --Kbdank71 13:14, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I created this utterly confusingly named category when I first arrived in Wikipedia. The way NZ geography items are split up lists them all by type of thing (town, waterfall, cave, whatever) and by place (whichever region of the country they are in). Unfortunately, instead of grouping the latter in a nice tidy Category:Regions of New Zealand, I blew it and named it as it appears above. Please allow me to do the decent thing and rename this the way it should have been named originally! Grutness...wha? 14:31, 19 May 2005 (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:Universities and colleges by nationality and subcategories, Category:Women's universities and colleges

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 no consensus (keep) --Kbdank71 13:17, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistent with the parent category, Category:Colleges and universities. These should be Category:Colleges and universities by nationality and Category:Women's colleges and universities, respectively. Most subcategories of Category:Universities and colleges by nationality need renaming to Category:Colleges and universities in (Fooland) to match convention. -Sean Curtin 03:52, May 19, 2005 (UTC)

  • "College" is a very US-centric term; using it first is probably mildly contentious. If almost all of the lower categories would need to be changed, wouldn't it be better to move the parent to "Universities and colleges"? James F. (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Almost all of the lower categories will need to be changed regardless of which name is chosen; there's no consistency among the 'by nationality' subcategories. -Sean Curtin 01:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • It's not so much that it's US-centric, it's just that it's very confusing. In the US, a college is pretty much the same thing as a university. In the UK, a college is a section of a university. In Australia and New Zealand, it's more likely to be either a high school, or a tertiary institution that is somehow inferior to a university (like a polytechnic). I'd recommend avoiding the word altogether if possible. Grutness...wha? 13:47, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll agree with James F. Change the parent. (although nothing is going to get changed if some categories aren't marked as cfd). --Kbdank71 13:51, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with Grutness. Perhaps an alternative term should be used altogether. "Tertiary institutions" might suffice, but then that may be to broad. Perhaps the best option is to drop "college" from the categories (and created sub-categories if necessary).--Cyberjunkie 17:01, 19 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Tertiary institutions" might be confusing, what about "Tertiary schools" or "Tertiary education institutions"? NOTE: If we do this, I suggest for consistency, that Middle and High Schools be grouped into "Secondary schools", and grade/grammar/elementary schools be labelled as "Primar schools" 132.205.44.134 00:16, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Given the concerns over the name, perhaps we should just end this CfD and put Category:Colleges and universities itself on CfD? -Sean Curtin 01:41, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
    • Sean has a point. I would support 'university' for the name, as that is the only one (afaik) that has roughly the same meaning internationally. I've never heard the term 'tertiary education' other than on this Wiki, and while I could infer its meaning I do find it somewhat obscure for us non-Americans. Radiant_* 07:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
      • Actually, I'm speaking from an Australian perspective, and the term is particularly common in Australasia - I assumed its use extended far beyond this region. And it does somewhat; the World Bank and other organisations use the term, as does Wikipedia, which uses it as the formal term for the colloquial 'higher education' (see Tertiary education). I support the following structure: Parent:Tertiary institutions --> Sub:Tertiary institutions by country --> Sub-Sub:whatever institution-types exist in that country.--Cyberjunkie 13:57, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please note the previous discussion (from Jan. 2005) at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Universities and colleges by nationality. Besides "colleges" and "universities", there are Grandes écoles, Fachhochschulen and other types of institutions which really can only be squeezed into the "college and university" terminology with a fair bit of force. My suggestion is Category:Institutions of higher education as the top category, Category:Institutions of higher education by country for the by-country category, and then either Category:Institutions of higher education in Ruritania or whatever is most suitable for each country/educational system, for the country-specific level. Uppland 13:07, 21 May 2005 (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.


Cleanup overhead

Discussions moved off-page

Please see:

To be emptied or moved

The following categories meet the requirements for deletion but are not empty. You can still review discussions, which have been moved to archive pages (in particularly controversial cases, discussion may be left intact on this page instead). This section is meant to be a summary with no discussion. Discussion should go in the previous section.


Delete me

The below meet the eligibility requirements for deletion at the top of this page. These categories have been de-populated, and any documentation of this decision taken care of. Admins may delete these categories at will. If there is a particular category which is replacing the deleted category (if redundant, misspelled, etc.) as noted below, that should be mentioned in the deletion log entry.

The category to be deleted is listed first, followed by the proper category that renders it obsolete:


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion&oldid=14222003"