From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< October 11 October 13 >

October 12

Category:Furry comics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Furry comics to Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is already a case of "Parent/Sub" categories. The difference seems to be a POV issue - what is and isn't a Furry comic seems to be a debatable point. J Greb ( talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment "Furry comic" gets 210,000 hits on Google. However, it's a tough to define it more clearly than "comics where anthropomorphic animals have a central role, and which (mostly) furry fans like". Certainly not all comics featuring anthropomorphic characters qualify - even when they are animals - nor does the fact that they feature such animals mean the same as saying that they "are furry". It's the difference between a simple fact about (some of) the characters, and a genre. For example, Dilbert is in Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters but would certainly not be in Category:Furry comics - instead, it is in Category:Workplace webcomics (incidentally, Category:Office comics only contains that subcategory). Perhaps the most telling difference is that all or most main characters are anthropomorphic non-humans, typically animals ( Freefall and Newshounds have lots of humans but they are secondary characters). Blacksad would qualify but its core audience does not appear to consist of those calling themselves furry fans. GreenReaper ( talk) 19:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I think that's an argument for moving to a list - List of "Furry comics" as defined by fans - and upmerging the articles and subs. Though that list may fail on OR and/or NPOV grounds. - J Greb ( talk) 21:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Such a list would fail on NPOV and OR grounds due to the "as defined by fans" part. You could ask me, but that would be original research and a non-neutral point of view. RP9 ( talk) 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Keep. The category is not "arbitrary" according to WP:OVERCAT. The subject in no way fails the Google test and is used to describe specific comics (see here, here, here, here and here). It defines a distinguished characteristic (not all anthropomorphic comics are furry comics). I can see where there would be a dispute about "anthropomorphic comics" because it is often used shorthand for "anthropomorphic animal comics" and thus is often used interchangeably with furry comics (see here and here). However, these types of issues should be dealt with on a per article basis, not just deleting the whole category. RP9 ( talk) 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Looking at the links provided, the only one to provide a basis for a definition is the Yarf time line. And that one casts a mighty wide net - essentially most, if not all, of the contents of Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters meet the criteria it sets. - J Greb ( talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Hmm. Let me try to explain this in a different way. When talking about Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters, this essentially defines a theme of which the meaning can be inferred. If a comic was described as "a comic with animals that talk"-right there, I can infer without OR that such a comic could go in this category. However, furry comics are a genre and there is no definitive definition we can use. But we don't have to and shouldn't because like Rock music, Thriller films, Gothic fiction or basically any other genre, exactly what it is, is up to interpretation. So instead of us using some particular definition to decide what comics are indeed furry comics (which would be OR) we instead assume what ever the author or other respected source claims it to be, assuming that claim is not contentious. The links I've provided show that furry comics are not just something made up and that is does apply to specific comics. Exactly which ones it applies to needs to be dealt with on each article. RP9 ( talk) 04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Unfortunately, once you step into a category like this - defined by the genre or an aspect of the story - the contents should give a clear indication of what else would be included. If we take the half step - Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic animals as characters - the category itself is very clear. It would contain articles on comic strips and books that feature one or more characters that are, or are derived from, real animals and which show human qualities. All nice and neat. And nothing that needs to have a reference attached to justify inclusion in the category.
The criteria you put forward for the Furry subset of that category though does need a reference to be cited. I'm not arguing that "Furry comics" don't exist or that it is a just coined phrase. Far from it. The concern I'm raising is that it is a bit on the nebulous side for inclusion criteria - it requires either a self identification from the author and/or a "claiming" of a work by the Furry fan base. - J Greb ( talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Exactly! *claps* ...a citation is needed. How is this any different from similar categories? It is actually not true that a category like Comics featuring anthropomorphic animals as characters is necessarily without needing a citation. It is just a convenience that it is describing a discrete plot detail. And a plot being a source on itself doesn't typically need a citation. For instance Category:People with bipolar disorder is "very clear" in its definition but would obviously require a citation, especially considering WP:BLP. However, Cyberpunk or specifically Category:Cyberpunk comics would need a citation while something like Category:Comics in a futuristic high tech setting with a low life plot may not. RP9 ( talk) 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Before you go turning somersaults - 3 things:
  1. BLP categories are a very separate topic. BLP topics, guidelines, and policies tend to be much more stringent than others.
  2. Base line genre categories tend to eschew the citation since they are fairly well defined. Even the sub-genres tend to have solid definitions, be it Cyberpunk, Steampunk, Wuxia, or what have you.
  3. There is a difference between "Furry" and most other genres. I'm tempted to say it is unique in that a work needs a combination of self identification and fan base recognition, with the latter being more important, before it qualifies for the genre. And even then, if the fan base is split o a work, it may or may not be appropriate for the category depending on the editor and the cited refs used.
- J Greb ( talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Excuse the bipolar example. I thought it made for a good example because it is a case where a citation is almost always required. It was only to show that whether a category is "defined" or not can't be used as a rule of thumb for whether an article using it needs a citation.
Editors do not get to decide what a furry comic is. (or Cyberpunk, Steampunk, etc.) This is the gist of what I am saying. So how well "defined" one of us thinks a particular genre is, is basically not important. I wouldn't say anime was particularly well defined, but that is just my POV. The third point exemplifies this, your projecting an opinion about furry comics, and one that not everyone (including me :) ) would agree with. Which is why a citation is important. This would apply to "[b]ase line genre categories" too, because it would be OR either way.
Could you reiterate your rationale and explain a bit more? If POV is the problem, then this should be dealt with by adding sources to the respective articles. Indeed, if that is the issue deleting the category wouldn't help solve the issue on the articles in this category. RP9 ( talk) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Merge, I've long felt this was a good idea, per Green Reaper's reasoning. Hiding T 23:32, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths due to horse attacks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. There's consensus to delete the category but not really with what to do with its one article ( Philip of Burgundy, Count of Auvergne). However, the fate of the article does not need to be decided here before we delete the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Deaths due to horse attacks ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Deaths by horse-riding accident. Prezbo ( talk) 19:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, those are two different things. The one entry in the category under consideration was kicked in the head by a horse; he wasn't riding it. Postdlf ( talk) 21:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • I agree that the article does not describe a horse-riding accident, but it also does not sound like an attack: a kick of a farmer's horse, that caught him in the head. If we have to judge the intent of the horse, I'd be generous and put this one under Category:Horse-related accidents. Judge not, lest ye be kicked yerself. -- KathrynLybarger ( talk) 21:12, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge to Category:Horse-related accidents. Even if the description of "attack" is accurate for this one incident, there is no need for a separate category to hold just one article. -- RL0919 ( talk) 21:17, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Comment - anyone know of any other cases where someone was killed by a horse, not riding it, in circumstances that wouldn't be an accident? If there simply aren't any I suppose I'm okay with the cat being deleted, but wanted to at least check if there are other incidents. MatthewVanitas ( talk) 03:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Please. This is a silly category, and someone getting kicked is almost always their own fault, anyway. Most of the time if a horse kicks someone, it's usually an "accident," or at least, it's human error for doing something neglectful or stupid. And yes, lots and lots of horse accidents every year. Some with deaths. I think I saw some statistic that there are more serious injuries due to ground accidents than riding accidents. I can also say that both times horse accidents have landed me in the ER (one was a kick, in fact), they were with me already on the ground, not a riding injury. And yes, usually due to forgetting some basic safety precaution... you want some Darwin award nominees, just search for "horse kick" on Google. Scary how dumb people can be... sorry for the rant. Yes, delete this category, only one article in it, and not really an "attack." :-P Montanabw (talk) 05:22, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

NHL "Fram" teams

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Chicago BlackHawks Fram Team/Affiliates ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. On top of the obvious spelling error, this category structure is redundant. Minor league affiliates are already placed in the parent team's category. i.e.: the Bridgeport Sound Tigers are already in Category:New York Islanders. No need for a separate sub cat at this time. See also some discussion on this at WP:HOCKEY.

Nominating the following:

Reso lute 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

  • Delete them all. GoodDay ( talk) 19:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete ccwaters ( talk) 20:21, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Misspelled, similar category already exists. Kaiser matias ( talk) 23:54, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete per nom. No reason to keep these. - DJSasso ( talk) 00:50, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete: Redundant.  RGTraynor  04:05, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I personally think that this is just a typo, but I also know where these redundant, pointless categories should go for now. Delete them. There is absolutely no reason that these are notable enough. -- ISLANDERS 27 08:58, 18 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pashtun Taliban leaders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Pashtun Taliban leaders ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant--as far as I know there are no Taliban leaders who aren't Pashtun. Prezbo ( talk) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Well, if that is a fact, then merge. I'm not an expert. Debresser ( talk) 17:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Republic of Texas ships

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: These categories are for ships and naval ships, respectively, of the Republic of Texas. Proposed renaming to match the main article on the country, and to help avoid confusion with Texas (the U.S. state) — Bellhalla ( talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

Support the rename per nomination. Karanacs ( talk) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lepidoptera by U.S. state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Indiana to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America
Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Maryland to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America
Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Michigan to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. Species with wide distributions should not be categorized in such narrow subnational range categories. All of the contents of both have already been merged into List of butterflies and moths of Michigan, List of butterflies and moths of Indiana, and List of butterflies of Maryland (the Maryland Lepidoptera category does not include any moth species), which is the proper way to organize this information at this specific level. Postdlf ( talk) 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nominator, as I sided in previous similar nominations. Debresser ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom and several similar discussions recently. -- RL0919 ( talk) 17:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep as is . The division by states is what amateurs use, and there are multiple guides and other books constructed on this basis. DGG ( talk ) 05:10, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • If an amateur is generally interested in butterflies, he's not going to carry around 50 books. Our amateur readership is worldwide, and most will not be interested in Indiana when they read Monarch (butterfly). If by chance an amateur reader is interested in Indiana, he can easily find the Indiana-specific list within the Lepidoptera category structure, or from Category:Lists of fauna of Indiana, as it's more likely that someone interested in only what can be found in Indiana will start with that topic. If that's still not visible enough for you, I wouldn't object to a non-category link for Category:Lists of butterflies and moths of the United States being added to relevant species articles under "see also", as it's certainly preferable to potentially 50 category tags per article. Postdlf ( talk) 14:05, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Let us not forget the tags for any other countries and possibly sub-national divisions of those countries, depending on the distribution of the species and how guidebooks are organized for each country. -- RL0919 ( talk) 14:25, 16 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge per nom. I might get on board with a structure based around the United States vs. North America, but by state is a little too narrow to be useful. Reso lute 00:04, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Upmerge. Nominator should be commended for his work on improving these lists. I agree that this is the stuff of lists, not categories, because we could subdivide till eternity. To me it's ridiculous enough that we sometimes categorize animals by country when they are not endemic to that country. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:20, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:TheAudition albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:TheAudition albums to Category:The Audition (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match corresponding article The Audition (band). -- KathrynLybarger ( talk) 04:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To resolve names that are slightly confusing in their present form. The hyphens in "Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu" help, but "Brazilian Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners" (especially) is a bit jarring and I submit less clear than what I've proposed. Another possibility is Category:Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners from the United States, etc. (See previous discussion (which I closed), which only involved the Brazilian nationality category. No one else has followed this up so I do so now.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all - Makes sense to reduce chance of confusion. VegaDark ( talk) 03:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support Renames to clarify content of category. Alansohn ( talk) 16:18, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename all - I prefer the proposed renaming rather than the idea of "...from the United States" categories, and I don't think it would look too out of place. For example, typical siblings of Category:American Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners are of the form "American X" where X may be "capoeira practitioners" but also "wrestlers" or "eskrimadors". X need not have a specific form to fit into this scheme. -- KathrynLybarger ( talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Car bombings in the Chechen-Russian conflict

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Nominator withdrawal; category deleted as empty; see below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Car bombings in the Chechen-Russian conflict to Category:Car bombings in the Chechen wars
Nominator's rationale: Rename. " Chechen wars" is usually used if we are referring collectively to the First Chechen War and the Second Chechen War, which together comprise the "Chechen–Russian conflict". Parent category is Category:Chechen wars. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zoos in Palestine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Zoos in Palestine to Category:Zoos in the Palestinian territories. -- Xdamr talk 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Zoos in Palestine to Category:Zoos in the Palestinian territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's usual to use "Palestinian territories" rather than "Palestine" for categories like this, unless we are either (a) referring to the pre-Israel land of Palestine, or (b) referring to Palestinian diplomatic relations, where many states treat it as a sovereign state, as in Category:Ambassadors of Palestine. Neither of these situations apply here. Renaming will match the naming format to the parent Category:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
n.b. For the same reason I have removed the category [[Category:Zoos per country|Palestine]]. Debresser ( talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename I too think the renaming would be a good idea and I foolishly made the category in the first place ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:07, 13 October 2009 (UTC)) But do you think we should then use the [[Category:Zoos per country|Palestinian territories]] even though Palestine is not a country - otherwise this wouldn't get included on the list. ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)) I have made a category as suggested but not deleted the other yet. Best wishes ( Msrasnw ( talk) 17:24, 13 October 2009 (UTC)) reply
Indeed, very good. BTW, it would be on the list, but under the "z" of "zoos". Debresser ( talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I think he meant if we didn't include the parent category "Zoos by country" it wouldn't appear in that category at all. I agree that "Palestinian territories" categories should generally appear in by-country schemes, not for political reasons, but just out of convenience for category browsing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
I understand your point, but would be reluctant to do so, out of fear it would be seen as a political endorsement. Debresser ( talk) 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
It's done on most PT categories and as far as I know has been done without incident in the past. It's probably less controversial than tying it into the tree by making it a subcategory of a Category:Zoos of Israel, for instance. Leaving it out of the tree altogether is not a good solution, in my opinion. I don't see including it as a huge issue. As long as it's not called "Palestine", there shouldn't be any confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rachel Stamp singles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Rachel Stamp singles to Category:Rachel Stamp songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming conventions for songs by artist categories should put this under the suggested renaming. Wolfer68 ( talk) 02:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia disabled volunteers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Wikipedia disabled volunteers to Category:Wikipedians who are disabled. -- Xdamr talk 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedia disabled volunteers ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by physical characteristic" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion here (I linked to the medical condition section as that is similar, scroll down to see the physical characteristic category) as not supporting collaboration. Does not help Wikipedia to be able to find users via a category who are disabled. Additionally, "Disabled" is extremely broad and could be hundreds of different things, I don't know why anyone would ever be searching, even for a nonencyclopedic reasons, for anyone in such a category. Finally, this doesn't follow standard user category naming conventions (Correct would be Category:Wikipedians who are disabled). VegaDark ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Response Wikipedians by social/psychological-issues seems to have be deleted. However, notice that deaf wikipedians has been kept. I kindly ask that this be kept. Basket of Puppies 04:19, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Actually, the deaf Wikipedians category is a little more complicated than that. It was originally kept, then later deleted, but the group nom which it was deleted in was overturned at DRV with the suggestion that each category be renominated. It never was, and was later deleted as an empty category (and is currently deleted). Is there any actual encyclopedia-benefiting reason you can cite to support keeping the category? Is there a reason why this information can't simply be on your userpage instead of a category, which implies there is some use to group such users? VegaDark ( talk) 04:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep as a valid and potentially constructive form of self-organisation among Wikipedians. Debresser ( talk) 16:29, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete.
"...the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." - WP:USERCAT
Is this category an aid to collaboration or is it simply an expression of unhelpful factionalism? If it is the former then it can be kept, if the latter then it clearly can not.
Having had this category on the go for more than a fortnight, since 6 Oct, we are now in a position to make a judgement - indeed the tenor of this debate gives us ample indication of the net effect of this category as presently constituted. Both here and on the category talk page I have seen a deplorable absence of good faith with a good deal of unpleasant carping from all sides. Whatever the theory behind its establishment, whatever justification there may be for the view expressed in the category's name, this seems to be a clear case of "by their fruits ye shall know them". In the case of this category this seems to be an atmosphere totally inimical to any meaningful collaboration between parties interested in the Cfd process. Ergo this category fails the test for justification in WP:USERCAT quoted above.
Many contributors have identified the present name as contributing much to the problem, given its decided negativity and critical overtones with respect to current Cfd participants. There have been a number of suggestions for a rename. I am not convinced that any of these are likely to remedy the septic atmosphere which has afflicted this category, therefore I opt for deletion. I leave it open to editors to create a more 'positively' worded replacement if that is something that they really want to do. That, of course, is the question - do editors want spend time creating wiki-political categories, or do they engage in meaningful and constructive debate in the appropriate, already extant, fora? Wikipedia_talk:Categorization, Wikipedia_talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Deletion policy - take your pick, any one of them is a far more appropriate vehicle for gaining community consensus for change.
-- Xdamr talk 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename - Doesn't support collaboration. If this category was intended for people who actually wanted to come together to improve the CFD process, there are plenty of better name options for such a category. "Wikipedians who say" should never be the starting name for a category. It does not help to group users by anything they may say. If kept, this at least needs a more encyclopedic-benefiting name, such as Category:Wikipedians who would like to improve the CfD process. If this category is kept as is, the members of the category may be proven correct in their assessment. Let's at minimum rename this to help prove the members of this category wrong. VegaDark ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Good Ol’factory, I don’t see it an unpositive, but a simple fact. If there is something wrong at CfD, it need not be seen as a criticism of the people there. There are convincing suggestions that do not blame the participants. I do desire its continued existence, because it has been alleged that very few people hold this opinion, despite much the same complaint being voiced by many people, at CfD and DRV, for years. A category is an excellent way to hold the names of people who continue to hold a position, given the implicit argument that past complainers were satisfactorily answered, and given that this is a longstanding problem that is very unlikely to be fixed soon. I can see that there is a kind of ironic humour here, but that is not the prime purpose, nor is it a reason to delete.
  • I am open to suggestions of a rename, but ideas don’t come easily. Category:Wikipedians interested in the notion that there is something wrong at CfD I suppose is more neutral. However, I don’t see why it matters, it’s not as if this category is prominent to the readership. (Actually, I suspect that few non-wikipedian readers ever even notice, or use, categories). -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I meant "positive" as in "being for something" as opposed to casting it as just being critical of something. "Wikipedians who would like to improve the CfD process" is a positive statement. "Wikipedians who say CfD is broken" is just critical. "Wikipedians interested in the notion that there is something wrong at CfD" is critical. "Wikipedians interested in expanding participation at CfD" (or whatever your goals are) is positive. If you haven't figured out exactly what it is about CfD that you would like to change, or if in fact CfD is even the problem, then a category that can help collaborators work together in a positive way is probably premature. (On the outside chance that a user just needs to be negative and have a snarkily-named category on their userpage as a statement or a protest, then redlinked ones are usually permissible on user pages. There's no need to actually create them as category space. E.g., Category:Rouge admins continues to have a decent-sized membership.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • OK, I understand, but finding a new name (ie a specific goal) that is positive is where we are at. Deleting because you can't think a of a way to positively rephrase reasonable criticism amounts to censorship. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No, I don't think it does—not any more than deleting any other thing on WP amounts to censorship. It puts things in their proper sequential order. Calling it "reasonable criticism" begs the question—what would you change? If you know what you would change, then you can surely phrase it positively and have a corresponding user category. If you don't know what you would change, it is not reasonable criticism—it's just a catch-phrase political statement that has the effect of causing divisions with other users rather than building something positive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Reordering, or redirection, is one thing, but deletion of something that doesn't fit your norms is censorship.
  • Things I would like to change: More diverse participation at CfD; Less upset felt by the "loosers" at CfD "battles", less CfD cases at DRV where the discussion of participants doesn't reflect the close, where the close might be justified and many !votes "wrong". It's how to make these changes I don't know, but note that my (also Alansohn's) suggestions have been rejected without counter-suggestions. One, that relates to this category, is that user-categories (categories that don't appear in mainspace) should be given more leeway, so that more wikipedians (like myself) can have some involvement in creating, using and managing categories, and thus gain experience as seems needed to understand wikipedia-categorisation. So, you might see that in deleting this category, yet another suggestion/effort is being flatly rejected by the CfD regulars. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I haven't seen any comments from anyone here who is in favour of deletion merely because it "doesn't fit [their personal] norms". Raising a hue and cry about "censorship" is an easy out whenever you might disagree with deletion, but it typically has little relevance. I've never seen consensus agree to a deletion that could reasonably be classifiable as "censorship". Most of the discussion here has revolved around renaming, not deletion, so it's hard for me to view claims of censorship as a serious allegation.
  • Who exactly are these "CfD regulars" you refer to? Alansohn for one is as active as anyone here, and he is not rejecting the category. So far, the only user who has cast a "delete" vote without adding a proviso that would allow for renaming is User:Chick Bowen. Is Chick Bowen a "CfD regular"? If so, what does that mean? Do we consider his opinion as less valid or relevant? Who exactly is insisting on deletion and thereby flatly rejecting a rename of the category? Is Chick Bowen? Or someone else? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Criticism of the positivity of the name come under the bolded !votes “delete or rename”. It is not clear enough that you are not saying “delete because the name is not positive”. You and the nominator have essentially !voted “delete or keep”.
  • Reference to “CfD regulars” is perhaps undesirable, but note that the term long standing. Arguably, in short, they are the ones who make the decisions. No Chick Bowen is not a regular. VegaDark and Good Ol’factory are regulars offering a confusing “delete” !votes. Being a "CfD regular" is not a bad thing, but I use the term in observing a gulf between CfD regulars and CfD newcomers. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Thanks for telling me how I voted and its precise meaning. Actually, you've either misinterpreted it or misrepresented it, which is a mistake, but ultimately fine because you will not be the reviewing administrator. Thankfully, the reviewing admins tend to read beyond merely the bolded portion of a comment.
  • I dispute whether the term "CfD regular" is "long-standing". You're gonna have to provide some diffs to back that one up. (Alansohn has used it for a long time, but Alansohn has said a lot, and been blocked for it in the past, too. Not always the best move to take cues from some quarters.)
  • But let me get your system straight. According to your system of categorizing users, VegaDark and I are "CfD regulars"—and look! We voted to "delete or rename". Proof, right? Yeah, except that Chick Bowen is not a "CfD regular", and he voted for "delete". But we'll just ignore the fact that he happened to vote that way, probably because he doesn't fit the stereotype of your "CfD newcomer" or "outsider", who must be faced with some sort of "gulf" between his own commonsense opinions and those of the hoity-toity "CfD regulars". Alansohn, although he participates quite a bit at CfD, is also ignored and not classified as a "CfD regular", because he doesn't fit the mold of how you think stereotypic "CfD regulars" vote. I don't want to be blunt in a crude sort of way, so I'll be satisfied with just pointing out that this is "a porringer of excrement". I suggest we focus less on trying to compartmentalize users into stereotypic "types". I can't see how doing so could ever lead to building collaboration or anything other than divisive feelings here or elsewhere in WP. We could follow that up by resolving to avoid creating any more divisive user categories with self-evidently controversial names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • If it's undesirable, perhaps you should avoid using it and saying that the "CfD regulars" are flatly rejecting suggestions at improvements, which is how the phrase was initially used in this thread. When it was used in 2007 it was a porringer of excrement, and it still is. Using that type of language to draw artificial boundaries between editors into "types" is just inherently divisive, and has no positive benefits that I have seen. It's no different than criticising someone's opinion by labeling them as a "deletionist" or an "inclusionist". Who cares? Everybody just edit and work on the things you enjoy with the perspective you bring to the table. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Keep and rename to Category:Wikipedians working to improve CfD The active collaboration has already started at the talk page. That the usual cast of admins have come out to oppose an effort to deal with a real and disruptive set of problems only shows the rather genuine need for the category. While CfD is indeed an "extended joke" the effort here is a genuine means of collaboration to solve very real problems. Sadly, any effort to deal with the rampant dysfunction at CfD is typically met by efforts to deny and squelch any criticism or effort to make CfD more useful and representative of all Wikipedians. If there was truly a serious interest on the nominator's part to craft a name that would be more satisfactory, going to CfD could not have been a more disruptive option. Let the games continue! Alansohn ( talk) 16:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Aren't Wikipedia talk:Categorization, Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia talk:Deletion policy, or even Wikipedia:Village pump (policy) more appropriate forums for discussing changes to the category system? If your goal is to make it more "representative" and increase input, the talk page of a user category seems an odd platform. Postdlf ( talk) 21:28, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Indeed, I wasn't even aware of the discussions taking place on the talk page there. It's not where I would expect conversation intended to improve CfD. So I at least am a real-life example of this change of venue being exclusive rather than broadly inclusive. Your average user who wants to improve CfD won't know that that talk page is where the action is. It's often stated that a flaw of CfD is its limited participation. I have no problem with the category existing under some sort of constructive name, but we shouldn't have any illusions about the talk page being reflective of anything more than a narrow discussion of an even more limited number of individuals. If Alansohn wants to keep the category he really should suggest a new name to see if there would be consensus for that rather than an outright delete. [Alansohn added a suggested rename after this comment was posted.] Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
        • I have reoffered a set of several recommendations and I sadly understand that you are bothered by the collaborative efforts to deal with the problems here. I am bothered by this blatant disruption solely for disruption's sake in trying to do everything possible to refuse to deal with CfD's dysfunctionality. If there is a name that you will deign to tolerate to deal with the problems at CfD, then offer it. I didn't create this category, I didn't create the problems and I ain't playing your WP:POINTy game. Alansohn ( talk) 02:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
          • ??? How can everything you assume about me and say about my motivations and feelings be so consistently wrong? It's almost like you're baiting ... ??? (But if you re-read my initial comment I think you'll find the answer you're looking for re: what I think could be an acceptable name if there is consensus to keep it.) The point is that having the discussion on the talk page of the category essentially "hides" it from wider viewership. Rather than "refus[ing] to deal with" problems you perceive, my own inaction in response to your concerns was a result of not even knowing about the conversation. If the discussion were in the regular place, I would have seen it and could have participated. If the intent is to hide the discussion and collaboration, then having it on the talk page of a user category is probably a good idea. It's unlikely that such a result is wanted, though. — Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:31, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
            • I think I know. Good Olfactory generally agrees with users that Alansohn means to challenge (not necessarily common issues), and Good Olfactory tends to reply, thus drawing further, non user-specific comment from Alansohn. I think it would be helpful if Alansohn didn't treat those on the other side of this divide as identical. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 03:53, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
              • What makes you think Alansohn's last comment was "non user-specific"? He blatantly addressed it to me in his edit summary. It seems pretty targeted, but I agree with you that Alansohn should not assume those who disagree with him all "think the same", if that is a problem. I can count at least 5 assumptions of bad faith and/or instances of incivility in his short comment (6 if you count the edit summary, which labels my earlier comment as a "demand"). Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
          • Alansohn, you are baiting, both in your choice of language ("the usual cast of admins") and your attitude—refusing to assume good faith, accusing those with whom you disagree of "disruption," and painting a picture of some inexplicably motivated cabal out to thwart your efforts, which you characterize as the only valid and constructive stance. If you have a problem with something someone else is saying or doing, tell them civilly but clearly and directly. Objectively and concretely describe what they are doing and why it is wrong. If you cannot do this, then hold your tongue. This passive-aggressive bullshit needs to stop, because the one thing that does break Wikipedia is turning it into a personalized battleground, AS YOU ARE DOING. If you think your obliquely-aimed disparaging characterizations are avoiding bad etiquette and personal attacks, YOU ARE WRONG. When you broadly disparage even an unnamed group of Wikipedia contributors, in context it is clearly understood as attacking those with whom you have had disagreements , and essentially acts to proactively tar and feather anyone who later comes into disagreement with you in that same context. This is unacceptable and disruptive conduct, which polarizes discussions and poisons the cooperative atmosphere. It needs to stop. Postdlf ( talk) 04:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
            • The baiting started with the badgering at the category talk page and only continues here. Who was the one who started the discussion with the baiting comment of "So, where will the communication be facilitated? Or can we just CFD this now?" see here. I didn't create the category. I didn't name the category. I have started the discussion with specific recommendations (to which you are the only person to respond). Who is it who is poisoning the collaborative atmosphere? You may want to refer your threats at User:Kbdank71, who seems to have been doing the baiting here. I am not intimidated by threats even when in BOLD LETTERS. Alansohn ( talk) 04:30, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
              • So you're upset with what Kbdank71 said to you somewhere else, and you take it out on me here? I think maybe SmokeyJoe is correct and you do need to think about tailoring your comments more appropriately. Good Ol’factory (talk) 05:08, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
              • I find unconvincing your accusation that Kbdank71 was baiting you and somehow responsible for your own present behavior in this CFD through this post made seven days ago, especially given that it was on the talk page of a category you did not create and on which you had not yet posted a single edit, and given that the conduct of which I am criticizing you is, regrettably, not confined to this instance but instead a continuing pattern. Pointing fingers at other people when you are being called out for your own conduct is nonresponsive and nonconstructive. If you believe another contributor has behaved inappropriately, address it directly and maturely when and where it happens, as it doesn't serve as a defense against criticism of your own behavior, particularly as the implication of your comments is an admission that you are, at a minimum, just continuing the bad conduct of others. Postdlf ( talk) 05:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. This is a wikipolitical user category, which has long been discouraged. The talk page, if it contains useful discussion, can be moved into project space where it belongs. Chick Bowen 22:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Why are wikipolitical user categories long since discouraged? Is there a policy page? I object to it being called political. The issue concerns a process (CfD) and a feature of he project (categorisation), and a category was created to recognise members holding a strong, but apparently minority position. I think this is an excellent use of a usercategory. Anyone can enter and leave, and all that matters is the current membership, not last years membership. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • This, like any serious user category, contrary to the nom’s assertion, does indeed support collaboration. It records wikipedians who remain interested, and is important because it has frequently been retorted, to many people, that people with complaints are very few.
  • The nominator seems to believe that categories should not be used to reflect differencing opinions related to wikipedia, but gives no clue as to why not? Why is there this restrictive control being forced on the community?
  • There is no good reason offered by the nom to delete. Is “delete” an ambit claim, intended to force the members into quickly suggesting a rename?
  • If “rename” is the serious intention, then the onus should be on the complainer to suggest the new name. One was suggested: I don’t like it, because it implicitly limits the scope of discussion. The question at hand is still lingering on “what is broken” and “how is it broken”. There is a good chance that it is not CfD itself that needs improvement.
  • The current name is succinct, precise, and neutral. It certainly doesn’t hurt anyone to leave it as is. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • The nominator seems to believe that categories should not be used to reflect differencing opinions related to wikipedia, but gives no clue as to why not? Why is there this restrictive control being forced on the community? - I never actually said that in the nom, but it isn't too far off from the truth that I don't think there should be "Wikipedians by support/opposition of a Wikipedia issue" categories. I think "Wikipedians interested in improving xyz" would be much more appropriate than categories that divide the community by taking sides on an issue, which is what I would consider this category to be. My proposed rename would address this issue. There is no good reason offered by the nom to delete. Is “delete” an ambit claim, intended to force the members into quickly suggesting a rename? - I suggested delete because I don't necessarily equate "People who say CfD is broken" to "People who wish to improve the CfD process", so it has potential to create miscategorization with that rename. I don't think it is worth categorizing people who say CfD is broken, so if there is consensus that the two don't necessarily equate to eachother enough, my preference would be deletion. If improving CfD is the intent of the category, however, then a rename could be appropriate. The question at hand is still lingering on “what is broken” and “how is it broken”. There is a good chance that it is not CfD itself that needs improvement - I don't see how my proposed rename would limit discussion to exclude these topics. It sounds like it would fit right in. VegaDark ( talk) 18:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • No objection to VegaDark's and Alansohn's above suggestions for rename. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Rename to Cfd with uncapitalised "d", since the name of this page is "Categories for discussion". Ceterum censeo Catharginam delendam esse. Debresser ( talk) 16:28, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Re: that abbreviation issue—I do find it a bit ironic that a category that has as a stated goal of "fostering greater participation from those affected by category structure changes and deletions who are now largely unaware and unrepresented in CfD discussions" would use an abbreviation in the user category name. If users are unaware of CfD discussions, I doubt whether they will be aware of what "CfD" or "Cfd" means. I suggest expanding the abbreviation if it is renamed. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • <Groan: why does it have to be this hard?>. Sorry, not blaming you Good Olfactory. Spelling out Cfd makes it more unweildy. OK, I suggest Category:Wikipedians interesting in improving the function and understanding of wikipedia’s navigational aids. Ie. Expand to cover categorisation more generally, not just it’s management at WP:CfD, and also include lists, templates, and other things like the current contention at WP:OUTLINES. Implicitly, that title notes that a substantial (possibly the major) component of the problem is the lack f understanding of these things. People want to do various things, and categorisation can't do everything, I suppose. -- SmokeyJoe ( talk) 02:53, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
        • So is this a change in the intended scope of the category definition? I am a little surprised that you would regard expanding "CfD" to be unwieldy and prefer the longer, newer proposal. If the members agree that that is what is wanted, though, I don't see why it shouldn't be OK (with a capital "W" on "Wikipedia", of course). Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:47, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
      • Re: that abbreviation issue - I find it tremendously ironic that an editor who proposes deletion or renaming has not offered a single suggestion regarding an alternative name, but has persisted in nitpicking the constructive alternate titles made by others. Can you toss out a productive suggestion that might be worth considering? Alansohn ( talk) 04:38, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
        • Actually, if you read my comments you will find that I did voice my support for the nominator's original proposal. I was holding off adding new ones because some of the editors in this discussion had suggested elsewhere that one editor voicing multiple or alternative opinions in one CfD is "confusing to non-regulars" or even "disruptive" (!). I still support the original suggestion, with the proviso that the CfD abbreviation be expanded. (And Alansohn, I know how you idolize me and all, but you've really got to stop parroting my language. ...) Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:45, 19 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians committed to ascetic editing

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted by original author per G7. VegaDark ( talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Wikipedians committed to ascetic editing ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Apparently created after the essay Wikipedia:Ascetic editing was written , seemingly for the author to promote the essay. Per the essay, "In order to lessen these negative aspects of editing, I have decided to completely and forcefully ignore articles relating to fictional elements of works, biographies of living people, political topics, or philosophy. I shall not participate in deletion discussions, community noticeboards, noticeboard requests calling for the behavioral modification of another editor, or other trifling advocacy. It is my hope that situations will not arise where my personal involvement will be the subject of any of the above." - Unfortunately due to this nomination the author won't get their wish, since categorizing users based on this preference does not benefit the encyclopedia, and thus the category should be deleted. VegaDark ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Seems to have been summarily deleted, so we should close this discussion. Debresser ( talk) 16:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User bat-smg-0

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:User bat-smg-0 ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category, which has extensive, unanimous precedent to delete as knowing who doesn't speak a language is not helpful to categorize. Further, the parent category has already been deleted via a deletion discussion (see here. VegaDark ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who are fans of The Prodigy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Bencherlite Talk 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Category:Users who are fans of The Prodigy ( | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Improper naming convention, as well as a "Wikipedians by band" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion. VegaDark ( talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Welsh self-government

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose renaming Category:Welsh self-government to Category:Welsh nationalism
Nominator's rationale: to match the name of the main article, Welsh nationalism. Prezbo ( talk) 01:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Former and future Interstate Highway categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Split and rename and nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC) reply
Propose splitting Category:Former and future Interstate Highways into Category:Former Interstate Highways and the already existing future Interstate Highway category below
Propose renaming Category:Future U.S. Interstate Highways to Category:Future Interstate Highways
Nominator's rationale: The second category was created in December 2008, presumably as an offshoot of Category:Future roads. However, it is partially redundant to the first category, which was created over a year before. I suggest that the newer future category be retained, but renamed to Category:Future Interstate Highways to match the parent cat ( Category:Interstate Highway System, which was renamed from Cat:U.S. Interstate Highway System a few years ago), and that the older former and future category be reduced in scope to just former Interstate Highways and named Category:Former Interstate Highways. Any future Interstate Highways in the first cat but not the second should be moved from the first to the second upon the completion of this CFD request. – T M F 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • I would suggest splitting the former and future interstate highways into different categories, as mentioned above, in order to differentiate between which are former and which are future. Dough4872 ( talk) 13:27, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
    • Yeah, that's the essence of what I proposed above. I added some additional notes above to make my proposal clearer. – T M F 23:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support split and rename – per the nomination as an obvious general improvement to categorization. Sswonk ( talk) 00:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC) reply
  • Support That was an odd combination. -- Rschen7754 ( T C) 06:40, 15 October 2009 (UTC) reply
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_October_12&oldid=1144513440"