Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 11

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 20:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Transferred from PROD as prod does not and shuold not do categories

- 132.205.45.148 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category title portrays a POV & only one page is contained in the category. 01:11, 11 August 2006 user:Ssbohio

• Rename to Category:Places in Northern Cyprus, or alternatively, Category:Cities, towns, and villages in Northern Cyprus (to match Category:Cities, towns and villages in Cyprus). There are additional articles in Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus which can populate the category. Incidentally, while "Turkish-occupied" is a POV, it is the internationally recognized POV, but the parent is for a separate CFR. -choster 02:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Category is slightly pov, but not enough for me to see it and think 'hey, thats POV!' Keep the category, but if it raises more POV flags for others then myself, rename it to Places in Northern Cyprus or Places in Turkish Cyprus. -M^ask 22:37, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• How about Places in Cyprus not under the control of the Republic of Cyprus?. It is a mere statement. No POV, I think. It is a reasonable request to counter balance the category Category:Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus --Kupirijo 20:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 20:02, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath to Category:Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath

• Rename, As per my comments at Talk:Order of the Bath there are three different categories of Knights of the (Order of the) Bath: 1)Knights of the Bath, appointed on special occasions before the creation of the Order in 1725, 2)Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath, the sole rank in the Order from its creation in 1725 to its expansion to a 3 level order in 1815, and 3) Knights Commander of the Order of the Bath, the knightly grade since 1815. The existing category mixes the first two (as a result of a recent merge, see Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_2#Category:Knights_of_the_Bath). If the rename goes ahead I'll recreate Category:Knights of the Bath and unmix them manually --Dr pda 22:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename and create new category per nom. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename and create new category per nom. - Kittybrewster 09:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy rename as per Dr pda, above. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Please add an explanation at the head of each category. Wimstead 13:43, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Bluap 05:48, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional demoness' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, empty category and useless, since Category:Fictional demons already exists. Neigel von Teighen 20:50, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. In addition, the name seems to have an extra apostrophe.--JyriL ^talk 21:19, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. There's no reason for a gender-separated category. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. It isn't even spelled right. Doczilla 07:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. David Kernow 09:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per several above. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:59, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anaheim Hills neighborhoods to Category:Anaheim neighborhoods

• Rename, Anaheim Hills is itself a neighborhood within Anaheim, California. I wouldn't object to deletion, as there are only two articles—about subdivisions—and both are proposed for merging back into the main Anaheim Hills article, but the rename should be uncontroversial. choster 20:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I believe this is related to a fierce controversy as to the status of Anaheim Hills. I think I read a reference to it on the village pump a couple of weeks ago. Chicheley 22:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is why I proposed the most basic correction, and not a wholesale deletion. That a neighborhood of Anaheim Hills is a neighborhood of Anaheim is factually indisputable regardless of what name WP assigns to the article about it.-choster 02:37, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A category that consists of subdivisions in a neighborhood of a city? Delete it as overcategorization. Failing that, rename per nom. - EurekaLott 01:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename, per nominator. -Will Beback 21:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category:Anaheim Hills itself hasn't been ajudged necessary yet. Sumahoy 20:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it as overcategorization. Failing that, rename per nom. per EurekaLott. ^BlankVerse 09:13, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 19:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional characters with super strength (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. A hopelessly broad (and particularly ill-defined) category. The broadness isn't fixable; easily half and probably two thirds of the superhuman characters in American comic books alone would qualify, nevermind cartoon characters (Bugs Bunny pushes "ten-ton weights" off of himself; does he qualify?), characters in literature and lore (every ogre or giant or dragon or titan or god), almost the entirety of Category:Mecha, and so on. The criteria are specific but useless in the their specificity: specific lifting abilities aren't something often mentioned for a fictional character (save in the encyclopedia-style DC and Marvel character handbooks, but even those don't always reflect the actual comics), but often-times characters who wouldn't be associated with super-strength (Bugs Bunny again) are seen to move giant objects, for the sake of humor or just because the story doesn't put too much emphasis on logic or causality. This category is just unworkable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The current wording still includes every single kaiju ever, monsters of all shapes and sizes, most gods in fiction and lore, many cartoon characters, easily half of American comic characters and a good chunk of anime characters, and many, many other characters, many of whom will be perpetually on the cusp because of inconsistent depiction that doesn't constitute retcon (for example, how much Captain America or Wolverine can lift depends on who is writing).

  This category, if kept, is going to end up with dozens of disparate subcategories (DBZ villains, Buffyverse Vampire Slayers, and Fictional Werewolves are already subcats, and I suspect kaiju, mecha, and many others aren't far behind) as well as hundreds upon hundreds of characters that have little or nothing in common other than the ability to lift things.

  This cannot be reasonably defined in such a way that it doesn't include uncountable numbers of characters in fiction and lore, and, even if it's broken up into strength-by-source, there's going to be a bunch of categories that still include far too many essentially unrelated characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I agree it is too broad. It does cover almost half of all the characters in comicdom, fantasy and sci-fi. However, I would like to see categories which define superheroes by the origins of their powers. Categories for superheroes with strength by nature = either psionic (e.g. Superman, Gladiator), mystical (e.g. Glorificus, Illyria) and physical size/shape/biology (e.g. Spider-Man, Hulk, Thing). So, yes, delete keep this category, but I was alreayd discussing on Talk:Superman some similar categories which I think will be smaller and easier managed. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, I changed my mind. Keep this category and make a few nice subcategories. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 16:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC) [reply]
• Comment someone, please come up with the appropriate rename for this. To me, this category is for comic book characters with superhuman muscular structures. We have Category:Fictional speedsters for characters who are "faster than a speeding bullet" , so I'm sure we can agree on a category for characters who are "more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound." --M@rēino 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I agree. Some re-wording or subcategories would work for this article.(Animedude 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• By the way, my proposal for what to do with subcategories is located at User:Zythe/Project. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per A Man In Black. --Newt ΨΦ 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Hawkestone 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Another note, but I've edited the original criteria so it will exclude characters like Bugs Bunny. I really don't think this requires deletion, I feel it is salvageable. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Overhaul/subcategorization per User:Zythe/Project --M@rēino 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Really pointless trivia category.--JyriL ^talk 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though I agree that some benchmarks need to be in place as to defining what "super-human" entails. Is a Mr. Universe competition good enough? For another example, comparing an alien from another planet to "human" may mean that we're comparing apples to oranges, depending on how we choose to define "human" (is Superman human?). That includes deities (such as Thor). Perhaps, if we're going to divide the category, try by species type? (Otherwise how about elephants? : ) I just think that this category needs to be pared down, with more sub categories. Also, a magical effect, such as a spell, or an item, irregardless of the duration of the effect, may give the target "superhuman" ability, but does that mean the character is superhuman? or just the bearer of a supernatural effect? So does enhancement through magic define a person as super-human? {Does Wanda Maximoff have superhuman strength?) How about enhancement through chemicals? If the chemical has a temproary effect (Hourman for example), does such a person qualify? : ) - Jc37 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Jc37: I think you just use your judgement. I don't think the semantics of "superhuman" need to be debated. Generally you only categorise characters with whom an ability is associated. For example, in one episode Buffy Summers briefly became a telepath but she is not under Category:Fictional telepaths. You just use judgment and common sense. I would agree with you about species but then I feel comic species are too broad - for example, Blob and Molly Hayes are both mutants and both have super strength but Blob's is because he's massive and Molly's is definitely psionic in nature. I think when this category is overhauled it will resemble Category:Fictional psychokineticists to a large extent. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You may be defeating your purpose if this category ends up looking like another one. Also, I think sub categories of: Comic book deities known for super-human strength; Non-terrans (Aliens) with super-human strength; etc, would be a better plan than presuming to make all super-strength to be psionic. A case in point would be Superman. It was made clear in the Man of Steel series that Superman's strength when flying is different than his "normal" strength (the difference between psionic strength and the "solar battery" powered physical strength). That he's Kryptonian is less arguable than the various sources of his strength. Captain America's strength has been shown to be due to the super-soldier formula (it's been "removed" from him before). And so on.

But this goes somewhat beyond the scope of this CfD. My vote is unchanged: Keep, with refocus on sub-categories (whatever they are worked out to be). - Jc37 01:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think a Mr. Universe contest would qualify. most people use "Superhuman strength" to mean beings, not just humans, that can lift over 1 ton, something they dont even get close to in strongman contests. This of course varies from fiction to fiction, but its a good base for it. (Animedude 19:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• Keep, but I strongly recommend a rename to something that is less obscure and putting a description in the header of the category. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AMIB. Useless. --Doc 00:31, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; far, far too broad. I have no objection to categorising fictional characters this way, indeed, I encourage it... but only to a reasonable degree. This is simply excess.--SB | T 00:35, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • To counter that point, note that Category:Fictional psychokineticists has more entries than this, with subcategories taking yet more of the load away. Rename and overhall is all it needs. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 13:58, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per AMIB. I saw this cat this morning and was heading over to suggest it myself. It's chuff and too broad. --Charlesknight 11:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deleteper above. ThuranX 15:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and define: humanoid characters who can lift over 1 ton, and define some subcats. (suggest Marvel Comics characters with super strength and DC Comics characters with super strength at least) -HKMARKS 15:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • So far suggestions for subcategories have been Nature (psionic, mystical, innate etc.), Race (Mutant, alien, android etc.) and Media (Marvel, DC, television etc.). Any one of these would make the category more usable, refuting any claims of excess broadness. Marginally related question, but do talking gorillas count as "humanoid"? ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. But dogs are right out. :P I wouldn't go with "race" simply because the majority are human; what are you going to say, "Fictional human characters with super strength?" That's a bit much. Likewise sometimes the source of strength is hard to determine: is a vampire mystically or innately strong? Is an android's strength innate or technological? -HKMARKS 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • • Heh, well race wasn't my suggestion. Technology is innate to an android, as I see it. Vampires - well it depends on the medium. If it's fiction where vampires are chemically different, like a virus or something - then innate. If it's like Buffy for instance, the source of their power is to do with magic, if physical changes occur it's not innate to them prior to being a vampire - like Juggernaut, he's physically bigger than before, but his powers are magical. But you have a point. If this survives I think someone should propose a vote about subcategorisation over at WikiProject Comics. ~Zythe^{Talk to me!} 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete. I can't see any value in this type of category, to be honest. Hiding Talk 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment I don't know, I've been curious for a while about whether more characters had superstrength compared to flight. As with most categories, it's only really useful if you happen to be looking for it. -HKMARKS 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see the value, I just don't think we should classify fictional characters by fictional characteristics which are hard to quantify, are not immutable and are unwieldy, debatable and hard to annotate. It seems to me to stand against the idea the categorisation structure was brought in to implement. Hiding Talk 19:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Way too broad, and creating subcategories will be difficult to maintain. A lot of characters could qualify for multiple subcategories, defeating their purpose. Plus, I don't really see any added value for this category. CPitt76 00:51, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Vague. Is a "critic" somebody who advocates impeachment? Stated that they didn't vote for him? Or just criticizes some policy or aspect of the Bush presidency? Bjones 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

comment: Obviously, anyone who is critical of George W. Bush. And they are legion. Atlant 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Just because someone does not like the fact that people criticize George W. Bush is no reason to delete the category. StudierMalMarburg 15:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, my problem is with the category, not the criticism.Bjones 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, as Atlant said below, if you find the one category vague, then break it up into subcategories. Clarification is always preferable to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.StudierMalMarburg 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unwieldy and unhelpful. Is this category to include basically every Democrat, leftist, Hollywood actor, rock musician, leftist prime minister, etc in the world? This category then leads to "critics of" cats for almost everyone that is controvesial. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, even though it's likely to be a very large category, probably in need of sub-categorization. Atlant 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This category would include George Herbert Walker Bush, Mahmoud Abbas, and Natalie Maines. That's one hell of a range.--M@rēino 16:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, then make subcategories; i.e., foreign critics; rightwing critics; leftwing critics; and so on. Also, this category would not include George Herbert Walker Bush. That's a facetious argument. G.H.W. Bush has always supported his son's administration. Fatherly criticism of a son is an entirely different animal. StudierMalMarburg 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. We've deleted scores of "Fans of X" categories, and I don't see "Critics of X" being any different. The number vast, and contributes little information about the vast majority of critics for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether "critical" refers to the person, his/her administration, policies or decisions, philosophy of government, table manners, golf game, handshake, etc. Second, that critical view is probably not going to be a primary or secondary characteristic, so inclusion in the category will be difficult to verify or be subjective. Is "N, who died in 1991, was quoted in 1987 that GWB wouldn't amount to anything" good enough? What about "N helped craft GWB's foreign and environmental policies, but has written numerous editorials condemning his stance on stem cell research"? -choster 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A category is too blunt an instrument with which to tackle this matter. Hawkestone 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A Critic is defined as One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter. So yes, GHW Bush is indeed a critic of his son, unless he has no opinion at all, which is hardly the case. Being a critic doesn't automatically mean being a "negative critic". I can't see chunking this up into subcats would help the matter at all, either, for the same reason: Everyone who has an opinion is a critic. --Kbdank71 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - This is something that is better handled within articles (which can provide details about why a person is criticizing Bush) than through categories. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete His critics are far too many and varied to belong in a single category that defines them all in the same simplistic way. Honbicot 08:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agreeing with nearly all above. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete polls indicate this category now contains some 67% of Americans (not to mention 90-some% of the rest of the world). Useless category.--csloat 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless, overbroad category. Postdlf 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Intangible 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete would need to include every democrat, and every non-US statesman (except) Blair. Alternatively, merge with Category:Living persons--Doc 00:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Untrue! Not every Democrat is necessarily a critic of Bush, nor is every foreign statesman (minus Blair) a critic of Bush. Such generalizations are useless as arguments for deletion. StudierMalMarburg 14:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: so broad as to be meaningless. Chuckle about merge suggested just above. Kestenbaum 00:41, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. It was just inserted into Fidel Castro, by the way. Merging with living persons would be WAY easier than inserting this into all darn biographies we have. Jobjörn (Talk ° contribs) 01:16, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP --Kalmia 03:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per StudierMalMarburg --Tess Tickle 17:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, some users are wont to delete criticisms of GWB, but none of them say anything about categories such as Category:Criticism of journalism. Many criticisms of journalism come from the right, but I don't see anyone clamoring to delete the Criticism of journalism category. If we delete the criticism of George W. Bush category and not the criticism of journalism category (and every other "criticism of" category, then we are all practicioners of base hypocrisy. StudierMalMarburg 22:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I'm sure his wife should be in this category, for she has surely criticised her husband at some point. There is no way this could be maintained. jaco♫plane 00:11, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless vague category. As for the "baby with the bathwater" remark above, this is the bathwater. StudierMalMarburg, Category:Criticism of journalism is not about people who say "journalism is bad". It's about people and organizations who are journalism critics, in the sense that one might be a film critic, and also contains some article about controversies in journalism. - Jmabel | Talk 04:10, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Probably a fashion critic has disagreed with Bush's choice of tie once. Does that count? LaszloWalrus 06:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too vague, no criteria. I note that the category is being morphed into "Intellectual Critics...", "Foreign Critics...", and "American Political Critics...". I'm not sure if that is intended as an improvement or just an end run around this CfD. -Will Beback 19:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, it's not intended as an "end run." The subcategories are merely to demonstrate that it is a managable and potentially useful category when properly divided. StudierMalMarburg 20:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Size is not the problem. The problems are that it is too vague, has no objective criteria, and that we don't have "fans/detractors" categories. A "supporters of George Bush" category would be just as bad. -Will Beback 21:14, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep now that you mention it, a supporters of GWB category would be quite useful. This cat should stay, as it is easy to verify if someone has been critical of GWB or not. --71.36.251.182 23:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unuseful categorization; too broad in scope, too vague (what aspect are they criticizing?). Christopher Parham (talk) 00:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I created this category to classify Edward Peck, a former ambassador notable mainly for criticizing GWB. I had no idea this would become the hottest Me too! category. The fact is opposition to Bush has become a political movement on its own right. This has to be categorized. -- Petri Krohn 01:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please don't insult people for voting for what they believe to be right. Sumahoy 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - As per Bjones. Payneos 02:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete The name doesn't carry any restrictions, so just about every Democrat could be added, as well as many Republicans, not to mention hordes of people outside of politics and the United States. Sumahoy 20:45, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People will be put in these categories on the basis of one reported remark, and that isn't the way to use categories. Cloachland 23:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for all reasons already mentioned. Carina22 17:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:36, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User sae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) *Delete - This is an empty English language Wikipedian category. There is no description explaining what this category is or what is supposed to be in it. Cswrye 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. --musicpvm 17:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and merge Category:User SoE-N into User sae. SAE is the abreviation used by linguists to refer to the Southern dialect of American English. -JCarriker 22:12, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm with you on this one and would like to change my vote accordingly. Do you know the standard linguist abbreviations for British English, Irish English, American English, California English, Canadian English, and Australian English? Those categories may need to be renamed as well. --Cswrye 19:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The SAE dab page says it can mean "Standard American English"... but also says this meaning is esoteric... 132.205.45.148 04:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note: Category:User SoE-N was not tagged for merging, so I'm listing this again for seven more days. Original discussion here. --Kbdank71 14:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I thouoght this was for Wikipedian members of the Society of Automotive Engineers... 132.205.45.148 23:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category is named for an obscure abbreviation and I don't see any benefit in its existence. Casper Claiborne 00:28, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There are categories for other dialects of English, such as British English, Canadian English, Irish English, and so on. As described in the article, "SAE" is the common abbreviation for Southern American English. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename My concern is the ambiguity of the acronym SAE. If it can join the ranks of the other dialectual categories, with a clearer name, then rename. If not, delete. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I understand your point here. Right now, all of the "User language" categories use two- or three-letter abbreviations based on the ISO 639 abbreviations for each language. As far as I can tell, there aren't any ISO 639 abbreviations for dialects, but abbreviations are being used anyway for consistency. That might change at some point in the future, but since there are hundreds of language categories, that would be a major undertaking. --Cswrye 06:59, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • comment that seems bad practice, as dialect and language abbreviations are esoteric, and will many times overlap with one, or more , much more commonly used homologous abbreviations 132.205.93.19 02:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - at least one of the categories appear to be the result of a single userbox: Template:User SoE-N. It also didn't have the internal categories within "include only". I corrected that and just included SoE-N, since that is the title of the userbox. Then when I went to look at category SoE, it was empty. If the other cat, or both, is/are preferred, obviously feel free to make the change. - Jc37 19:33, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Utterly unnecessary category. --Cyde Weys 05:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 11:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dean Castle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, created in error by nominator (should have been at Commons), no contents. ::Supergolden:: 14:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. We all make mistakes sometimes. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Doczilla 07:33, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete perhaps just place a db-author on the page? - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:31, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:National Artist of the Philippines to Category:National Artists of the Philippines

• Rename, Pluralized. --Howard the Duck 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A notice of this discussion has been added to Filipino Wikipedians notice board. --Howard the Duck 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename (speedy?) per nom. David Kernow 09:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Noypi380 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:29, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti Iraq War activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, it is empty, except for the category American anti-iraq war activists. C mon 13:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I have a feeling that the American category is a recreation of previously deleted category. Osomec 13:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• It's empty because you just emptied it. Do you have another reason why it should be deleted? - EurekaLott 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there were four Americans in it and the previous pope. I moved the Americans to the right category and the previous pope did not meet the criteria (the criterion is that one should come from a country that was part of the coalition of the willing; the previous pope the political leader of a country which is not part of the coalition of the willing). Hence the category was empty and had become useless. - C mon 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Being opposed to a particular war is not an occupation. Categorising people by opinion (possibly changeable) on passing issues is not sensible as there are too many issues and events for it to work. Hawkestone 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Hawkestone and others. The point bears repeating again: categorizing people by opinions on passing issues, and on anything changable, is not a good idea. KleenupKrew 00:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete See choster's comments about Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 11#Category:Critics of George W. Bush above.
• 'Delete per Hawkestone. Postdlf 00:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, there seems to be a trend to want to delete anything and everything critical of Bush and his policies. StudierMalMarburg 14:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per StudierMalMarburg. It's a vast right wing conspiracy! --Tess Tickle 21:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I dislike that this CfD is linked to a 'vast rightwing conspiracy'. My politics (which are nobody's business, but hey look at my userboxes!) have nothing to do with me putting it up for CfD. The category is empty and useless and should therefore be deleted. -- C mon 22:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment LMFAO dude, you seriously need to get laid. Once you've done that, you might get over yourself. OMG dude! Don't get the NSA to hack me! Oh no! I think I can hear them at my front door! OMFG! It's Condoleeza Rice, come to whoop ma ass!! --Tess Tickle 01:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete very vague category LaszloWalrus 18:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too vague. The criteria is not well-defined. Further, we don't usually have "fans/detractors" categories. In this case we'd need a "supporters of war" category for balance, and that would be just as bad. -Will Beback 19:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a defining characteristic. Sumahoy 20:46, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 19:27, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and Towns in the Jervis Bay Territory to Category:Towns and villages in the Jervis Bay Territory

• Rename. 1) Correct capitalisation. 2) A territory of less than a thousand residents has no cities. Scott Davis ^Talk 12:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Overcategorization. It can never have more than nine articles, and its parent Category:Jervis Bay Territory currently has only twelve articles, including the four articles currently in Category:Cities and Towns in the Jervis Bay Territory. --Usgnus 14:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Hawkestone 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Casper Claiborne 00:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Jpmanalo 18:39, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blasians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, the category has a history of previous deletions. (see February 6). User:Arual 12:04, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
• Speedy delete per nom. Osomec 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Olborne 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was moot. The previous category, Category:Articles lacking sources, was restored through deletion review. As such this category, which was largely a duplicate to begin with, is unnecessary and has been deleted. References to it have been replaced with the original Articles lacking sources, in all places that they occur. Dragons flight 17:28, 19 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Articles needing sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[reply]

Improper Depopulation of this Category Prior to the Closure of the Discussion

In this edit Jyril removed this category from Template:Unreferenced, and the removal was not immediately reverted. Indeed, because of an apparent delay in categorization after restoring the category to the template, I was unable to get the template to apply this category to several pages that I had recently added the template to. In light of the fact that the depopulation of the category concealed the existence of the discussion to some extent, it is questionable whether this category should be deleted as a result of this CFD nomination. John254 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • Not as questionable as the fact that it was recreated after an entirely proper deletion. Choalbaton 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If the category really were improperly created as a recreation of a previously deleted category, it could have been speedily deleted under CSD G4. The fact that there is a discussion over the proposed deletion would seem to indicate a need to avoid preemption of the discussion by depopulating the category before the discussion has concluded. John254 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Outrageous speedy keep attempt

An utterly outrageous attempt was made to "speedy keep" this category. I have asked the user responsible never to close a category again, as he obviously cannot be trusted to act neutrally. Chicheley 17:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, This is a recreation of one of the two self-referential sources categories which have recently been deleted (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21 for one of the debates, but I am having difficulty locating the other), and should therefore be instantly speedy deleted. It is just a pain for the millions of non-editing users, especially as it appears at the head of the list of categories. This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed. Many other reasons for deletion were given in the previous debates. The allegation that deleting this is some sort of cover up is completely spurious as there is no proposal to delete the template. Chicheley 11:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is also completely redundant because as Kbdank71 has pointed out below one can find out which articles need sources based upon {{fact}}, by a different method here.

I believe the other debate you're looking for is Category:Articles with unsourced statements, which was apparently a johnny-come-lately change to Template:Fact to distinguish it from Template:Sources. -- nae'blis 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Osomec 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I happen to think CFD got it wrong on this one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles using this category because of the associated templates. While it SHOULD be subcategorized by month and year, so we can deal with long-standing problems first and thus clear the backlog, sweeping the problem "under the rug" doesn't make our sourcing problems go away. I'm inclined to agree with the person who said that {{fact}} should have a blinking neon background, because the uglier it is, the more likely people are to fix it. Chicheley should also probably mention that he instigated the other two deletion discussions. -- nae'blis 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The same old arguments don't get better with repitition. It is risible to say that I am "sweeping the problem under the rug" because I am not proposing deletion of the template. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I wasn't in the first debate about this, and I apologize if you thought I was trying to get a rise out of you. I just think this is not the way to go about dealing with established cleanup methods (for instance, this does nothing about the templates themselves, or how to deal with the backlogs). -- nae'blis 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted category. --Usgnus 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is populated by the {{fact}} template, one of the most useful maintenance tags on Wikipedia. Chicheley claims "This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed." Wrong, wrong, wrong. What makes Wikipedia look sloppy is when people don't cite all their sources and we leave it unmarked, making it look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened. The most important thing we can all do as Wikipedians is make the articles accurate. --M@rēino 15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That just makes no sense because I am not repeat not, get that not, saying that the problem should be left unmarked. I can't comprehend how you can think that the absence of this category makes it "look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened", that statement is just utterly, utterly nonsensical. Please try to stand back and look at Wikipedia from an outsider's perspective. The tens of millions of casual readers want Wikipedia to be user friendly, and if it is, some of them might contribute. If it just looks like a mess that is run by by club members for their own amusement, they are less likely to bother to help us. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why is this category a problem, when Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification and Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification exist and are populated with hundreds of articles? Not to mention Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates, Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, Category:Self-contradictory articles, etc. I don't understand the dichotomy here; YES, we need to address our obsession with templates and our massive backlogs, but I don't see how deleting the category furthers that goal. -- nae'blis 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the self-referential categories should go, but one has to start somewhere. This one is egregious because it is huge, it interferes with category navigation from many high profile articles, and it cannot be moved from the top of the list of categories because it is added by a template that is added to the main text. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Despite this category's size I feel that it is needed because it is a good way of looking for pages that need to have any information that needs to be sourced and confirmed. -Adv193 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep part of the dispute resolution system; for those who wish to redesign that system, the policy pages are third door on the left. Septentrionalis 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is a rising trend for people who don't like results on this page to say that it is not the proper place to tackle categorisation issues, but it is called "categories for discussion" and it is the right place. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The category was never emptied, and recreated due to extant redlinks, no doubt. CFD, RFD, SFD, and TFD all suffer from a fair amount of isolation, because unlike AFD, you don't generally see the notice in your normal everyday browsing. Such a major change as getting rid of all self-referential categories needs to be discussed in a broader forum, IMO. Note that I am not in disagreement with you that something needs to be done, whether it's a metadata namespace or subcategorization of the major cleanup templates, I just am disputing that this was the way to do it (akin to nominating an existing policy for deletion on MFD). -- nae'blis 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Lots of doubt actually, because that isn't how it works. It is frustrating that so many people who pronounce on this page don't understand how categories work. When a category added by a template is deleted it does not, repeat does not create red links. The category was recreated because someone had a bad idea, that is all. Chicheley 22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I must be misunderstanding you; look here if you don't believe that categories can be redlinks. -- nae'blis 22:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think you are misunderstanding, Nae'blis. Chicheley didn't say that 'when a category is deleted it does not create red links', he said 'when a category added by a template is deleted it does not create red links'. In the example you gave, someone added the category tag several times manually to what appears to have been substitutions of {{fact}}. If those template calls had been simply transcluding {{fact}} instead of having substituted it, then they would have lost the link to the category whenever that link was removed from the template. So Chicheley is a little bit wrong here but his basic point still stands: when a category is deleted, it may leave one red link on a template, but no matter how many articles are transcluding that template, their red links for that category are eliminating by removing the single red link from the template. -- Antaeus Feldspar 19:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Interesting; I hadn't expected that, but given that transclusions tend to lag behind changes, I didn't look too closely into it. I understand how categories work better than templates, which explains my confusion. Sorry, Chicheley. -- nae'blis 00:47, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete obviously as recreation. Hawkestone 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as recreation. If people need to know what articles need sources based upon {{fact}}, here you go. --Kbdank71 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• How many visitors are familiar with that function?--JyriL ^talk 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Whatlinkshere has serious technical limitations; it's not alphabetized or sortable by namespace, it will link to (for example) this discussion or any place in which Template:fact is linked to, including instructional uses like {{tl|fact}}; conversely it may miss usage of {{citation needed}} or {{cn}}. I have heard^{[citation needed]} that Whatlinkshere only goes up to 1000 links, but I'm not sure on that one. -- nae'blis 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep: Verifiability is paramount. To maintain even the tiniest shred of credibility we should—we must make clear to the public which articles can be considered "safe" and which ones may still be dubious (really dubious ones should meet eternity in the Hell of Bad Articles). In this light, any argument regarding navigability and such seems so useless. It is true, however, that this category SHOULD NOT exist, as there should be NO article that qualifies inclusion.--JyriL ^talk 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep. Probably not useful because of its size; however, as John254 pointed out, editing can become problematic if there is no other way to list unreferenced articles. If this category will be deleted, I STRONGLY suggest figuring out better ways to keeping track on these articles. Until then, keeping this category may be better than nothing.--JyriL ^talk 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation, useless and redundant. Anyone who thinks that an article is "safe" because it is not in such a category needs a few lessons on research methods. Golfcam 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Sure, but it shows that at least the articles listed in this category are to be treated with suspicion. Better system is definitely needed, but this could be a momentary solution.--JyriL ^talk 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy delete per nom. Olborne 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• KeepI see no reason to delete it. I think it can help users find articles that needs sources and they might know some sources that needs it.--Scott3 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This battle has already been waged. The keep side lost. Doczilla 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete If deletion decisions can be ignored we will have anarchy. Honbicot 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I just added a precise category and an unreferenced tag to an article. I am now going to remove the unreferenced tag to clear this category from it so the precise category receives due prominence. Nonomy 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Since, technically, nearly EVERY article would likely end up in this category, after one edit or another. {{fact}} is better used as an alert to editors and readers in specific articles, than as a voluminous list. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete I agree this is not valuable. Wimstead 13:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as per last time. ReeseM 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: The following excerpts from the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21#Category:Articles lacking sources are worth reproducing here:
  • What we really need is a choice between "editing mode" and "reading mode", but on the whole Wikipedia's presentation is skewed towards the needs of editors, which can make it look rather scrappy. Most people don't edit anyway, but they might donate if their experience is optimised. Carina22 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Not useful to readers. Athenaeum 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
  • It's a pain when the first four or five categories at the bottom of the article are non subject matter related, so having one less of these administrative categories would be useful. More could be deleted too, in particular all of those related to sources, eg 1911 Britannica. Cloachland 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Some of us use this category, which is a maintenance category, to help fill in gaps in sourcing in articles....FearÉIREANN 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • If there was a means of hiding this from all users apart from those who requested to see it, then it would be fine, but as things stand it is category clutter. Golfcam 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
  • "Not a help for readers" isn't a convincing argument for deletion, since there are plenty of categories used throughout wikipedia which facilitate the work of editors. ... The category serves the important role that most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance do, which is to help editors improve wikipedia. Kayaker 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC).
  • Ideally all the maintenance categories should be deleted, or at least hidden by default, but I have nominated this one because it is the very worst I have seen. Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
  • The arguments deployed for this deletion could be replicated (equally erroneously) for deleting all articlespace maintenance templates and categories (including dispute and controversy notices, stub tags, etc). Alai 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [I]t may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted. Merchbow 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
  • [T]he rationale of this CFD applies to every meta-category, and is in no way particular to this one, which strongly suggests to me that this is more sensibly the realm of centralised discussion and guideline creation, rather than "picking off stranglers". Alai 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I reproduce these comments here because they support the case that this CFD is just another instance of the ongoing debate about what categories are for and how should MediaWiki present categories of interest to editors (e.g. Category:Wikipedia maintenance) rather than readers. If you read Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines and the Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, you'd get the impression that categories are only for readers; that fact, and the comments above could imply that the real vote we need to have here is whether to recursively remove everything under Category:Wikipedia administration. 66.167.138.118 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep This category is valuable in article maintenance. John254 15:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Recreation of a bad idea. Choalbaton 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete per nom. Nathan Mercer 22:32, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This category doesn't convey any relevant information about an article. Wilchett 00:40, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is of minimal utility as a single category, and will cease to be of any use at all if it increases in size by a couple of magnitudes, which it will do if it is kept. Subdivision is not practical as no single system of subcategorisation would be flexible enough, and introducing multiple systems of subcategorisation would create category clutter on an intolerable scale. Piccadilly 10:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Piccadilly etc. Merchbow 16:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep, useful maintenance category that belongs to the template and should only be deleted when the template populating it is deleted. Kusma (討論) 13:24, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, I don't understand the trend to take away useful organizational tools simply because they might seem messy. The template itself is going to give a far greater sense of mess to the reader than the category ever will. Dragons flight 14:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Clearly harmful to Wikipedia's user friendliness. Calsicol 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete This is perhaps the second worst admin-centric category in Wikipedia after Category:Living people. Carina22 18:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please the category is useful for maintenance Yuckfoo 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation and totally useless to about 127,999,950 of the 128 million users comScore says Wikipedia has. Sumahoy 20:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete For all reasons given this time and last time. Twittenham 21:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How about banning categorization by template? I have noticed that it can create a range of problems and it seems disproporationate that one edit can change thousands of articles. Cloachland 23:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. While readers may not like it, it is an extremely important editorial category. Whether you think it is something that a "user" may not like, it is necessary when trying to bring up an article to higher quality standards. Titoxd^(?!?) 06:59, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The arrogance of that just takes my breath away. Wikipedia is a service for readers. Readers are the people that matter. Chicheley 11:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep! What, we should delete all categories that are self-refential? What about the templates like cleanup, afd, etc.? This is a seriously well-used and important category, and should be kept! User:Zoe|(talk) 23:57, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Since this and the July 21 CFD mentioned earlier are basically the same CFD, here's a summary of votes thus far. Apologies for any transcription errors. 69.3.70.110 09:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
• Keep Important category to help with article improvement, invaluable to wikignomes and as outragous as putting WP:AN/I up for deletion in terms of useful functions. -M^ask 00:16, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This will be a self imposed slash across the face for Wikipedia. It is not a useful function for readers, and Wikipedia only matters because it has readers. I am really beginning to wonder if the whole category system is a waste of time, as it has a built in tendency to get worse rather than better as so many bad categories are created and only a certain proportion will get deleted, leading to an unending accumulation of more and more crud. Chicheley 20:59, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wikipedia is only useful to readers if it has good, properly researched articles. Not only does this category help that but your argument is akin to saying that supermarkets can't announce 'clean-up in aisle 5' over the intercom because its not giving shoppers things they need. Instead it helps the staff present the store in the way most accomadating to visitors, exactly as this category does. -M^ask 22:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete	7/21	8/11		Keep	7/21	8/11
Chicheley	x	x		siafu	x
Carina22	x	x		Viriditas	x
Hawkestone	x	x		FearÉIREANN	x
Casper Claiborne	x	x		C56C	x
Athenaeum	x			Passer-by	x
Honbicot	x	x		GregorB	x
Nonomy	x	x		Kayaker	x
Olborne	x	x		Alai	x
Cloachland	x	x		nae'blis		x
Golfcam	x	x		M@rēin		x
Nathan Mercer	x	x		Adv193		x
Choalbaton	x	x		Septentrionalis		x
Ramseystreet	x			JyriL		x
Sumahoy	x	x		Scott3		x
ReeseM	x	x		John254		x
Landolitan	x			Kusma		x
Piccadilly	x	x		Dragons flight		x
Merchbow	x	x		Yuckfoo		x
Twittenham	x	x		Titoxd		x
Calsicol	x	x
Osomec	x	x
Usgnus		x
Kbdank71		x
Doczilla		x
Jc37		x
Wimstead		x
Wilchett		x

• comment Let's see what DRV does, eh? Kevin_b_er 00:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Important category for article improvement. I do hope some bot can subcategorize it to make it easier to use. Garion96 (talk) 01:02, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was keep (very slick, indeed) --Kbdank71 19:24, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Personal lubricants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Only 3 articles, 2 of which are brands. Ghosts&empties 04:07, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, strikes me as the most logical place to categorize these articles, which definitely have a strong commonality as objects of the same type. --M@rēino 15:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mareino. Not the biggest category, but it is the best way to categorize the commonality of the four articles. We are also thinking in very US-centirc terms, too, as articles will eventually be added for popular brands of personal lubricant in other parts of the world, and they will likely join this category. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Has potential for expansion. Golfcam 22:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I normally recommend deleting categories with few articles, but this one has potential for growth. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• keep please nothing wrong with this category Yuckfoo 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Would "potential for growth" be too much of a double entendre? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:00, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is a very slick category. Interest in it is bound to rise. Readers potentially interested in this growing field of personal care products should not be given the shaft. *THWACK* *thud* (an admin wielding a large Wikitrout turns and walks away) Kickaha Ota 01:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 19:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, A little-used category about a vague and poorly defined concept (some would argue, little more than a trendy feel-good buzzword). Category has no clear criteria for inclusion. Not a useful category.KleenupKrew 01:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and connect it properly in the category structure. The diversity label is being used in fairly respectable places (eg UK government [1] ) as an umbrella for gender/ethnicity/disability. The low level of use here is probably because the only parent was Category:Culture rather than linking to the separate topics and political activism. --Mereda 06:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A vacuous buzzword does not need a category. Chicheley 10:55, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per MeredaC mon 13:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Osomec 13:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, too hard to tell what goes in and what stays out. --M@rēino 15:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be made clear what the cat is for. Biological diversity? Investment diversity? Courage in the face of diversity?? ♥ Her Pegship♥ 16:36, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per Her Pegship Hawkestone 19:54, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless it can be renamed into something that is less ambiguious. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Mereda, but it seems that a rename to something like "cultural diversity" is in order. Q0 07:10, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Honbicot 08:20, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete as per nom, and others. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too ambiguous (and no discernible value in any case). ReeseM 22:27, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom LaszloWalrus 18:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the term's appropriation by identity politicians notwithstanding, the main article diversity is itself virtually a disambiguation page.-choster
• Delete Too ambiguous. Cloachland 23:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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