Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 18

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< December 17 December 19 >

December 18

edit

Category:Staff writers to Category:Journalists

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

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is a useful category. Only 3 people have been placed in it it 4 months. Merge into Category:Journalists so that they are alongside the other members of their profession without clearer distinctions, like being an editor or a columnist. "Staff writers" is pretty much a default for "standard journalist". It really isn't all that important for wikipeda whether they are freelance or staff (at least users don't seem to think so), and many journalists have been both. Calsicol 23:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge. "Staff writer" is a specific type of journalist; if there aren't enough for a category (which apparently, there aren't) this is where it should be merged. siafu 03:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Delaware Government images

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:39, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty and abandoned by the creator who gave permission to delete (User talk:Wknight94#Delaware categories). wknight94 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per above. wknight94 22:43, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 03:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Food production and processing to Category:Food industry

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

The result of the debate was Rename K1Bond007 04:40, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Food production and processing has a very similar scope to Food industry. Renaming this category would align its wording with similar categories like Category:Computer industry, Category:Music industry, and Category:Pharmaceutical industry. By itself Category:Food production and processing could eventually be a sub-category of Category:Food industry, but such a division is not needed yet. Kurieeto 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. No argument. siafu 03:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Financial Services to Category:Financial services

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

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 04:34, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The merging of the former into the latter is proposed. These categories have duplicate scopes, but the former goes against Wikipedia capitalization guidelines. Kurieeto 21:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge per nom. Is this a speedy? siafu 03:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy as capitalization fix. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy basically a typo - N (talk) 15:33, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Andalusian Mexicans and Category:Aragonese Mexicans

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:44, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are not needed. ---> Sagitario 20:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both. Both have exactly one member; overcategorization. siafu 03:28, 19 December 2005 (UTC) Since these categories are now populated, I withdraw my vote and leave it in the hands of those who are informed enough to comment on this specific content issue. siafu 19:21, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep both. The categories are a week old. Over-deletionism. --Vizcarra 03:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • If you can populate them with at least five articles, I will change my vote. If not, then we shouldn't have the cats until we have the articles. siafu 03:46, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • There you go. Both categories have at least five articles. --Vizcarra 13:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's no use. Without these, you might as well nominate the other unneeded and absurd categories you created for deletion. ---> Sagitario 15:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
May I remind you that Ruiz thinks the categories you have created are "unneeded and absurd"? Other than being a nuissance I do not understand the "use" of your comment. --Vizcarra 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Not really... he was actually complaining about something he thought i was doing, but the truth is it's you who's categorizing Mexican people by ethnicity simply on the origin or the surname and not on facts. ---> Sagitario 19:49, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Yes really. He called the category you created (Category:Spanish Mexicans) "silly", and also called you on your categorizing of people by ethnicity based only on their last name: "He does have an Irish surname, how do you know for sure that he doesn't have Irish ancestors? ---> Sagitario"
Ok... people you categorized: Fernando Lujan (Born in Mexico to an Argentine father, you categorized him under Category:Italian-Mexicans simply because of his surname "Ciangherotti") Itati Cantoral (Same, simply because of her Argentine mother's surname "Zacchi") Belinda (Just because her mother's surname is of German origin "Schüll", you categorized her in Category:German-Mexicans, how exactly do you know her mom's German?) Mauricio Ochmann (Sure, he has a German surname but i've never heard anything about him being of German descent.) etc. ---> Sagitario 23:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Ok... so "people Who Live In Glass Houses Should Not Throw Stones". It requires some nerve to categorize people by last name "Farell" and then come and say "it's you who's categorizing Mexican people by ethnicity simply on the origin or the surname and not on facts"--Vizcarra 23:16, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
It's funny.... you're the first one who categorized Arsenio Farell under Category:Irish Mexicans [1]. The reason why i had recategorized him there was because i remembered seeing him in it (back when i thought you were categorizing Mexicans by ethnicity, according to facts, not their surnames). ---> Sagitario 01:44, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Riiiight. Let's see if you find this funny. You categorized these Mexicans figures as Category:Italian-Mexicans, Category:French Mexicans, Category:Scottish Mexicans with no source to verify you did not do it based only on their last name: Sócrates Rizzo, Mireille Roccatti, Jorge Carpizo McGregor (could be Irish?), Raoul Lowery, José Francisco Ruiz Massieu, Rómulo O'Farril. Oh... and this one Gustavo Petricioli is not Italian--Vizcarra 01:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the point here! Arguing won't change anything, those categories will be deleted either way. ---> Sagitario 03:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Overcategorization. Postdlf 05:00, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both How many Mexicans are of pure descent from one region of Spain? Whatever fraction it is, it's going to get smaller and smaller. Sumahoy 13:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
In that case we would not have Category:Mexican Americans, Category:German-Americans, etc. --Vizcarra 23:32, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We dont need this cats, we dont use them in Mexico. Most mexicans are decendants from spaniards. Overcategorizing. Abögarp 15:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly my point. In that case why have Category:Spanish Mexicans? Only if we provide information on from what autonomous region (former kingdoms) then we are providing any information. --Vizcarra 18:57, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
You are just blatantly ignorant about the history of both Mexico and Spain. The 21st century autonomous communities are not direct descendants of the ancient iberian kingdoms. For HUNDREDS of years their borders changed, huge migrations went back and forth, etc. You are making huge assumptions on almost each member of those cats with no proof (as usual) Ruiz 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. User:Vizcarra has a very *personal* concept of race and ethnicity and is trying to diseminate it all over the wiki. There is no way on Earth to differentiate Mexicans ethnically using 20th century Spanish nations living in the Iberian peninsula. His "evidence", at most, is anecdotical. Family names were given mostly arbitrarly in Mexico, a single ancestor of foreign origin, mixed in a massive melting pot 500 years old is no proof of ethnic origin, etc., etc. Ruiz 01:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
None of the people in these categories are Mexican-born. Do yourself a favor and inform yourself prior to making these statements. An also read No personal attacks guidelines. If we were to refer to strict concepts of race and ethnicity Category:Mexican American would not exist, neither would Category:Jewish Americans, etc. --Vizcarra 01:57, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Vizcarra, it is you the one who needs to READ before EDITING. People are throwing you examples all over of how reckless your edits are. You just edit in batch mode without blinking or waiting for solid evidence, proofs, sources, etc. You see a Mexican with a "funny sounding name" and you give him/her a new ethnicity, nationality, etc. Generally speaking, the Jews have THOUSANDS of years segregating themselves for religious resons, and it is feasible to identify Mexican-Americans with dual nationality. But to distinguish a modern day Aragonese ethnically is impossible and to categorize them by "nationality" is just overcategorization. It's like creating a cat for "People who were born in Tlaxcala or is a grandson/daughter of a person born in Tlaxcala and are now living in Bolivia". By the way, Tlaxcala is ALSO an ancient kingdom. Ruiz 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Useful categories. This is a perfectly logical and natural way to find articles about people from well-defined areas of Europe. To delete them would merely be to destroy texture and information for no good reason. Wikipedia is about disseminating information, not cloaking it.--Mais oui! 07:53, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly what "texture" are we destroying? And could you please let us know the well-defined areas where the ethnic Aragonese live? Ruiz 00:26, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Mais oui! and for the reasons I gave in the related CfD. - N (talk) 13:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians by politics

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

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 04:30, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The subcategories of this category are being used to find like-minded wikipedians for vote stuffing purposes here, and likely at WP:AFD as well. IMO whatever positive benefits there may be for these categories are wholely outweighed by the ease and frequency by which they have been abused for ballot stuffing purposes. I'm cfr tagging them now. The list of these categories is:

-- Rick Block (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment. Removed my off-the-cuff remark to avoid casting aspersions on this debate. RlyehRising 21:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)-,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 21:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Them All I thought we'd had a discussion about this sort of thing rather recently. In any event, all such modes of categorization are irrelevant and unneeded. If a user feels very strongly about the issue, he or she can certainly feel free to mention it on his or her user page. Soltak | Talk 21:10, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep them all. There is nothing wrong with using these categories to find like-minded people and suggest that they vote on AFD debates. This is not "vote stuffing". Every Wikipedian is entitled to vote on AFD debates, regardless of how they find out about them. Wikipedia has dozens of noticeboards that do the same thing: alert people interested in an issue to things like AFDs in their area of interest. Categorizing Wikipedians by political leanings is no different from categorizing us by where we live, what we do for a living, what our religion is, etc. People like these categories, and they do no harm. --Angr (t·c) 21:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree it is not literally ballot stuffing, but differentially notifying a set of users you have a good indication will vote "your way" is nearly indistinguishable from ballot stuffing in "consensus" discussions involving relatively small numbers of users (which is typical at CFD, perhaps somewhat less so at AFD) . I believe this technique is being used to further POV agendas, in direct violation of Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. IMO, if you declare a POV you should perhaps recuse yourself from any discussion related to it. If these categories are not deleted, I will propose this as policy. -- Rick Block (talk) 23:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • For the record, I reject all of those methods of categorization as well. I firmly believe that it is unnecessary to categorize Wikipedians in any fashion at all outside of specialization as it has absolutely no relevance to an encyclopedia project. Category:Wikipedians interested in history. Category:Wikiedpians interested in politics, Category:Wikipedians interested in religion and the like are the only relevant means of categorization. In addition, various project pages are quite helpful in bringing together Wikipedians of similar interest. It is not necessary to declare one's leanings within a particular category, regardless of how deeply felt they might be, in any way other than on one's user page. Soltak | Talk 23:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Maybe we could even aim higher and have categories of experts and not merely people who are "interested in" something. Just a thought! Mirror Vax 19:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Angr. Wikipedians choose to identify themselves in many categories, politics should be one of them.--Bkwillwm 21:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all for vote-stuffing reasons mentioned. Calsicol 23:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. More vanity pages. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, not a place to meet "like-minded people and suggest that they vote on AFD debates" or do anything else. Between the mountains of stubs and less than sterling articles, the Seigenthaler affair and all similar (many yet undiscovered disasters), and things/people yet to be written about, Wikipedia loses enough credibility as is without having proliferate, egotistical, cliquish 'Wikipedian categories' here, there and everywhere. 12.73.196.43 03:04, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, as above. --Carnildo 08:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Somewhat reluctantly as I don't believe in malign intent here, but I do not like as a principle to see groups of Wikipedians by POV. It's just too dangerous. David | Talk 11:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Somehow I doubt that the editors of Britannica divide themselves up into competing political groups. Sumahoy 13:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, factionalizing. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep If we delete this for vote stuffing reasons, then we need to delete all categorizations of Wikipedians. Can you not imagine articles of interest to various ethnic groups, nationalities, sexual preferences, etc.? Lets not delete legitimate categories just because it may be misused occasionally.
    You can figure out what people are interested in certain topics just by scanning related articles' histories. Should we delete all histories to prevent that too?
    The way to handle vote stuffing is to announce the attempt to the world. When announced, people will rush to cancel the vote stuffing attempt. The vote stuffing attempt here probably resulted in more delete votes than keep votes, just because the attempt was made public.
    The categories above are legitimate and should be kept. NoSeptember talk 16:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Presenting political and social alignment has uses for showing a lack of bias in some situations. Is it vote stuffing when separate indiviuals come in to express a view? Also, with the reasoning above, why does the Wikipedia:User categorisation project even exist? --StuffOfInterest 17:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Further, maybe we should remove the notice on the article that it is up for deletion, if we want to avoid having interested parties voting. Make it truly random, that is if you consider the AfD regulars to be a random group. :-P NoSeptember talk 18:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete diversity of views and political disagreement is a good thing, but defining factions like this impedes the consensus-building that is necessary on Wikipedia. CDC (talk) 21:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - the politicisation of wikipedians is unnecessary and should be avoided at all costs. Deano 22:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep There is no reason why Wikipedians shouldn't show their affiliations if they want to. I really don't see why that would make a consensus impossibble. And as said above, by Stuffofinterest, this would mean we have to delete every category of Wikipedians. Larix 22:52, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have no problem with Wikipedians demonstrating their affiliations. It's simply not necessary to do so via categorization, however. Soltak | Talk 00:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep As far as I know, these categories haven't pushed Wikipedians to attack others who disagree with them or have used them to promote their point of view. I know this is an encyclopedia and all, but one only needs to look at the user pages to discover that the user pages aren't, and shouldn't be, taken as seriously as regular articles. Hence, the reason that categories like these exist, for the sake of users wanting to know more about their fellow editors. Even if Wikipedia is an upper-class, stiff, no-nonsense gathering (which I know it's not_, that shouldn't mean that creativity must be stifiled. In summary, let's keep. I don't see any legitimate reason for deleting them.--D-Day 23:15, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Paranoia about so-called "vote stuffing" shouldn't have anything to do with it! If I understand the supposed reasons why they're bad, shouldn't it be zero-sum? What's to prevent the "other side" from doing the same? If the "other side" has a smaller number of users, wouldn't that be reflected in broad concensus on Wikipedia anyway? Moreover, shouldn't that hopefully be reflected in smaller groups as well? If the claim is that there are disagreements on Wikipedia which people would feel strongly about but wouldn't otherwise know about, then that seems like a strong argument for having these categories. You can't expect people to know of everything that's going on, but rallying people, to get a more diverse set of opinions, should be valued! --Flata 23:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep Comment: Has vote stuffing been a severe problem? Also, wouldn't this set precedent to deleting other categories (such as Category:Wikipedians by religion), like NoSeptember said? Gflores Talk 23:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Sarge Baldy 23:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep as per NoSeptember. The beauty of Wikipedia lies in the fact that it is based around community. It is natural for communities to segment themselves into groups with similar interests. Why fight human nature? —Chairlunchdinner 23:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all, as user cateogization is informative. Canadianism 00:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep along lines of Gflores. AnonMoos 00:44, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. These categories aren't quite as well-defined as religion-based categorization, but where do you draw that line? Given that this does not contribute to the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, but rather to its "social" nature, I'd just barely lean toward not having them except in a few well-defined cases. (Wikipedians by language, country, etc.) JRP 01:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • On further investigation, there appear to be a lot of user categories that are even more nonsense than these. My vote of delete stands, but I think a more general consensus of what is acceptable is in order-- and I don't think a VFD of a specific case is the place to have that discussion. JRP 01:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all Wikipedians should be allowed to display their political affiliations, and should be able to easily find other Wikipedians who share their views. I do not consider this nomination to be in good faith. Roman Soldier 02:22, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep along the lines of Gflores --Reflex Reaction (talk)• 02:25, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - Your reasoning implies that next you'd want to delete Category:Wikipedians by location and all the rest in Category:Wikipedians too...
There is nothing wrong with making it easier to find like-minded people on Wikipedia. If people did not do this through categories they would just do it by "friends-of-a-friend" etc - If you're worried about "vote-stuffing", these categories actually PROTECT AGAINST THAT, since usually votes are swayed in the favour of long-time users who can pull on groups of friends they have gained over a long time. Letting newer users find similar people just evens it out. --Mistress Selina Kyle 02:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Angr and Gflores's suggestions. -- LGagnon 02:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. When I saw this nomination, I knew it would provoke a lively discussion. I personally have not felt the need to categorize myself, so I have no stake in the outcome. However, I think a consensus to delete would likely have profound ramifications on all user-related categories. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 02:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Note. Italics was used for emphasis and should not be construed as a vote. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 02:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. I see no reason why to delete them, particularly since they're a very good structure in terms of finding like-minded Wikipedians, enable all of us to know each other better and have no obvious negative side-effect. Knowing what other Wikipedians' political stances are can also be very helpful in bringing about a NPOV encyclopedia.    Ronline ✉ 02:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Ditto Angr and Gflores. --Fibonacci 03:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep --Allstar86 03:24, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The categories promote a sense of community, which is important to furthering the goal of creating an encyclopedia based on community support. Catamorphism 03:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep - am listed in one of those categories and the first time I was ever contacted for "vote stuffing" was about this issue. If it happens, it doesn't for my category. Thesquire 04:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep. If other categories are allowed to identify Wikipedians by their location and other factors, then political beliefs should be one of them. --Peter McGinley 05:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there are good reasons to delete these, but if you do so you will also have to delete categories like wikipedians by religion. -Arctic.gnome 05:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. What's next? Deleting locations categories, due to danger of vote-stuffing? Hey, we should also delete all WikiProjects - they're most certainly also used for vote-stuffing... If you had any valid reason for deletion, I might support, but definitely not with this one.   ナイトスタリオン ✉ 05:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepThesocialistesq 06:07, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The vote-stuffing argument seems fairly weak - any means of categorization allows for that - and the idea in general smacks of deletionism. There is no need for Wikipedia to conform to ideas of "what an encyclopedia must be" which, by its own existence, it has already rendered somewhat outmoded. The Wikipedia should be allowed to be what it is, not constantly jammed into the set of assumptions held by the latest authority on the subject. - Scooter 06:19, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Scooter. --Palnatoke 07:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a social club. --Mais oui! 07:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I just don't think it's a valid reason for deleting these categories. I don't like any proneness to delete articles/categories/templates, by the way, and this looks like the case. --Angelo 08:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep also as per scooter. Bartimaeus 08:33, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep - --Phil 08:57, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Delete these and you'll have to delete every category on Wikipedia. --Hitchhiker89 09:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If user's want to know more about their fellow editors, and aren't attacking those who disagree with them, then the usefulness outweighs the possible harm. AnnH (talk) 10:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is nothing wrong with this practice as long as they are following the guidelines. anil 10:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. — Jeandré, 11:41, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Scooter. And why should we pretend that wikipedians always hold a NPOV? It's natural & healthy for us to be opinionated. My opinions help me to be articulate. Only the articles need to be of NPOV. Why create an atmosphere where people are afraid to declare their POV? That just seems dishonest. Also, the categories themselves don't cause vote stuffing. Pressumably, the categories are used like phone directories, to find other wikipedians, to communicate with. So they're an aid to communication. Surely wikipedia doesn't want to hinder communication? By removing the categories, we'd be sledgehammering a nut. I agree that wikipedia shouldn't be a social club, but quality articles are made quicker with lots of contributors. how are experts supposed to find each other? I honestly don't fully understand the reasoning to delete them. Perhaps i'm being thick, but could someone please explain in more detail why they should go? Veej 12:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Such categories have been used to organize (successful) drives to keep clearly POV categories. Two I've noticed recently are Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_24#Category:Pro-life_politicians and WP:CFD#Pro-choice_and_pro-life_celebrities. "Pro-life" is an intentionally POV term, now plastered on hundreds of wikipedia articles in the name of "categorization". Nominations to delete such categories are met with organized resistance, facilitated by the existence of Category:Pro-Life Wikipedians. To be fair, I didn't just single out this category, but all subcats of Category:Wikipedians by politics. I haven't seen others of them used in this way (from my own POV, I think I'd be less likely to notice), but the possibility for such abuse is clear. And, if they're used to rally votes at CFD, and users become aware of this technique, I think it is very likely the same technique will become common at AFD (if it isn't already) and even in article content disputes. IMO - organized POV pushing is far more dangerous to wikipedia than vandalism. -- Rick Block (talk) 16:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Regarding the example that you gave about "Pro-life". The direct problem for NPOV is the category for articles. But the category for wikipedians only aids communication. Isn't it fair & reasonable that interested parties should be informed of a debate? perhaps there should be a category of wikipedians who are 'against POV categories of articles' from whom you can rally support? I think you may have a US perpective on this issue. to an outsider, the US abortion issue seems unnaturally polarized to the extent that debate is stifled. but abortion is an extreme example. overall, wikipedians don't behave like that. wikipedians can have opposing viewpoints without being hostile, surely? shouldn't we Assume good faith? i'm a relatively new wikipedian. are my expectations of other wikipedians naive? Perhaps "organized POV pushing" is dangerous. but removing the category of Green Wikipedians is a draconian measure. Another solution needs to be found. Veej 17:36, 20 December 2005 (UTC) Also, if an article is in the Category:Pro-life_politicians, the article itself could still be NPOV despite the fact that the said politian isn't NPOV. am i confused? it is only the articles themselves that need to be NPOV isn't it? Veej 17:46, 20 December 2005 (UTC) A potential solution? From Rick_Block's link to Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_November_24#Category:Pro-life_politicians, i read Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters's comments. However, i don't believe removing the category is the answer. I do believe that application of the category will need to be monitored closely. so how about the category; 'wikipedians against poor application of categories to articles'. if someone starts a similar category (i'm not sure how to), i'd join, & you could potentially rally my support as an interested party. Veej 19:34, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Don't buy the "vote stuffing" argument. If, say, Pro-Life Wikipedians rally all their co-thinkers, what's to stop the Pro-Choice Wikipedians rallying all their's? Agree that if these go, then all user categorisation has to go, which would be a bad thing. Deleting these is just censorship.  Camillus talk|contribs 12:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
That's basically saying "they're abusing the system, so you are free to abuse the system as well." The system shouldn't be abused in the first place. Abstain on the vote, btw. Aecis praatpaal 15:26, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are heaps worse crap as far as categorisations go. Also, look at stupid articles about hypothetical Star Wars events (which never even happened in the films) - that CRAP should be deleted. Dankru 12:50, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - just because there is other "worse crap", doesn't make this one okay. Two wrongs do not make a right. Deano 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per above (what more could Isay?) Thanks for listing this though, I was able to add myself to a couple more I didn't know were out there.Gator (talk) 14:07, 20 December 2005
Comment: What is the purpose for this category? Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and this does not help that in any way. Wikipedia is NPOV, and categories such as these emphasise POV. Wikipedia IS NOT a social club - if people want to find other people who share their political/ethical beliefs, join some forum. These categories have no beneficial purpose to Wikipedia. And that is all that matters. Deano 16:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and add more!. These categories are only used to identify "Wikipedian"; they're used primarily for "User Pages", and "User Pages" are not part of the main encyclopdia. That's what the entire purpose of Category:Wikipedians was for. - QzDaddy 18:10, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Very strong keep By your deletionists' highly flawed arguments, we'd better shut down all the userpages, since they aren't themselves encyclopedic. How do these cats at all detract from Wikipedia as an encyclopedia? They're not even part of the article namespace. Wikipedia is not just an encyclopedia, by its collaborative nature it has a social aspect. It is benefecial to know things like this about each other. No one's making you add yourself to it. As for vote-stuffing, all good things can be misused (because computers can be used for spam and viruses, I guess we'd better make computers illegal). And just having stuff like this on our userpages isn't good enough; can you imagine how difficult that would be to find? There is no valid case against these cats. Yeltensic42.618 17:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: perhaps we just have to accept that due to the 'collaborative nature' of wikipedia, a consensus for dealing with highly polarized issues like abortion, will always be difficult. any solutions to this problem shouldn't be at the expense of the vast majority of wikipedians who use categories in a positive way. Veej 18:12, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Veej. We can't throw the baby out with the bath water. And if we get rid of user cats, editors will still have opposing views that might get in the way. So what's the point? Yeltensic42.618 18:39, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I agree. Is there really a need to delete EVERY non-encyclopedic feature on Wikipedia? Why don't we just delete Bad Jokes and Other Deleted Nonsense while we're at it? --D-Day 21:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all I don't see any valid reason why these categories should be deleted. Sure, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia but it is also a community. I have nothing else to say except that I (as a Liberal) think it is our right to express our political standpoint. --Thorri 18:45, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per Veej,Yeltnesic42.618 and others. This discussion will probably add more users to any and all of the categories. I think userpages have already established a form of expression this merely networks it.Case 18:52, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I couldn't agree more! Larix 18:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I prefer to mention my opinions through a simple category than through writing some tractates on my user page. And keep wikipedians' pets etc. too. Miaow Miaow 20:53, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep I have been in the liberal category for a few weeks and no one has contacted me about any voting until just today, when Larix told me about this vote. I say that we keep the categories for now and monitor the talk pages of all Wikipedians in these categories - if there is a request for a particular vote on a talk page that seems to be related to the categories, then we warn the user who left the request. We then monitor that user's contributions and if they canvass votes again, we block them. — MATHWIZ2020 TALK | CONTRIBS 21:40, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Thanks for the vote. Though one point. You make it sound like canvassing is not allowed, and a reason to block users. This is as of yet not the case. To repeat a previous comment:
Keep them all. There is nothing wrong with using these categories to find like-minded people and suggest that they vote on AFD debates. This is not "vote stuffing". Every Wikipedian is entitled to vote on AFD debates, regardless of how they find out about them. Wikipedia has dozens of noticeboards that do the same thing: alert people interested in an issue to things like AFDs in their area of interest. Categorizing Wikipedians by political leanings is no different from categorizing us by where we live, what we do for a living, what our religion is, etc. People like these categories, and they do no harm. --Angr (t·c) 21:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
So even if the complaint of the deletionists, that these categories are massively used to find like-minded people for votes, would be true (which as comments like your own prove is not the case), even then there would be no reason to block anyone as there is no policy on the subject. Larix 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Precisely; this relates to Christopher Parham's comments below too. There is no Wikipedia policy against telling people that an AFD/CFD/whateverFD on a topic they may be interested in is going on. Not even one against telling large groups of people who one suspects will share one's POV. People tell me all the time when there's an AFD on an issue in linguistics, and sometimes they're disappointed because I vote differently from how they wanted me to. (No one's ever used my political category, Category:Religious socialist Wikipedians, for this purpose, since the category is only six days old and there are only two of us there.) --Angr (t·c) 22:08, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not convined that deletion of these categories is necessary to prevent ballot-stuffing; consider a policy directly relevant to the practice in question, or RFC's against the users in question. Christopher Parham (talk) 21:56, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. "Membership" in the categories is entirely voluntary, and I disagree that these create "factionalism." —Sesel 22:31, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all as per above. Chooserr 00:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep All. If we delete a few self referencing categories, I believe it is absolutely and only fair to delete them all. Who even made up the ballot-stuffing definition anyway, I never saw it in wiktionary! Deleting these categories will only result in Wikipedia losing information about its users and the demographics thereof. If these go, I will urge all categories on Wikipedians to go. Эйрон Кинни 06:25, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Useful way of declaring an interest and thus promoting NPOV editing - membership of these categories should be mandatory ➨ ❝REDVERS❞ 14:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all. Been covered.
  • keep. All though I think that this is hardly encyclopedic. Organization of users kind of blurs the lines since user spaces are allowed to be POV. It does make wikipedia more like social network than an encyclopedia. As far as "ballot stuffing", people choose to get in these catagorys and choose to vote no matter how they are contacted, thats democracy, its the right thing to do, even though it might screw stuff up eventually.

--The_stuart 19:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Categorising userpages is part of wikipedia - deal with it. By the logic expressed in the nomination we should also remove the WP:Babel and DualLicense boxes since they are non-encyclopedic and only for categorisation of users. If you don't like a particular category you are free to not use it, but that doesn't make it worthy of Cfd Cynical 22:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all: One of the number of things that Wikipedia prides itself on is the fact that, unlike other encyclopedias, you can see who has written an article. Not just in the sense that you can see a name (with some qualifications and a field of expertise attached), but that you can read all the details that editors are willing to reveal about themselves. Any project of this sort is bound to involve a wide range of POVs and their resulting political affiliations. However, for the same reasons that Wikipedia keeps history pages, it is important that this sort of information is out in the open. The issue raised in this CfD nomination was the argument that these categories have been used to influence internal voting issues. Surely, seeing the amount of support for these categories, it would be preferable to make contacting multiple users to ask for their support on a vote a policy no-no? 22:53, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, absolutely - Wikipedia is more than just an encyclopedia, it is a community. Why should I be able to declare myself a Star Trek fan or a Firefox user, but not a Green Party member? I fail to see how this is different than any other user category. A logically consistent suggestion would be to eliminate the categories entirely, although I disagree with that position. Categorization (as long as it isn't discriminatory or hurtful) is natural among a diverse group of people. People have an inherent desire to commune with others like themselves, and I believe the Wikipedia community should support this. Furthermore, who among us has no point of view on a topic? Suggestions that people with a POV excuse themselves of related topics are ludicrous. Is there anyone out there who has no opinion on abortion, for example, but sufficient knowledge about it to write an article? Disagreement, dissent, opinions, points of view, and healthy conflict are all part of any normal society. Wikipedia cannot be compared to Britannica until a chief editor has final say over all content. -- Chris 08:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, They are all relevant.
  • Keep Per other keep arguements. While being spammed because of being in these categories is very annoying, it is sometimes useful to know someone's POV on a certain subject. Banes 09:46, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It's nice to know you're not alone. Joestella 14:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, all of these silly "Wikipedians by XYZ" pages and categories where XYZ is not directly relevant to knowledge or expertise should be purged. Especially categories like this one, which seem to be invitations for ballot-stuffing. It is refreshing to see progress on this front, as a page that I nominated here [2] finally received its due [3]. --Bletch 20:19, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all εγκυκλοπαίδεια* 21:52, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Keep This does nothing to harm Wikipedia, why is there a need for it to be deleted? Userpages are by definition "Vanity Pages", I have heard no good reason to delete this, and I will IAR and recreate the categories that have to do with me if this is deleted. karmafist 22:59, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
God bless you Karmafist. You're a heckuva Wikipedian. --D-Day 12:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Stronger Than Dirt Keep, Even. Deleting would be a very lame and uncool idea. And if I may say so, whoever suggested it for deletion needs to be pimpslapped a few thousand times... every hour, on the hour. --Cjmarsicano 05:44, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Where's a thumbs-up image when I need it the most? --D-Day 12:48, 23 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Good point, Cjmarsicano. I like your thinking. Эйрон Кинни 04:07, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I was asked by Veej on my Talk page to better express my argument to have these categories deleted. On further reflection, I am extremely concerned that this CFD as exposed just the problem of "vote rigging" (which some may more politely call "canvassing") that the submitter was concerned with. On a quick and non-scientific check, I see that a huge portion of the "Keep" votes are the result of Larix leaving talk messages on what I can assume to be almost every member who was self-categorized in one of these categories. I feel that this action has demonstrated conclusively the divisiveness of these categories and their use as a tool which can corrupt the democracy of Wikipedia. It's possible (maybe even likely) that the "Keep" votes would have won anyway, I know there are some good inclusionist arguments here and that's why my delete vote was "weak", but I'm ashamed as to what has become of this process. (For the record, here are the 34 users that I found who voted here that had the "come vote!" message on their talk page. This isn't exhaustive: User_talk:D-Day, User talk:Ctdunstan, User talk:Cynical, User_talk:Kinneyboy90, User_talk:Sesel, User_talk:Mathwiz2020, User_talk:Miaow_Miaow, User_talk:JM.Beaubourg, User_talk:NCase, User_talk:Thorri, User_talk:Yeltensic42.618, User_talk:Veej, User_talk:QzDaddy, User_talk:Dankru, User_talk:Camillus_McElhinney, User_talk:Jeandré, User_talk:Anilkt, User_talk:Hitchhiker89, User_talk:TBH, User_talk:Angelo.romano, User_talk:Scooter, User_talk:Thesocialistesq, User_talk:Arctic.gnome, User_talk:Peter_McGinley, User_talk:Thesquire, User_talk:Catamorphism, User_talk:Allstar86, User_talk:Fibonacci, User_talk:Ronline, User_talk:LGagnon, User_talk:Reflex_Reaction, User_talk:Roman_Soldier, User_talk:Chairlunchdinner, and User_talk:Flata.) JRP 15:10, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Yes, I (like many others) was asked by Larix to vote on this issue. So what? Being in Category:Liberal Wikipedians I, of course, do not want this category (or similar categories) to be deleted but it's extremely unlikely that I would have known about this vote if Larix had not told me. Is this "vote rigging"? No - I chose to vote in the way that reflects my opinion on the issue, I wasn't forced to vote, I was just told about it. Is announcing the date of an election and telling people how to register their vote "rigging"? Also, this is the first time I had been asked to vote on an issue based on being in any category. --Hitchhiker89 17:27, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I would really appreciate it if someone could explain me how I 'corrupt democracy' in Wikipedia by telling people there is a vote going on. In my eyes, telling people they can vote and even telling them how you would like them to vote is essential to democracy. It´s why political parties distribute flyers and try to get media attention. I fail to see how anyone could call that undemocratic. Actually I feel quite offended by the charge of having corrupted democracy. What I did was in good faith and not against any policy whatsoever. I just tried to inform people who might be interested in keeping these categories of what was going on.Larix 20:28, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - In my opinon Larix, you did nothing wrong. And I don't see why this discussion should be kept open any longer. We have a consensus reached, there's no point to go on, and at this rate, the whole "vote-stuffing" debate will lead to more hurt feelings then any Wikipedian category ever could. --D-Day 20:52, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - According to official Wikipedia policy, "Wikipedia is not an experiment in 'democracy'", so it really doesn't matter who corrupted what vote, so as long as it does not corrupt the "consensus". I will quote JRP, "...can corrupt the democracy of Wikipedia.", well, sir, there is no democracy, just to inform you, so that comment should be disregarded by all Wikipedians imposed into this debate. Even if that wasn't policy, why would it make a difference? I mean, what if some person (an idiot) didn't know that we were having an election two Novembers ago? Informing them of the impending election has no relationship whatsoever to your alleged "vote-rigging". This is just another clever scheme to undermine the Inclusionists' fight to keep these categories. Well, I'm sure not getting fooled. Эйрон Кинни 04:24, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - *shrug* I'm merely making a comment; you don't have to agree to it. I also don't think that Larix did anything outside the rules as they currently stand. I don't even disagree with the rules strongly. But your debate is one sided: you cannot actively inform everyone that is *not* categorized that there is a vote to be had. So, by the very nature of the beast, mostly categorized (and notified) users will vote here. That's fine. It's within the bounds of the system. But it deserved mention. And that will be my last comment on the subject. JRP 04:56, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - And that will be my last comment on the subject. So first you make such a charge and then you run away from the discussion. Wonderful. Larix 10:39, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As I stated above, this is the first and so far only time that my belonging to a category has ever been used for "vote rigging," canvasing, whatever. As such, JRP's argument doesn't hold much water for me. My vote stands. Thesquire 02:28, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - JRP, I do not appreciate that you have publicly posted a list of users who you believe have engaged in the so-called 'vote-stuffing'. We have agreed that this does not violate policy, so there is no reason to finger individual users. I suggest that you remove your list before somebody reports it as a personal attack. You have no right to accuse myself and others of corrupting Wikipedia's so called democracy. Posting messages to users about votes in which they may be interested is not a corruption of democracy--in fact it is grassroots democracy. Canvassing, petitions, and organizing like-minded individuals are fundamental components of our American democracy (I say our because I see you are from MA). If somebody receives "Yes on Proposition X" propaganda in the mail, and votes yes on "Proposition X" in a state election, should their name be printed in the local newspaper as corrupting American democracy? I spent the summer canvassing homes in my neighborhood and asking people to contact their representatives in support of a solar power bill--does this mean I have corrupted the democracy in the United States as well as Wikipedia? Furthermore, how is it my fault that I was contacted about this--should I instead have refrained from voting on an issue I care about, just because I found out about the vote through a message from another user? I know you have said you are done with the topic, but I would like you to answer those questions. I understand your later comment that you were "merely making a comment" in suggesting that vote-stuffing is bad, but your decision to publicly point the finger at those you believe did so suggests you are instead accusing us. You say you are "ashamed as to what has become of this process," but I am ashamed that this discussion has become a witch-hunt. By the way, "stuffing" refers to one person voting more than once, not one person telling his peers that a vote is taking place--no matter how biased the group of peers may be. I suggest you either get an admin to block all of our IPs for "vote stuffing" or else remove your comment. -- Chris 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It pays to vote in favor of more, not less expression. There seems to be sufficient interest and a removal will frustrate the new Wiki-parties. That would not be conducive to creativity. To address the concern about voting blocks taking root, it appears that would be difficult with so many categories. There is a strong chance that voters would have as many conflicting ideas as well as similar. If a "group" did attack a contribution based on a unified POV, it would be easy to see them, as they will have self labeled themselves... having published a bias! In any free society, there is the right to associate and assimilate.. Wiki should be more open not less. Therefore.. let them form groups! --TikiWiki 18:18, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I'm sorry, but I do not see how by identifying ourselves about our political leanings outside of Wikipedia should affect the way we work on Wikipedia. While I am a Democrat (US), there are plenty of people who lean the opposite of me and others, but we work well together on trying to make Wikipedia a good encyclopedia. Zach (Smack Back) 20:31, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - utter madness to delete. Agree with as per Zscout. This is an utterly bad faith nomination. -- Natalinasmpf 00:54, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Flata's vote. Silas Snider [[User_talk:Simonfairfax|(talk)]] 06:51, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The majority of opinions stated here is a tour de force through the reasons to keep this. --Twisturbed Tachyon 15:32, 25 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Regardless of the potential for leveraging this toward vote-stuffing, these categories serve a legitimate purpose in letting Wikipedians make their views known and finding others who share them, thereby making Wikipedia a more personal place. -- Tetraminoe 02:42, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment I have added Category:Christian democrat Wikipedians to the list as it belongs with the other categories listed here (though I obviously still think they shouldn't be deleted). -- Tetraminoe 03:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Psychological disorders

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:27, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Empty and already well covered by Category:Abnormal psychology wknight94 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete wknight94 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, though neither option is likely to please the anti-psychiatry contingent here. siafu 03:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sumahoy 13:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How about a cat redir? Radiant_>|< 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this term is widely used, at least in popular literature. It should be considered to use it instead of the "abnormal" one. Pavel Vozenilek 01:05, 24 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:World's tallest building

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:25, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, this category can never include more than one article, and Category:Former world's tallest buildings already exists. - EurekaLott 09:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Osomec 13:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- per nom. 209.202.119.248 15:34, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 03:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete must be a joke. Arniep 03:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE' Current and former world's tallest buildings 132.205.45.148 20:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • COMMENT There are actually several world's tallest buildings.... tallest top floor, most stories, tallest architectural point, tallest roof, tallest non-architectural point, tallest point above sea level ...
  • Delete. Per nom. --StuffOfInterest 20:10, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE Category:World's tallest building with Category:Former world's tallest buildings - if you just delete the category then the World's Tallest building will be un-categorised. Create Category:World's tallest buildings, and sort them by rank. Deano 22:51, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • MERGE. i agree with Deano. Veej 12:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - In addition to the problem above (with the definition of "tallest") there is also the issue of buildings under construction. When the building in Dubai is complete, it will be the world's tallest building, but what if the project is cancelled or changed? There are a number of buildings slated to be the next "world's tallest building". Anyway, just a thought. -- Chris 08:41, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Science and technology in England to Category:Science and technology in the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 04:22, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There couldn't be a much better illustration that these new and unwelcome England categories just cause confusion and inconsistent categorisation than the random and incomplete contents of this one. Like the others it was created by a Scottish nationalistPlease stop. If you continue to make personal attacks on other people as you did at Using someone's political affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views, you will be blocked for disruption. Comment on content, not on other contributors or people. Thank you. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mais oui! (talk • contribs) 09:00, 18 December 2005.
who appears to be attempting to minimise the prominence given to UK wide categories. The UK has a single scientific community. I appreciate that the sensitivities of Scottish nationalists mean that it is not worthwhile nominating the Scottish categories for deletion, but there is no need to impose the awkward division on England too. The category system is a navigation tool, and separate English categories for topics where there is not a clear cut division (as there is with cities for example) do not aid navigation, especially by non-British people - it is highly likely that some of them will assume this is the UK category, but it only has a fraction of the content (and trying to slice up the rest is not the answer to that). Merge/delete CalJW 06:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment As the User who created some of these cats, I must say that I am starting to feel a bit ambivalent about them myself. It is becoming very clear to me that many (most?) English users on Wikipedia do not respect or value their heritage or culture at all. I created the ones I did one out of my (typically Scottish) sense of egalitarianism, but if the English do not be want to be treated as equals then that is really their problem, not ours. Perhaps I will vote Keep at the end of the day, but I could be persuaded to vote Delete, depending on how the discussion goes.
One important point to be made, and I think that you have been slightly untruthful in some of your nominating statements, is that ALL of these English cats are subcats of the relevant UK categories. You seem to be on a one-man-mission to make Category:England look very naked indeed.
If you find the difference between England and the United Kingdom "confusing", then may I recommend that you read the relevant Wikipedia articles: that will help you out of the haze.
Finally, you seem to be quite confident that it is acceptable behaviour to throw around pejorative words like "nationalist" at fellow users of Wikipedia. Therefore, as a supporter of continuation of the British state, I can only assume that you will be very comfortable being described as a "British nationalist".--Mais oui! 08:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I am sorry you were offended. I was quite unaware that it was an insult. I thought it was a badge of pride, and so apparently do the Scots who created of the The Nationalism Project and those who support the Scottish National Party, which is described on the aforementioned site as "The major nationalist party in Scotland" (my emphasis). I don't give a hoot if you call me a "British Nationalist" though it is woefully inaccurate as I would prefer it if England became independent. But it isn't and English and British topics are hopelessly entangled, which is why I want these categories to go. CalJW 10:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as proposed. "Valuing heritage" doesn't come into it. I would have though a Scottish user would have taken a different line of argument, but anyway this isn't needed. It would be easier if there were no subdivisions of UK categories at all. Carina22 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment You say: "I would have though a Scottish user would have taken a different line of argument." I am intrigued: exactly what line of argument are the Scots meant to take on such issues? We are not some homogenous lump, but a nation composed of a delightful variety of individuals. Most of us respect the English, but are saddened by the tendency of many English people to lack self-respect and self-worth, and to willingly subsume all things English into the anonymous cravasse of "Britishness".--Mais oui! 09:47, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I meant that I thought the most likely line of argument was something along the lines of "those arrogant English, they think everything in the UK is basically English, or if it isn't it isn't worth mentioning, so there's no need to split the category is there? Just read British as English". I'm pleased to reassure you that my self esteem level is fine, and that the same is true of many other English people. Carina22 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Mais, "Britishness" doesn't feel like an anonymous cravasse, cravat or crevasse to me. (i know, i'm childish, sorry). I'm proud to be an Englishman & a Briton. Veej 13:35, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. England is well integrated in the United Kingdom. Does not need separate categories unless it is distinctly organised, for instance in sport. David | Talk 12:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge English categories should be restricted to places, buildings, people and not much else. Osomec 13:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for reasons stated by others. Rhollenton 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge or delete, for reasons given by Dbiv. 209.202.119.248 15:35, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Economy of England to Category:Economy of the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 04:20, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

See the arguments for the item above. England is not a separate economic entity. The major economic bodies are UK wide. Merge/deleteCalJW 06:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Media in England to Category:Media of the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 04:17, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another inappropriate English category, containing a token two items. It can only lead to confusion and inconsistent categorisation. There is a British national media (as in British Broadcasting Corporation) and there is local media different localities in England. There is intermediate "English media". Merge/delete CalJW 06:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Archaeological sites in England to Category:Archaeological sites in Britain

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

The result of the debate was Keep K1Bond007 04:13, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Another unwelcome category with a token amount of content. It can only lead to confusion and inconsistency - a handful of articles have been plucked out of the parent category when they should be together. Grouping archaeological sites in Great Britain by era makes by sense than grouping them by location. Most of them date from eras before England existed. Merge/delete CalJW 06:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge as proposed. Carina22 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge see above for reasons. David | Talk 12:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge English categories should be restricted to places, buildings, people and not much else. Osomec 13:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge for reasons stated by others. Rhollenton 15:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do love the cookie cutter comments above, from all the same people time and again on these votes, but it doesnt show much thought going into it all. Osomec, in case you hadnt noticed archeolgical sites ARE places. You lot are voting against a geographical sorting of geographical locations. --Fearghul 18:26, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, though this should be a subcat of the latter exclusively, and not in Category:Archaeological sites also as it is now. Category:Archaeological sites in Britain (shouldn't this be "...in the United Kingdom"?) is quite large, and seperating it this way seems prudent. siafu 03:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, This is a clearly defined cat. Hard to see why it should be controversial. "Most of them date from eras before England existed" - I assume the proposer will next be nominating Category:Archaeological sites in Germany for the same reason?--Mais oui! 09:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Useful sub-division of a cat, with the possibility of a great deal of expansion. Archaeological sites are always places and are very frequently buildings, so geographical sorting is the best way to go. --G Rutter 11:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to "... in the United Kingdom" per standards. Radiant_>|< 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - archaeological sites constitute places, and places form a legitimate base for subcategorisation. This particular one is clearly defined, and should remain given the context of England existing on its own for most of its content articles. Deano 22:54, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Fearghul and siafu. They are places, so it makes sense to divide them up by where they are located. If necessary, they can be categorised by era in addition to in England / Scotland / Wales. --Vclaw 20:17, 20 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although there may be some overlap in other categories mentioned, seperating actual sites by country is worthwile. - N (talk) 15:31, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although I agree that transferring modern ideas of nationhood backwards into the past is pointless and dangerous, divisions along these lines do allow users to see which sites are near them to visit. I would like to ultimately see 'archaeological sites by county' categories to assist in this - such a system would also allow the Cornish or Shetlanders to not feel they were having their cultural heritage hi-jacked by larger entities. These cats could of course exist in parallel to cats by period. adamsan 22:26, 26 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:English archaeology to Category:British archaeology

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

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 04:12, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Created as a parent for the category nominated above. Once again only has token population. This was not created by users interested in archaeology, who are apparently happy with the long established British category. Once again simply a source of confusion and inconsistent classification. It's only value seems to me to be that it undermines the system of UK wide categories, which is not a good reason to have a category. Note that there are a good number of English categories which I have not nominated, indeed I believe I created one or two myself. English categories for subject areas where the division is easily made and will not cause confusion or inconsistency are fine, but the UK is the state-level entity and many aspects of British life not usefully subdividable. CalJW 06:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Lakes of Eritrea

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even though the category has been vandalized, the vandal is partially correct — there are virtually no lakes in Eritrea. Geography of Eritrea's first paragraph says there are no year-round rivers which makes lake creation challenging. I'd recommend the first person to create an article for a lake in Eritrea also create this category. Until then, delete. wknight94 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For reasons above. wknight94 06:15, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Carina22 09:31, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete obviously, and note that you are allowed to revert vandalism if you like... sjorford (talk) 12:28, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I didn't see a point if it's going to be deleted anyway. wknight94 16:16, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --- per nom. 209.202.119.248 15:36, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 03:41, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Eritrea is mostly desert isn't it? Sumahoy 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Mea culpa: I created this category by mistake, because I thought a couple of lakes in the Danakil depression were in Eritrea (which are entirely in Ethiopia). I would have deleted the category myself, had I thought it would be a source for problems if I left it. -- llywrch 03:50, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Conservation in England to Category:Conservation in the United Kingdom

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

The result of the debate was Merge K1Bond007 04:08, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is another English category which is more trouble than it is worth. It will only cause confusion (especially among non-British users) and inconsistent categorisation. It has been allocated one token item by the creator. Merge/Delete CalJW 05:08, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Movies Rated PG

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:03, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Seems too minor a element to use as a category. If kept, should be renamed for proper capitalization and to reflect that the ratings are from the Motion Picture Association of America. tregoweth 05:09, 18 December 2005 (UTC).[reply]

  • Delete, far too broad. U.S. centric. K1Bond007 05:38, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. "Too broad" isn't a reason for deleting a category, is it? IMHO, that's a reason to create subcategories for it — not delete it. wknight94 06:06, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete If renamed it will become U.S. centric. Ratings may be revised over time. Category clutter. CalJW 06:45, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete -- The PG rating exists in other countries, with different criteria for the rating, and different meanings. What is PG in Canada might not be in the U.S. It is not a worthwhile category to begin with, and international confusion will just render it a mess. 209.202.119.248 15:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Movies are rated differently in different countries and are often re-classified, are we going to include the rating for each country on every film article, and if we were why would that be useful? Arniep 17:18, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only US-centric and unmaintainable, but a bad precedent. JW 20:55, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Worthless. Postdlf 05:03, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP is not a video guide. The JPS 12:24, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, systemic bias (every country has their own rating system, and there's no reason to focus on the US). Radiant_>|< 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - just confuses people from other countries - half the films rated PG by the Yanks were either U or 12 in the UK. Deano 22:59, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Classical Scholarship

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:02, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category is empty and the corresponding article, Classical scholarship has virtually no content. In addition, this appears to be covered by Category:Classical studies (and the article appears to be covered by Classics). wknight94 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete for reasons above. wknight94 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I think "Classical studies" is the more current term. CalJW 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 03:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Contemporary philosophers

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 04:01, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category is both ill-defined (What is "contemporary"? Past 20 years? Past 50 years? Should recently-dead philosophers count? Should living philosophers who stopped publishing years ago count?) and redundant (since Category:20th century philosophers and Category:21st century philosophers already exist and are filled). —Lowellian (reply) 04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per reasons above. —Lowellian (reply) 04:40, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. CalJW 06:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 03:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. We do have the article titled contemporary philosophy; I don't know enough about the subject to know if this is an academically common term and rough definition in the manner that "contemporary art" is to mean everything after modern art... Interpret my vote as keep if contemporary philosophy is not original research as an arbitrary division and terminology choice by Wikipedia editors; delete if it is. Postdlf 05:07, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete What is contemporary now won't stay contemporary. Sumahoy 13:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Canadian Air Force bases

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 03:59, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No entries and no clear candidates. The CAF is now called the Canadian Forces Air Command which has its own category. Even if candidates are found for this category, they'd be more suited for a category under Category:Canadian Forces Air Command instead of this confusing category. Canadian Air Force doesn't even have its own article so I'm not sure why it has several categories. wknight94 04:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. For reasons above. wknight94 04:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It is hardly confusing and I guess it was created by someone who just didn't know or forgot about the change of name, but categories should use the current names. Carina22
    • The name was changed in 1975 (not too forgettable esp. since the article for Canadian Air Force has always been a redirect), the category was never populated and the category for the correct name was never created. Clearly, there is confusion afoot. wknight94 18:29, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Osomec 13:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 03:44, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Have I Got News For You contestants

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

The result of the debate was Delete K1Bond007 03:58, 27 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not practical to have categories for every TV/radio show or film people have appeared on, Delete and listify. Arniep 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Trivial in relation to most of the entries, so therefore it is category clutter. CalJW 02:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Definitely better suited as a list. -,-~R'lyehRising~-,- 02:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed, not practical as a category, but could be a list.--Dakota ? e 05:01, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. As all this information exists on List of Have I Got News For You episodes. Philip Stevens 07:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or up-merge into Category:Have I Got News For You notable contestants for this 30 series show --TimPope 11:03, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did it as a category which could act as a compliment and an alternative to the episode list, as a reference for people who want to know if a specific person appeared on the show. This programme is now 15 years old and there are a lot of episodes to trawl through if looking for an individual. The category makes it easier. Bentley Banana
  • Delete - a person's article shouldn't contain categories for every little thing they did in their life. If their appearance was important, mention it in their article, but for most HIGNFY guests this is a minor event. Ian Hislop and Paul Merton should be added the the parent category, obv. sjorford (talk) 12:24, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Too minor a thing to put in a category. David | Talk 12:30, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete. A good idea, but a lot of the people listed are getting bogged down with too many categories. A list is a good idea, with relevant years and number of appearances perhaps. --Sachabrunel 16:14, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, listify and merge the relevant articles. Trivia. Radiant_>|< 01:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No argument. siafu 03:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as Sachabrunel The JPS 12:29, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and listify for all reasons previously mentioned. Deano 22:56, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Have I Got News For You presenters

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

The result of the debate was Delete Not practical to have categories for presenters of TV/radio shows, especially as in this case where many were only guest presenters who presented the show once, and "professional" presenters often present multiple shows. Delete and listify. Arniep 01:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_December_18&oldid=1122662733"