Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 November 29

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion | Log
< November 28 November 30 >

November 29

edit

Category:Articles with example ActionScript code

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 11:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Articles with example ActionScript code (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Empty category; should never be used. Any page with ActionScript examples (other than article ActionScript itself) should be rewritten in a more popular language, for the benefit of the readership. --63.102.70.70 23:51, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There are other cats in that supercat that I think are superfluous, such as the JavaScript one, but I could be persuaded that those languages are good for explaining some point better than any other language, so I'm reserving judgment on them. (That's why I only want to rename, not outright delete, the Matlab article, for example; it has array operations as primitives.) --Quuxplusone 00:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People of Welsh descent in Great Britain

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 11:57, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:People of Welsh descent in Great Britain (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]
Too broad, created by a disruptive user who is now banned (Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Rms125a@hotmail.com) Tim! 17:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Jewish American architects

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 12:36, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as triple intersection. Why is religion relevent here? -- ProveIt (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:German-American sportspeople

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 12:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as triple intersection. Why is ethnicity relevent here? -- ProveIt (talk) 17:21, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, strange mix of ethnicity, nationality, and occupation. -choster 18:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this an all other such deletion nominations. Wikipedia:Overcategorization is a ridiculously rough draft and has no actionability whatsoever. A lot of people have gone to an awful lot of trouble to categorize articles thusly; there needs to be a very clear consensus that Wikipedia:Overcategorization should be Policy before all of that work is destroyed. Also, it is not a triple intersection, but a double one, of sportspeople and German-Americans. Treating "German-Americans" as a double intersection is bogus. We might as well say it's a dodecatuple intersection by such "logic", i.e. "human persons on planet Earth of one gender or the other who happen to be in North America and who have red blood and less than 17 eyeballs and..." Let's not be silly. It's two criteria, simple as that. — SMcCandlish [talk] [contrib] ツ 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's not quite the same, as German-American sportspeople is an intersection of 3 sets (People of German descent, Americans, and sportspeople), none of which are subsets of the other. Whereas in your case 'human persons' is a subset of 'things on planet earth' and 'things that have less than 17 eyeballs' and so on. Mairi 07:39, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thank you, SMcCandlish! My feelings exactly. There seems such a hurry to destroy a lot of work just for this nebulous idea of "overcategorization." I have had a lot of category destroyed by these zealots!! Thank you!! Pastorwayne 22:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • When I said it was a triple intersection, I meant nationality / ethnicity / occupation. That makes three, right? I don't see the usefulness of categorizing german-american sportspeople any differently than american sportspeople. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question Pastorwayne, if you want to keep this category, can you explain what useful purpose it serves? "Keep it because I disagreed with some other category deletions" isn't a very persuasive argument. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP because it IS useful to some/many! Obviously, it is not useful to YOU. But it IS helpful and interesting, or it would not have been created. Why do just three or four of you get to decide what is and is not useful? Why is the creator's intentions not included in this decision, and in fact given HIGHER consideration - since it IS proof it IS helpful and interesting and useful?!? Thank you! Pastorwayne 11:54, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete, in agreement with ProveIt immediately above. Not all categorization is valuable to an encyclopedia's users. And do we want to maintain (and vandal-patrol) several hundred "XXX-American sportspeople" categories, several hundred "XXX-American actors" cats, several hundred "XXX-American artists" cats, ad nauseam? No exaggeration; I sometimes use Equifax or eTech ethnic data at work, and they have hundreds of ethnic codes. Even if there are no notable Zambian-American actors, there's probably a notable musician or marathon runner with that ethnicity and nationality. Add another whole set of these for "German-Australian sportspeople" since Australia has had immigrants from many countries achieve accomplishments that were noted in English-language reliable sources. And "German-British sportspeople", and so on. Barno 00:02, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: a category which serves no useful purpose. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:16, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Articles that are way too long

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge with Category:Articles that are too long. Kimchi.sg 12:43, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Redundant with Category:Articles that are too long. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Comics needing cleanup

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge with Category:Comics articles needing cleanup. Kimchi.sg 12:56, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Redundant with Category:Comics articles needing cleanup. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles with confusing statements

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was merge with Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical. Kimchi.sg 13:01, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with Category:Wikipedia articles that are too technical. Yes, I know it's not exactly the same but in practice the overlap is too large and the distinction far from obvious. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia articles containing sections that are an unencyclopedically presented series of quotes

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 13:06, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We currently have over a hundred cleanup categories; obviously this means that not all of them will get the kind of attention they need (or indeed, any at all). This is an example of an extremely specific one that appears to be ultimately pointless. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles using obsolete parameters

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 13:08, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to be obsolete. Purpose unclear. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia cleanup after AFD

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Re-categorizing articles tagged with this template into the regular cleanup by month categories is left as an exercise for those interested. Kimchi.sg 13:15, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think cleanup after AFD is different from any other kind of cleanup. Note that the 'regular' cleanup cat is split by month, for easier access. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Talk pages that are too long

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. Kimchi.sg 13:18, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Pointless. You don't categorize an overlong talk page, you archive it. (Radiant) 16:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:People from Richmond

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:People from Richmond, London. Kimchi.sg 13:26, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:People from Richmond upon Thames, per discussions of November 8th and June 21st. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Peruvian Celebrations

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename to Category:Public holidays in Peru. Kimchi.sg 13:34, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Public holidays in Peru, or Category:Holidays in Peru, convention of Category:Public holidays by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Consumer Directed Personal Assistance

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedy delete as advertising/conflict of interest (not to mention that categories aren't articles). (Radiant) 17:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not actually a category. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retain, Consumer Directed Personal Assistance is a unique form of Home Care, created to serve the needs of People with Disabilities, who require this level of service, and who wish to retain their independence. The program has grown slowly for many years typically starting in the 60's and 70's with small ad-hoc programs developed to serve the needs of a small group of vocal disabled people. As time past, these programs became more formalized and are gaining popularity across the country and around the world. -- Edlitcher (talk) 11:57, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:American people by occupation and ethnic or national origin

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. The concerns expressed by people who want to see this category kept don't really address this category, but rather other categories which aren't nominated. Hiding Talk 14:29, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as triple intersection. These almost always result in overcategorization. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:33, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Besides overcategorization, the selection of nationality, occupation, and ethnicity/national origin as the axes upon which to group people smacks of systemic bias. -choster 18:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why? There's no reason these categories can't be added for groups underrepresented among Wikipedians.--T. Anthony 03:31, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No, I mean that unifying nationality, occupation, and ethnic/national origin might be understandable in the US, where they are commonplace ways to divide people, but not in others. In Afghanistan, clan counts for much more than loosely held notions of nationality; in Lebanon, it's religion. There's no way to universalize the intersection, so IMHO it's better to keep multiple separate categories for these traits rather than trying to combine them. -choster 22:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
I'm not sure if this category should have that name. Public holidays means there's not a labor day, however there are plenty of celebrations in Peru that not necessarily imply is a National Holiday. Pastorcillos de Navidad is just a celebration or a custom that, just for mere coincidence, imply to be celebrated on December 24th (Christmas). So I believed the first name of Celebrations of Peru was ok or maybe Typical Festivities in Peru. Not bad but least Holidays in Peru will be acceptable. --Evelyn Zuñiga 18:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

More ethnic categories

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete. Only one voice in opposition, prior precedents and the discussion below declare a consensus to delete. Hiding Talk 14:33, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as triple instersection and recreated content, see also November 28th discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia articles in desperate need of attention

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was Delete, strong consensus evinced below. Articles tagged with {{Cleanup-date}}. Hiding Talk 14:42, 6 December 2006 (UTC) We already have several "need attention" categories, and every now and then we get an extra one that is implied to be more urgent for some arbitrary reason. This needlessly convolutes the process further. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Pages containing deprecated templates

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 02:30, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is supposed to be a maintenance category but the only pages left in there are a number of user pages and archives thereof. In general, whenever a template is deprecated, a TFD bot is employed to remove it, so I think we don't need this cat any more. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Wikipedia drafts and Category:Wikipedia archive drafts

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete both. David Kernow (talk) 02:31, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not particularly helpful to categorize rewrites of pages as such; it is far better to notify people e.g. at RFC or the relevant WikiProject. At present, both contain only userpages. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. The TFD also closed as no consensus, so it seems fair enough to keep this for now. the wub "?!" 11:09, 13 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rather than marking broken links as "broken", we generally remove such links. Thus there is no need for this category. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Articles with confusing language

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 02:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant with the many cleanup categories on content, style and expertise. (Radiant) 13:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lorne Park Secondary School Football Team

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 02:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not really a category. -- ProveIt (talk) 13:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Alias

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename all per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:36, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename all as info page name "Alias (TV series)". Woepzwr 06:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

'Comment+ Category:Alias episodes--Twkfw 07:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category: Men who wear tight pants

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedied as nonsensical. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Category:Men who wear tight pants should be speedily deleted. It is bogus and empty and was created by a known vandal, who claims to be reformed: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:NEMT/Archive_1#Block I'm not sure he or she is fully reformed. Hu 05:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Colonna

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename per nom. David Kernow (talk) 02:39, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Colonna to Category:Colonna family

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 section.

Women in war excessive subcats

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was upmerge all to Category:Women in war, and delete. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:33, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I apologise for some of the over-categorisation in my attempts to sub-categorise this category, but 120 articles in the root cat was really getting, if not over-populated, then unwieldy and hard to navigate. Plus no-one else seemed to be taking on the task! :-) Neddyseagoon - talk 10:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to apologize Neddy, I'm sure you meant well and just got a little carried away. We'll get this crazy category straightened out. :) Asarelah 02:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in war by theme (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
The word "Theme" refers to the unifying subject or idea of a story, and this is a category for real people, not a category for fiction or literature. Asarelah 04:14, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it seemed the best title for the articles now within it, which are all not individuals, but topics within the wider topic of 'Women in war'. Suggest Rename to something like Category:Women in war by topic. Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Added all this too: Category:Women in war by type (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overcategorizing.

Typology within the topic, as above. Grouping by type is a valid - stops root cat becoming overcrowded.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in the invasion of Afghanistan (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overcategorized and underpopulated.

Category:Women in war in Israel (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Overcategorized and underpopulated.

Category:Women in the Vietnam War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated.

May well be underpopulated, but the 3 above categories make it easier to navigate within Category:Women in 20th century warfare and Category:Women in 21st century warfare, which are both, if not overpopulated, large enough to be difficult to navigate. Women's service within these wars are also themes within those wars themselves. And with women's continued participation within the Israel and Afghanistatan conflicts, those 2 may well grow in the future in ways we cannot predict, so keeping them would 'futureproof' the root cat in itself. So, in the case of all these 3, Keep.Neddyseagoon - talk 10:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Women in the First Iraq War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated.

Category:Women in the Korean War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated.

Category:Women in the Spanish Civil War (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Underpopulated. Asarelah 04:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support all deletions for now. It seems to me that we are dealing here with a huge number of subcategories of Category:Women in war, many of which are underpopulated, and that the situation really merits a more careful review at category talk. However, these categories do seem to be underpopulated, so I support deletion without any prejudice to recreating them if the need arises. I suggest to Neddyseagoon that the best way to try to unravel this might be to start with a a few multi-column lists in talk space, and try to get some measure of the likely size of the categories. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 13:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all I would support deletion of every related category. Osomec 13:53, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all "Women in war", "Fictional Amazons", all seem to be poorly titled and misused. I would normally support "women in specific wars" being merged or remaned to "soldiers in", but all just seems too messed up. I mean, would a soldier's wife count as a "woman in war"? Would a simply fictional crime fighter or modern day radical like Cassandra Cain count as a "woman in war" or an "Amazon"? Once all the categories are deleted, proper ones can always be created in their place. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 01:42, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all and merge back per nom. Few of these sub-categories could support a decent lead article anytime soon. The article Female roles in the World Wars needs a bit of work; but I'd guess that extending and subdividing it would give the best framework for new categories that are well-populated. And maybe a more "contemporary"/C21st article too?? Mereda 15:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pro-life commentators

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. - Mailer Diablo 13:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC) Category:Pro-life commentators (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[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 section.

Category:Protagonists

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. David Kernow (talk) 02:41, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Protagonists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Every main character of every short story, film, novel, epic poem, rock opera, and bubblegum comic would fit into this category, making it impossibly broad, though the category is underpopulated now. JRP 04:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Fictional fauns

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was withdrawn by nom. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional fauns to Category:Fictional deer Rename or Delete, Category has only two entries and it would be silly to have "fictional aardvarks" to "fictional zebras" so I recommend Delete, but failing that it should be renamed to Fictional Deer, to use the proper name for the animal (and to prevent the need for "Fictional Stags" down the line. JRP 04:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Xena

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was rename as nominated. the wub "?!" 09:19, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename as Xena: Warrior Princess Waaavsd 03:41, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment Then it should be "Hercules:The Legendary Journeys", because Xena is a spin-off. Xenaverse gets 44,000 ghits. 132.205.44.134 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pro-life activists by nationality

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was no consensus, bordering on keep per conventions. --RobertG ♬ talk 11:18, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. "British" and "English" are redundant. Would be better expressed in more inclusive category, "...in the United Kingdom." "American" is non-specific and confusing — it could also refer to North Americans, South Americans, or Latin Americans — and, being that "America" herein is intended to mean "United States," it should be renamed to reflect this fact. Renaming will harmonize category titles with conventions applied to other categories in WikiProject Abortion. -Severa (!!!) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC) Severa (!!!) 03:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The conventions used for categories of people are very well established and the existing names are correct. Sumahoy 04:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment this should be "Anti-abortion" and not Pro-Life. Not all of them are activist pacifist vegans who wouldn't hurt a cryptosporidium that vocally oppose the death penalty. 132.205.93.33 05:15, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Anti-abortion activists etc" per 132.205.93.33. "Pro-life" is a POV title, and the short debate at the previous CfD does not create a binding precedent. Note that WP:MoS#Identity is not policy, just "some nonbinding guidelines that may help" and that the same guideline notes that WP:NPOV and WP:OR take precedence.
However, this nomination is unfortunate in that it also fails to accomodate the distinctions between British and English (and the differenvce between both of those and the United Kingdom), so I propose that the renaming should be:
The problem with "British" in this context is that it does not satisfactorily cover Northern Ireland (half the people there reject the idea of Britishness), and there is no adjective for "United Kingdomish" ... so a renaming to include the term United Kingdom is necessary and requires a move to a noun rather than an adjective. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose above suggestion. "Pro-choice" is also a debatable term, and, yet, no one is advocating changing "pro-choice" to "pro-abortion" in any category. WikiProject Abortion has longed favoured the terms "pro-life" and "pro-choice" in articles and in categories; we have had many CfDs in order to maintain this consistency. We have chosen these terms because they are more preferrable than alternate terms, like "abortion rights" or "abortion rights opposition," which carry a bias, or "anti-abortion" or "pro-abortion," which do not give the whole picture. BrownHairedGirl's suggestion would create a discrepancy between the titling conventions applied to the nominated categories and all other WikiProject Abortion categories, decreasing, rather than increasing, consistency. -Severa (!!!) 20:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think "Pro-Choice" should also be renamed, to "Abortion access advocacy" (or similar). "abortion access" is a term that is used, though much less so than "anti-abortion" 132.205.44.134 23:34, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment As was pointed out by GTBacchus, when you and Osomec brought up the same points in a June 2006 CfD, "Abortion access advocacy" is unintuitive and sounds contrived. It is an inaccurate portrait of the pro-choice movement to suggest that it is about nothing but securing the right to an abortion (consider, for instance, the pro-choice movement's lobbying for emergency contraception and sex education), and equally that the pro-life movement is concerned only with preventing abortion (consider its opposition to euthanasia). The issue at hand isn't whether these terms are appropriate; let's try to avoid straying away from the main focus as occurred in the June 2006 CfD. If you have concerns about the accuracy of the terms in question, perhaps these would be better addressed to WikiProject Abortion, or the articles Pro-life and Pro-choice. The use of these terms throughout Wikipedia is a lot more prevalent than in just these categories. -Severa (!!!) 02:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all "American", "British" and "English" are all standard legitimate terms used on hundreds of categories. Wikipedia reflects the world as it is. Northern Irish people are British whether they like it or not, just as many other minorities are categorised by their state of citizenship whether they like it or not. I thought we had seen the last of the "someone else might be confused as to what "American" signifies" argument months ago. Osomec 13:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Northern Irish people are also automatically entitled to Irish citizenship, and many reject the British label. Whatever anyone thinks of the merits of that view, I hope wikipedians could acknowledge that the term "British" is not NPOV in that part of the UK (anyone notice that there was a wee bit of a conflict there?), and try to use neutral terms. The nation of which Nothern Ireland is part is not, in law "Britain": it is "the Untied Kinbgdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland". When there is a neutral term available, why not use it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 00:28, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The thing that is a breach of NPOV is breaking conventions on how we categorise people due to political pressure. The categories for Northern Irish people should be in both the relevant Irish and the relevant British category, and the last time I looked most of them were. That deals with the issue quite adequately. There is absolutely no reason for these few small categories to deviate from the forms that have been used for many hundreds of large categories for years. Osomec 05:10, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Boggle This is not about bowing to "political pressure", it is about avoiding favouring one side of a political dispute. The term "British" is central to the political divide in Northern Ireland: half the population accept it, half reject it. How on earth is it a breach of NPOV to use a naming format which is both more accurate and does not favour either side of a political divide? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 09:30, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This is absurd. As I understand it, if the categories were already at the proposed names they would be eligible for speedy renaming to the current names. Anyone who wants to change the convention should start with category:American people and category:British people, not in a forgotten corner like this. Hawkestone 11:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not trying to reinvent the wheel here — just bring the naming conventions of these categories into alignment with those used for other WikiProject Abortion categories. Besides, there's currently a grand total of one article in "English pro-life activists," and "British pro-life activists" is completely empty, so, if anything, the split is unnecessary and excessive. -Severa (!!!) 07:37, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Categories for biographical articles should follow the conventions for biographical articles. The non-biographical abortion categories follow the conventions for whatever type of category they may be. That is the why the category system works across thousands of subject areas and there isn't the slightest glimmer of a reason why abortion should be any different. Hawkestone 21:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Abortion in the United Kingdom is not a UK wide matter - Northern Ireland has a different level of provision (none) and I think it's a devolved matter in Scotland. Someone who may be an activist for a position in one area (say in England) may not be at all in another where the provision is already what they desire (say in Northern Ireland). Timrollpickering 13:18, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fortunes Top 100 Places to Work in America

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as included in a published list, and certainly copyrighted. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Think very carefully about the implications If this one should be deleted, what does that mean for categories such as Category:Forbes 400, Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average, and Category:S&P 500 - aren't these all "subjective lists" and WP:Copyvios as well? 68.160.221.170 05:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, arbitrary. (Radiant) 09:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete as highly subjective. In response to 68.160.221.170, the Dow Jones is based on impartial empirical criteria, based on market capitalisation. The list of 100 Best companies to work for is based on a subjective assessment of several criteria which are themselves either subjectively weighted or arbitrarily allocated equal weight. The CNN page linked above itself asks "What qualities are you looking for in a great employer?", offering a choice between widely differing factors such as training, company size and diversity. A disabled black lesbian mother competing for a low-grade job is likely to allocate very different priorities than would be chosen by a single white male looking for a senior mangerial post, and all a list can do is to subjectively apply some averaging. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Totally unacceptable category. Category:Forbes 400, Category:Dow Jones Industrial Average, and Category:S&P 500 are not subjective in this way, but they should all be deleted in any case as it is easier to assess whether a list is up to date. Osomec 13:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Generally speaking magazine "best" lists should be handled as list articles, not categories. Dugwiki 17:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, although inclusion in the DJIA and S&P 500 are somewhat subjective, and the Fortune 1000 and Forbes 400 also rely on editorial judgment calls, they are longstanding, culturally iconic classifications (e.g. "outperforms the S&P 500" "a Fortune Global 1000 company"), and the market indices are widely followed and quoted daily. None of those traits apply to this list. Publishers are constantly inventing awards and lists of "Top Places to Live" or "Best Sports Bars" and the like because they they sell magazines, and because one day their best or worst this-or-that might become as well-known as Time's Person of the Year or the US News & World Report Best Colleges. Fortune's Top 100 Places to Work in America is not there yet.-choster 18:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This category is NO more subjective then the S&P 500. Fortune defines the list and because the list is defined from an outside and notable source then it's not arbitrary or subjective. (Fortune's selection might be subjective, but now that thier selection is done, our inclusion of an article in the cat is NOT subjective).... so keep as a cat or convert to a list. It's notable, it's often quoted, and it's not a copy-vio if kept in a cat like it is. ---J.S (T/C) 22:32, 30 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Try a Nexis search on "S&P 500" versus "Fortune's Top 100 Places to Work in America." To compare the two is to compare apples with apple orchards. -choster 00:02, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It is very much more subjective. The S&P 500 is based on numbers, whereas every aspect of the decisions made for this list requires subjective judgements. Copied POV material breaches Wikipedia:Neutrality just as much as original POV material, not to mention possibly coopyright. Wimstead 00:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:William Chrisman High School

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 09:53, 7 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, High schools don't need their own categories. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Celebrity gamers

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedily deleted and salted as recreation, per previous consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per October 31st discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 01:09, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Fuck

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was speedily delete and salt per previous consensus. --RobertG ♬ talk 08:55, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per October 31st discussion. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nonsense by banned User:Nintendude working through a sock.--Isotope23 02:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt the earth. Let's not have this category recreated.--Mike Selinker 02:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Pittsburgh people

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was No Consensus. Split debate which doesn't come down in favour either way, and nothing from guidance jumps out as settling the issue either. Hiding Talk 14:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as overcategorized. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

More from User:Clarenceville Trojan

edit
The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories 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 section.

The result of the debate was delete without hesitation. --RobertG ♬ talk 13:39, 5 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A collection of articles with the word in their name. Doesn't seem to be particularly useful. Same reasons as above (Category:Fuck)-- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 02:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, beyond the fact that these are completely spurious categories, this is almost certainly more of banned user User:Nintendude's delightful brand of profanity-based disruptive editing (working through one of his many sockpuppets).--Isotope23 02:38, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not a recreation, but if it gets recreated let's salt these too.--Mike Selinker 02:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_November_29&oldid=1144413960"