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. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (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:Timbuk 3 music videos
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. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support. I must have botched this when I did the conversions into "video albums" categories, mistyping as "music videos." Speedy-able?--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:16, 19 August 2010 (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:Schools named after Martin Luther King, Jr.
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. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Creator's rationale For what it's worth, I did this to diffuse
Category:Memorials to Martin Luther King, Jr.. If someone else has a better scheme for this or thinks that it simply doesn't need diffusion, please let me know here. Thanks. —
Justin (koavf)❤
T☮
C☺
M☯ 23:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I think a lot of
Category:Memorials to Martin Luther King, Jr. is suspect. Why would we want to categorize together various bridges that happen to have been named after MLK? This seems to be the sort of things lists typically deal with. I could understand categorizing actual monuments to MLK together—but bus stops, streets, and hospitals?
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom and per precedent - not really a defining characteristic. I have no problem with the schools being recategorised into
Category:Memorials to Martin Luther King, Jr., though, which I think is somewhat more justifiable as a category.
Robofish (
talk) 23:31, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
UpMerge for now, but I'm looking over
Category:Monuments and memorials, and thinking that it is in dire need of cleaning. And honestly, of clarification. Everything from ubiquitous pyramids to buildings named after someone, to tributes in media. Any suggestions and/or volunteers? : ) -
jc37 23:54, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yuck! Memorials seem to be a type of monument. So maybe the starting move is to create
Category:Monuments as the parent and
Category:Memorials as a child. Then start splitting the mess. Probably needs some discussing someplace before a big overhaul.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 06:42, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
It would probably be better to expend the energy in cleaning out the categories instead of trying to restructure them. The two terms are often interchangeable, and splitting them apart is unlikely to aid navigation. -
Eureka Lott 02:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete – agree with Vegaswikian's idea re categorisation. I went to King Edward VII School but no-one ever suggested it was a memorial.
Occuli (
talk) 10:39, 20 August 2010 (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:Rye, New York
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:keep. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep In both everyday and WP usage, the undisambiguated form invariably refers to the denser entity (city or village)— even among locals,
Ithaca or
Geneva means the city, and one explicitly says
Town of Ithaca or
Town of Geneva to mean otherwise. This is natural as a
"town" in New York is not necessarily a population center, but a municipal subdivision of a county (not unlike a "civil township" or "borough" in other states). A city is commonly surrounded by a town of the same name.-
choster (
talk) 15:29, 24 August 2010 (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:Formerly banned users
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 request from creator. There was also strong support for deletion.
Off2riorob (
talk) 16:55, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Bans are meant to protect wikipedia, and shouldn't be used to permanently label users: regardless of what the proposed purpose of this category is, as it stands it simply categorises users as "previously banned", and carries the implication, intentional or not, that they should not be trusted or that they are somehow "beneath" other users. I see no useful purpose of this category other than to label users with a great deal of negativity. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 21:24, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete If you are not currently blocked or banned then you should simply be "a contributor".
LessHeard vanU (
talk) 21:30, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as per the nomination. This unsavoury and mean spirited category can only serve to create division and ill will amongst users.
MtD (
talk) 21:37, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete I think Beeblebrox got too "over-excited" when he unblocked the user, and thought this was a fun idea. I also agree with LessHeard vanU. /
HeyMid (
contributions) 21:39, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep, for now There are potentially positive ways to use this: for example, an unbanned user who comes back to become a well-respected one might just like to self-identify. I believe additional discussion regarding the possible uses of this at
WP:VPP (as noted at
WP:AN would have been wise before immediately nom'ing for deletion. (
talk→BWilkins←track) 21:48, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I considered this option when commenting on the related template; I believe if a user would like to identify as being formerly banned but now reformed, I think a userbox is probably the way to go rather than a category which would be quite easily prone to abuse in the aforementioned manner. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 21:52, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - either you allow mandatory listing of users (in which case it's a clear permanent label that discourages redeemed users, regardless of intent) or you make it opt-in (in which case it's basically useless for any productive purpose). I don't think either is particularly helpful. ~
mazcatalk 22:06, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep There's a lot of uninformed and wrong headed speculation about my motives in the above votes which shows that they did not read my clearly stated rationale for creating this when I posted about it at
WP:AN. This is not intended to be mandatory, if a user does not want to be in this hidden category they can simply remove it from their user or talk pages. The goal here is not to label these users (since we already do that with the list of unbanned users that for some reason nobody objects to at all) but rather to aid in tracking what happens to users who have succeeded in getting their ban lifted. Some of them, like Jack and BCommand, continue to be members of the community, some of them simply go away after they've won their fight, and some of them go on to get banned again. I don't see how this could be "abused." It's only intended to go on the pages of users who used to be banned, since they are no longer banned they are perfectly free to opt out and remove this (let me mention again) hidden category from their page. I would ask everyone to limit their comments to the cat itself and stop attacking my motives, which I have plainly stated repeatedly now. I would also like to hear from some actual unbanned users to see what they think since this all this defense of how they might feel about it is purely hypothetical.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 22:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Can you provide an example of where someone has "attacked" you please? I was very careful to indicate that I believe there to be an inherent problem with the category, and not that your motives were malicious, as indicated by the phrase "intentional or not" in my nomination. I resent the implication that I am making personal attacks simply because I do not feel that the category should be kept. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 22:22, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think it was specifically directed toward you, and I don't think he meant "attacking" in the
NPA manner. —
fetch·comms 23:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't see any statements by anyone else which were any closer to attacking his motives either, so it seemed like he was at least partly referring to my own statement, which I had tried to keep courteous as always; in any case, I'm willing to drop the issue if Beeblebrox is. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 23:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
How about this one: "I think Beeblebrox got too "over-excited" when he unblocked the user, and thought this was a fun idea." or this one:"This unsavoury and mean spirited category can only serve to create division and ill will amongst users." In the rush to defend the feelings of banned users my feelings apparently are not important. It's not making me cry or anything, I', sure I'll get a good night's sleep tonight, but those remarks are not helpful and make unfounded assumptions about my motives. And no, neither of them were written by you.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 00:59, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
If this category were kept, it would need to be renamed in line with current user categories, suchlike "Wikipedians who have formerly been banned". It would also need to be opt-in. My concern is issues it would cause: people 'tagging' formerly banned users who do not want the category on their userpage, edit warring over it in the returned users' absence, etc. –
xenotalk 22:57, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per Xeno, for now, and keep because the AN discussion was still ongoing (what a lovely way to fork the discussion and complicate the reading of the original thread). Also, I think we should see how this works out. We already label people on the
LOBU, this can be removed by the user if they really wish but is still good for, well, categorizing (tracking, etc.) —
fetch·comms 23:00, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, per the nomination and the justification I've just given for deleting the corresponding
Template:Unbanned. This is not a good idea for a category, and arguably not a useful one either (why does it help to know a user was unbanned? Why would anyone want to browse a list of unbanned users?). If a user wants to note on their own userpage that they've been banned and are now unbanned, they can do so, but we shouldn't have a category for the purpose.
Robofish (
talk) 23:03, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete with fire. Even if hidden, this isn't the greatest idea ever. I was actually quite tempted to circumvent this discussion and IAR delete it. We aren't here to judge people.
Black Kite (t)(c) 23:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - If someone wants to note that they were formerly banned, they can note it quite easily on their user page. Categories shouldn't be used as bottom-of-the-page notices. That said, in reading the above, I could "almost" suggest keep if this was for those who have been recently unbanned (like in the last month), and this showing as a sort of probation, and an easy way for helpful admins to check on the probationees. However, the opportnities for abuse of this category (in mean-spiritedness) are just simply too high for it to be kept. -
jc37 23:59, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete as redundant and potentially damaging. I had previously removed the related "List of Formerly Banned Users" here
[1], however it was restored and I got tired of arguing for it to be removed. One is bad enough, we don't need two.
Burpelson AFB (
talk) 00:40, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. While I can see it as possible that some will want to use it as some kind of badge-of-honor, addition of this category to user pages other than your own should be forbidden and if done, it should be treated as vandalism and a personal attack. We need more positive reinforcements, not reminding people of their past errors, which is paramount to slapping them in the face and saying "we will never forgive". What's next, a
nice triangle for those userpages, too? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
talk 01:25, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I believe you meant to say "tantamount" (not "paramount").
Cgingold (
talk) 20:00, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - The recently unblocked Mario is already requesting to change his name so he can move on I don't think he will be wanting t add his cat. this is a list of previously banned users that wanted to be included in this cat, there are more previously banned users but they didn't want to be included.Off2riorob (
talk) 01:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. For more reasons than I can shake a stick at. Per Robofish, per Black Kite, per Jc37, per LHvU.
Risker (
talk) 02:33, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete - same reason we don't demand people keep warnings on their talk page. If someone's disruptive we can easily check past issues anyway.
FT2(
Talk |
email) 04:21, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, a ban, which is typically enforced via a block, is easy enough to check on without categorizing users like this... —
Locke Cole •
t •
c 05:48, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Good intentions or not, this has the perceived effect of being a permanent mark of shame on reformed editors. What good it might do is outweighed by that.
Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) -
talk 09:11, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete, per Xeno noting that if it is opt-in it has no point. The could be purpose in keeping a record of bannings, but this isn't a good way. Also, there are too few members for it to be worthwhile as a category. --
SmokeyJoe (
talk) 10:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. This is a badge which says "Don't trust me."--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 17:38, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. This targets only one user and is un-needed as it shows this person was bad in the past and that kind of public knowledge may be harmful. -
Knowledgekid87 (
talk) 21:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
To be fair, Beeblebrox was not specifically targeting me; xeno mostly emptied the category (see above). I believe in transparency about my
past. And when I'm good, I'm very, very good ;)
Jack Merridew 04:57, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete. Whoever created this category is the one who should be banned.
PЄTЄRS J VЄСRUМВА ►
TALK 03:36, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Yea, thanks for that, I only explained myself like seven times now, is it too much effort for you to read a conversation before participating in it? I can see where this is headed, and that's fine. I did this in good faith and made efforts to make it invisible and to make it clear that it was for tracking purposes only and would be hidden, and yet I'm still being attacked. Delete the damn category already and end this, I'm sick of these thoughtless nasty attacks on my motives.
Beeblebrox (
talk) 16:42, 21 August 2010 (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:Universities and colleges associated with the Transcendental Meditation Movement
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 rename (empty).--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 14:57, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Merge. There is another category on Universities and colleges affiliated with the Transcendental Meditation Movement, which follows Wikipedia convention. It mentions that "Institutions of higher education affiliated, associated or administered by the Transcendental Meditation movement" are mentioned, which is all inclusive. So the category "Universities and colleges associated with the Transcendental Meditation Movement" is redundant. Use of the word "affiliated" follows existing Wikipedia convention, unlike "associated".
Byomkesh Bakshi (
talk) 19:51, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge - this is an empty category in any case, but they're obviously the same topic.
Robofish (
talk) 23:29, 19 August 2010 (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:Harrisongs
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.
Ruslik_
Zero 16:28, 4 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom; strictly speaking it's not redundant, as not all songs written by George Harrison were published by
Harrisongs, but I don't think it's necessary.
Robofish (
talk) 23:27, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Also, not all songs published by
Harrisongs are written by George Harrison. The company is now also used to publish
Dhani Harrison's songs. McLerristarr /
Mclay1 06:04, 29 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge per nom. There is no tree for songs by publisher and I don't really see the need to start one.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:02, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
There's no need for merging. Everything in it is already part of the parent category. It either needs keeping or deleting. McLerristarr /
Mclay1 08:38, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge/Delete per nom and the comments above. -
jc37 00:27, 4 September 2010 (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:Holdings of the Bibliothèque nationale de France
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 to
Category:Bibliothèque nationale de France collections. There is no consensus for the name of the category. Probably, a separate discussion should be held in order to find out a consensus as to how all such categories should be named.
Ruslik_
Zero 16:40, 4 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Pure duplication. Alternatively, the singular "Bibliothèque nationale de France collection" is more consistent with the other categories in the parent, & I'd be happy to set a precedent to rename to "Collection of ...." like most museums have.
Johnbod (
talk) 17:55, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
All the other "collection/s" are so called; "holdings" seems affected to me. The vast majority of their collections are of course not manuscripts, though all the articles so far do I think cover manuscripts.
Johnbod (
talk) 00:32, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I take it you support a merge anyway?
Johnbod (
talk) 02:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge/Rename to "Manuscripts of..." if these are all manuscripts. Else, to "Collections of..." per discussion above. -
jc37 00:27, 4 September 2010 (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:Music videos directed by Kristin Barlowe
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:Deleted by PeterSymonds, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer,
his otters and a clue-bat • (
Otters want attention) 18:13, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Same rationale as
this CFD. As Kristin Barlowe's article was deleted for lacking notability, this is now categorizing works-by-person for a person not notable enough for an article. Note that there is a strong precedent that "albums produced by X" categories are deleted if X doesn't have an article; therefore, the same should apply to anything else that's "nouns verbed by X." Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (
Many otters •
One bat •
One hammer) 17:26, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Speedy delete: I don't think this technically meets a CSD, but it seems pretty non-controversial. GiftigerWunsch[TALK] 21:37, 19 August 2010 (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:Post-minimalist composers
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. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (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:Execration text places
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.
Nominator's rationale:Delete. Being mentioned in a work is generally not defining for a place, unless it's the only evidence that the place existed. I don't think that these ancient places are defined by their being mentioned in the
Execration Texts.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:40, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - You could delete the category called "Amarna letters locations" for the same reason. However, it is a useful tool to have when trying to draw parallels between settlements for the same period. And there aren't that many 20th-18th century BCE historical-geographical texts to go on. --
Sreifa (
talk) 12:16, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
"You could delete the category called "Amarna letters locations" for the same reason." Yes, we certainly could. The fact that something is useful doesn't necessarily mean a category is the best means to present the information, however. I just don't see this as a defining characteristic of
Jerusalem;
Tyre, Lebanon;
Acre, Israel;
Damascus;
Lod; etc. What century the text happens to have been written in is irrelevant when it's a place that still exists.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 12:32, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
When you're taking about the first known historical mention of a place, it is relevant. The execration texts pre-date the Amarna scripts. --
Sreifa (
talk) 04:49, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Of course it's relevant. I have no objection to a list of this material. I just don't agree that it's category material, whether or not it was the first known mention of place or not.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 09:01, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I beg to differ. The proliferation of categories, if it is a problem at all, is the Wikipedia system's problem, not ours. If it truly is a problem, high level administrators will have to put limitations on the mechanism. Personally, I think that most list page are just plain dumb. If you have a tool called categories - use it. It's more convenient, because it shows up on the relevant pages, and links you to all relevant entries. A list (especially one like this one) would show a whole bunch of names that probably will never get their own page. --
Sreifa (
talk) 07:15, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well, that's one opinion. In my opinion, it's not one that's been widely adhered to by consensus decisions at CFD. Generally, there has been no approach that says categories can be used whenever one editor feels they are necessary. They can be created when one user feels it is necessary, but once nominated they are subject to whatever consensus decides, and in many cases that decision is that it is not an appropriate use of category space.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 08:34, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Listify, mention in articles where appropriate. It's a nice category, but the category system can't usefully support this level of granularity in its current state. RichFarmbrough, 11:54, 22 August 2010 (UTC).reply
Of NOTE: because I created the categories for Amarna Letters, 1-authors, 2-officials, and 3-places (And many of the articles needed for the cats-(I had worked on the A.letters for 2-4 years-(required),.....(I even had to identify a letter that I Googled, and being the Reverse of the letter (8-10 cuneiform characters per line, (no formulaic stuff))(so one of the last Articles/letters I worked on)-(See also the
Nuribta,
corvee letter), I only saw Ha-Na-T-N, and it turned out to be the biblical place
Hannathon. !.... The result of the categories in the 1350-1330 BC (timeframe) is that the
14th century BC has the largest number-(of many of the mid-centuries-It only gets larger after 1000 BC), of "Persons from the 14th century BC"-
Category:14th-century BC people. The execration texts are not ALL in museums; I assume more will come forward, they will be found in Private Collections.
Collateing the history of the world is actually one of the things being done by Wikipedia, (see
Parian Chronicle, a
stele), as a De-facto exercise, and not intentional, but probably the resultant. (I just got a note about the execration texts, (I had just seen items being put in the category, so I hadn't bothered to go there. It's almost like the pre-emptive Cfd put on
Category:Hurricanes and tropical depressions of the Gulf of California after one day (24 hours). If 'One' pre-emptively jumps on something, Best give it more than 24-48 hours. Removing the category for execration texts, is probably an impossibility: It is a VIEW into societies, morals, religion, and etc..... [One larger ostracon-(broken in 3 linear piece-sections, is the floor plan of its tomb-(found in-a Blueprint, per se)], the wonderful
ostracons, some as cartoons, are part of the wonder of human history, human originality. (Thank Goodness, in words, and paragraphs, one can express themselves).... (from a HOT-SonoranDesert, ArizaonUSA)-(And a replay, for
Hannathon, after creating all the three categories, I linked as many photos available on External links, about 12-16 Amarna letters)(It is a wonderful Soap Opera,-(the Amarna letters, (there's poetry, also, etc., and the entire
Habiru-(='Apiru'., though it actually came earlier(?))... the Mari texts, Kultepe texts, Ugaritic texts, others WILL follow, it is just a question of when: an Aside: when I worked on the
Category:Epic of Gilgamesh, I had the 3rd photo of a section of the 11-12 Chapters(Tablets), and I reviewed the use of some words in the other chapters, (before my attempt at line-by-line interpretation, for the 3rd photo section-(the beginning paragraphs 1 thru 8), trying to get a feel for them. (using the wonderful English, Maureen Kovacs (95 percent) line-by-line text)(Before the "Assyrian Project" cuneiform layout)-(And guess what, there is even "pornography, pornography-like use" in the text (one place I know of-(one could have guessed it))..(the 'prostitute' is one of the protagonists, in the story)-(these scribe guys (or gals) were quite the lucky people to have access to the Keys to the Kingdom(s) (-! just like Wikipedians-!))-(and one more aside: the
Category:Gulf of California was a 3.5-4 day weekend event-(more than 1000 What links here) completed by SUnday,-(sic) late afternoon, and other categories, now continued as a result are:
Category:Western North American coastal fauna-(and that too has evolved forward)---.... (from a HOT-SonoranDesert, ArizaonUSA)..
Mmcannis (
talk) 17:56, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete (Listify if wanted). Being "useful" may lead this information to have value to be conveyed in an article of some type. But we probably should not be categorising places based upon appearing in written works... Imagine how many categories
Rome, and
Athens, or even
London or
New York City, might appear in. -
jc37 00:44, 4 September 2010 (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:Indonesian culture claimed by Malaysia
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. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Delete. POV and
battleground-ish category. Something can legitimately be part of the culture of more than one country. It doesn't mean that it is really part of one country's culture and it is just being appropriated by another country's culture. Things can be placed in
Category:Indonesian culture and
Category:Malaysian culture, as the things in this category should be.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 11:36, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. Category was emptied by
User:Gunkarta, who apparently was unaware of the convention not to do this during an ongoing CFD.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 23:50, 20 August 2010 (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:Australian Formula Two Championship drivers
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename.
GTHO (
talk·contribs) tried to rename this category by redirecting it to a non-existent target; I've replaced the redirect with a rename request, because the relevant
article suggests that Australia does use the "Formula 2" rather than "Formula Two" spelling for its racing series.
R'n'B (
call me Russ) 10:14, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment – The 1964 CAMS Manual of Motor Sport used the term "Australian Formula 2" for the category when it was introduced in that year, it still uses "Australian Formula 2" as can be seen at
www.camsmanual.com.au and the
Australian Formula 2 Club Inc also use the term.
GTHO (
talk) 03:43, 23 August 2010 (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:Plug-in hybrid electric vehicle organizations
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:already done.--
Mike Selinker (
talk) 23:17, 19 August 2010 (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:Electric grid interconnections
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:Keep.
Ruslik_
Zero 17:02, 4 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment. I'm leaning to keeping at the point. The systems are just that, the
transmission systems within defined areas. The interconnects are the facilities that provide isolation against failure while allowing the various systems to be tied together to share power. So their roles are quite different.
Category:Western Interconnection provides a better picture of this by providing article about the converter stations while
Category:Eastern Interconnection just included the participating transmission system and not the notable ties. So while there may be a lot of overlap currently, I think that is simply an indication that there are a lot of missing articles. One other issue is that we tend to downplay and not really explain are the grid interconnections. For example, the Mead Substation has 21 lines terminating there 9 of which can come from Hoover Dam (the pictures are a bit difficult to follow). Some of the lines from the Hoover Dam substation appear to connect with Arizona. The lines from Mead feed interconnects in three states and 15 power entities plus the dam. Yet this type of structure does not have an article. So which category does the Mead Substation go into?
Category:Western Interconnection?
Category:Western Area Power Administration, who owns the facility? Clearly it is a major interconnection point for power to multiple transmission systems but it is not a transmission system.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:38, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep for now. I'm going to wait on deletion until we clarify how we are using the transmission systems, grids and interconnect categories before agreeing with deletion of these.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:42, 26 August 2010 (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:Heavy metal instrumentals
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. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Support I created this category thinking that I would put more articles in it, but I don't think there are enough. --Eastlawtalk ⁄ contribs 22:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Merge - as per nom, excessive sub cat.
Off2riorob (
talk) 19:24, 20 August 2010 (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 In the news
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.
Nominator's rationale:Rename all - per the lead page
Wikipedia:In the news and a couple of other cosmetic fixes. Change also makes clear that the categories are not for times when Wikipedia is mentioned in news outlets.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 06:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
I don't think this rename is actually possible - as far as I know, you can't have two colons in a category title. If I'm wrong, go ahead and do it.
Robofish (
talk) 23:20, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Would the admin who closes this debate please also delete the above test category? Thanks.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 18:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Already done, just in case it got overlooked at closure.
Grutness...wha? 10:54, 25 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Oppose - The name of the page is: "In the news". The reason that the word "Wikipedia" is shown is to indicate that this is not a main namespace-related category. -
jc37 00:03, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Well I don't think it's as bad as all that! Anyway, while I stick with the nomination, whatever the outcome the admin one should be renamed to conform with the capitalization of the rest.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 21:18, 22 August 2010 (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:People prosecuted under anti-homosexuality laws
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:Keep. I actually failed to understand the argument related to the BLP—almost all articles appear to be about people long dead.
Ruslik_
Zero 19:12, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale:Discuss. This category is problematic. The bulk of its contents appear to be people sent to concentration camps under Germany's
Paragraph 175. Clearly they belong in a category akin to this one but would perhaps be better served by
Category:People convicted under Germany's Paragraph 175 instead of this vaguer category. There is also the issue of this being an "accused of" or "alleged" category, something which may not be a concern for these people (since I think they're all dead) (
Edward Douglas-Scott-Montagu, 3rd Baron Montagu of Beaulieu is still alive but was actually convicted of something) but raises
WP:BLP concerns should it be applied to a living person (one or another of the right-wingers who've been caught with their pants down in recent years, for example). The bigger problem is the assumption that the laws under which some of these people were convicted were "anti-homosexual". Some people in this category were prosecuted centuries before the concept of a homosexual identity existed. Others were convicted under general anti-obscenity laws that did not necessarily pertain specifically to homosexuality. At least one woman was convicted for cross-dressing, which is not in and of itself a homosexual trait nor is a law forbidding it necessarily anti-homosexual. I propose that we rename the category and restrict it to those people who were actually convicted of something (but I have no idea what the best name or scope would be) and then review the articles to see what belongs.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 01:01, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
"Prosecuted" is far more narrow than "accused of or alleged"; it means that there was necessarily government action taken against an individual. It doesn't require or imply that the individual was necessarily punished or convicted, or that they were a homosexual, just that there was an official process initiated on that basis. No comment beyond that for now. postdlf (talk) 04:25, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
A lot of innocent people are prosecuted. Not saying that that in and of itself mandates action but the stigma of prosecution when innocent does IMHO raise serious questions.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 05:18, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm not following your point here, at least as a reply to my comment. My point was only that your characterization of this as a mere allegation or accusation category was inapt, because the category focuses on some government as the accuser (rather than just anyone, as you'd have in an unqualified
Category:People accused of FOO category), and requires that government have taken some action to try to punish based on the allegation under some law. Which isn't to say this category shouldn't be deleted or kept, but I just wanted us to be clear on what we were talking about. postdlf (talk) 00:44, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply
I'm saying that there's a bias inherent in saying that a person's been prosecuted for a crime and that this bias argues against the category. Regardless, it appears that everyone in this category was convicted of one thing or another and given that there's really no need for a prosecuted category.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 09:50, 29 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Yes, I went ahead and created and populated the category. Regardless of the outcome here I thought that the Para 175 category was valid and viable. The persecution category already existed (note that Para 175 both pre- and post-dates Nazi Germany so the two categories are not synonymous).
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 15:30, 27 July 2010 (UTC)reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached. Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Good Ol’factory(talk) 06:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Keep - not convinced by the nomination myself. I think this category is fairly clearly defined, and doesn't raise BLP issues; it's true 'anti-homosexuality laws' may be a bit vague, but it can be assumed to stand for 'laws which criminalise homosexual acts or behaviour'. Some people currently in it may not be categorised correctly, but I think in principle, it's an acceptable category (and one with a great deal of historical significance).
Robofish (
talk) 23:18, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
But that's not how the category is being used, nor is that definition accurate. There are people here who were prosecuted for such things as possession of obscene materials, which isn't an "anti-homosexuality law" and criminalizes obscene material regardless of content or prospective customers. There are people who were prosecuted under "buggery" laws which predate the concept of "homosexuality" as a sexual identity so by definition the laws can't be "anti-homosexuality" (buggery between a male and a female was also illegal under most of these laws). We already have
Category:People convicted of sodomy so using this category for that is redundant.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 00:31, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
keep 'Buggery' predates 'homosexuality' - true; but buggery between same sex persons, well there is surely no difficulty in extending the definition of homosexuality to include that type of buggery. Regarding 'pornography': cases of prosecution where 'homosexual' pornography is involved far exceed prosecutions where heterosexual pornography is involved. Taking all things into account this Category is valid and useful.
Yassi (
talk) 09:17, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
So a woman convicted of buggery with a man should be categorized as having been "prosecuted" under an "anti-homosexuality law"? Someone convicted under a sexuality-neutral obscenity law should be categorized as having been "prosecuted" under an "anti-homosexuality law"? "Expanding the definition of homosexuality" is another way of saying "original research" as is ascribing motives to lawmakers without evidence.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 13:34, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Strong delete - Clear BLP issues, different laws in different countries etc, awful. Prosecuted but founfd innocent, really you must be having a laugh.
Off2riorob (
talk) 17:25, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Comment -- We do not like "accused" categories, because they are potentially libellous. A person prosecuted and acquitted is entitled to be regarded as innocent, but this category carries the innuendo that they are guilty. I find it difficult to see how a woman can be guilt of buggery. Lesbian sex was never a crime in England (I think). It would be appropriate to have a category for "People convicted of homosexual offences", and I expect that there is one. This leaves the difficulty of those who killed themselves while awaiting trial (and such like). I hope that this is a small group who can either be tacitly (though strinctly incorrectly) be included in the convicted category, or perhaps we can do without a category for them.
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:37, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Peterkingiron, you say: we do not like "accused" categories because they are potentially libellous. A person prosecuted and acquitted is entitled to be regarded as innocent, but this category carries the innuendo that they are guilty.
Your comment apears to carry with it the suggestion that homosexuality is deprecated or something to feel ashamed about. In reality homosexuality is to be celebrated as part of human diversity. As such I must disagree with your views, and recommend, once again, that the category stays, reflecting discrimination against homosexuals throughout history.
Yassi (
talk) 17:35, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
As Wikipedia editors we neither deprecate nor celebrate homosexuality. However, society certainly can and does both. It is only quite recently that calling someone gay wasn't considered defamation per se which is why we need to be careful about any category for people.
Are You The Cow Of Pain? (
talk) 21:25, 22 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete all "prosecuted" categories as just being examples of an accusation with a process attached. The keyword missing here is convicted. No prejudice against this being a well-sourced list/article, which explains the circumstances of such accusations/prosecutions. -
jc37 00:38, 4 September 2010 (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:Metropolitan Community Churches in London
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. —
ξxplicit 19:11, 27 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: There's only one article in this category; it appears marginally notable at best, and the other articles previously in the category have been deleted under
speedy criterion A7. No potential for expansion.
Nyttend (
talk) 05:23, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom. I just added the article to the parent category.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 23:28, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Delete per nom.
MtD (
talk) 23:35, 26 August 2010 (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:Songs dealing with nuclear war
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.
Rename per suggestion of Cgingold for consistency within the category tree.
Good Ol’factory(talk) 02:03, 2 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename per suggestion of Cgingold
Johnbod (
talk) 05:07, 3 September 2010 (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 in the news
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:G7 merge, per
[2].
Courcelles 01:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Nominator's rationale: Apparently we've ended up with two of these that differ only by capitalisation.
Courcelles 01:05, 19 August 2010 (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:Mediterranean port cities and towns in Malta
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:Close. Please, have a broader discussion.
Ruslik_
Zero 18:51, 6 September 2010 (UTC)reply
Part of a wrong pattern. They are cities or they are towns they are not both. There is a tree for cities and a tree for towns. The exceptions are places like Russia where the Russian name really means both. This is clean up from when the cleanup on these names started months ago. These could not be batch nominated since each and every article needs to be looked at to see what actions are needed.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:28, 19 August 2010 (UTC)reply
what user use or benefit is there to having separate trees for 'Ports cities' and 'Port towns'? They don't exist now. No use that I can see.
Hmains (
talk) 02:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
If we have more then one type, it would be named using some form of populated places.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 05:12, 20 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Rename to
Category:Ports in Malta. Mediterranean is redundant as Malta has no other coast; "cities", "towns", etc. is also redundant, and causes an argument over which they are, becuase of the differing usages of "city".
Peterkingiron (
talk) 23:46, 21 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Given the parent categories above this category, it might be in order to withdraw this nomination and instead nominate all the non-conforming names of child/grandchild, etc categories of
Category:Port settlements to be named in the pattern
Category:xxx port settlements xxx.
Hmains (
talk) 05:00, 23 August 2010 (UTC)reply
That is acceptable when if and when we have articles that are not about port cities. But when it is only cities call it that. But if it needs to move to
Category:Mediterranean port settlements in Malta to get rid of the current name, then so be it.
Vegaswikian (
talk) 18:44, 26 August 2010 (UTC)reply
Hold off this discussion, and have a broader discussion concerning "cities and towns" vs "cities" and "towns" vs "settlements" vs whatever else. I'd like to see a broader consensus, since there are more than a few of these, across many different intersection types. -
jc37 00:32, 4 September 2010 (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.