Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 October 5

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< October 4 October 6 >

October 5 edit

Category:Millennial Wikipedians to Category:Generation Y Wikipedians edit

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

The result of the debate was no consensus (no change) --Kbdank71 16:45, 26 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Unresolved note. I am keeping this open for another 7 days. The third category option should not have been created until consensus was reached. Please vote Delete, Keep (which one), or Merge (to where) between these 3 categories only:
Sockpuppet votes have been stricken. Unfortunately were going strictly with numbers this time, as everyone has a different comment. ∞Who?¿? 06:28, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]


There's no need to have two such categories. Let's use only the one which is uncontroversial, there are no users who "do not accept to be described" as Generation Y AFAIK, and the title is also clearer. Army1987 14:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Imprecise and slangy. This whole scheme is a bad idea imo. But if we must have it, the categories should be named by decade, ie. Wiikipedians born in the 1980s etc. CalJW 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE BOTH. Same old stuff - vanity pages for a clique within a clique. Juvenile, egotistical, unencyclopedic, worthless. Grow up, grow up grow up, or you will continue to be not taken seriously. 12.73.198.38 17:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Grow up, grow up, grow up.." Why 12.73.198.38, what maturity you show in arguement. -JCarriker 02:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again Merge both categories into Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians These are user categories and both terms are controversial. Gen Y plays to the stereotype that this generation is nothing more than GenX II, and I find that offensive. Neither term is accepted and both are controversial. This has already been debated, and no concensus was reached. Frankly, I find the nomination of a user category for deletion needlessly confrontational. It also worth noting that there are more people in the millenial category than in Gen Y, in other words this merge proposal is backward in size and is mistaken in in the neutrality of the term Gen Y. -JCarriker 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a pile of pompous poop, Carriker [Note, altho JCarriker feels free to chide my comment, above, he is utterly censorious when it comes to my responding in kind. And he sic's someone named "France2000" on me with a threat of banishment if I don't quit twitting him for twitting me. All of which goes to prove my original comment - as 12.73.198.38 - is quite apt. Those who dish it out but cannot take it are full of it, and not to be taken seriously. As for a site that supports them... 12.73.194.10 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the record: no-one "sic"d me onto you, I noticed you editing other people's comments in this discussion and reverted what you did. I stand by the vandalism warning I gave you on your talk page, I notice you've now received another and I have no qualms about blocking you from editing this site if your behaviour deems it necessary. -- Francs2000   02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you will also have to banish Carriker, for vandalizing *my* post at the outset. Or are you too much of a Wikicliquer to dispense Wikijustice fairly? (PS - you can threaten banishment all you want; since I'm not registered, you have no way to find me; and, be careful, I might be Prince Charles in disguise). Charlie Flagpole 14:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you point out the edit where JCarriker altered a comment to this discussion that you or anyone else had made? I have looked in the history and see no evidence of this. -- Francs2000   15:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why I prefer the term "Generation Y" is because it is clearer. If one reads "Millennial Wikipedian" without knowing what that means, they cannot understand the label until they read the description of the category. Instead someone reading "Generation Y Wikipedians" can immediately understand that it refers to the generation after Generation X, or at least that it refers to a generation. See also: [1]. In addition, it is consistent with cat. Generation X Wikipedians whose title is Generation X Wikipedians and not 13th Generation Wikipedians. However, if the name "Millennial Generation" is agreed to be more suitable that "Generation Y", the title "Millennial Generation Wikipedians" will more intuitive than just "Millennial Wikipedians". --Army1987 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with changing the title to Millennial Generation Wikipedians if you insist on it. However that search provided is not particularly conclusive: Do a search for the proper plural nouns Gen Yers +generation[2] and Millennials +generation [3]. Then compare both searches to Baby Boomers +generation [4] and Gen Xers +generation [5]. Gen Yers does not stand up it alternative nor to the other generations. Millennial is not a perfect name, but it is given the fervor over the changing of the millennium that has and is still occurring during this generations birth and formative years its not a bad one. Gen Y is comparable to 13th gen in that it has been rejected by most of the generation it has been used to identified. Further more numbers aren’t everything there are reasons why Roma people does not appear at Gypsy. My generation has fought long and hard to distance itself from the negative stereotypes that were forced on Gen X. The term Gen Y is offensive, and while most wikipedians of this generation are not in love with the term Millennials they have chosen it over Gen Y. Is it really so much to ask that when we identify ourselves through user categories, that we do so through a term of our own acceptance. -JCarriker 21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is it offensive?--Army1987 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have elaborated above on that, but in short it implies that the generation is a continuation of Gen X—which is wrong—and this assumption has lead to forcing the negative stereotypes about Gen X on this generation while ignoring the good traits of both generations. An anon (172.199.22.234)user, put it somewhat cruder on my talk page and several others he/she apparently used this cat to spam about the article title. -JCarriker 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Generation Y Wikipedians into Category:Millennial Wikipedians (the opposite of the original proposal). I don't like the idea of categorizing users in this manner, but the practice obviously is going to continue (and is largely harmless). With this in mind, the more popular of the two designations should prevail (given the fact that they mean exactly the same thing). It may be true that both terms are controversial, but maintaining redundant categories defeats the very purpose of their existence. —Lifeisunfair 03:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Merge both categories into Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians (per Army1987's suggestion), thereby preserving the overwhelmingly preferred designation while clarifying its meaning. —Lifeisunfair 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between 1977 and 1993 --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated in the Category:Millennial Wikipedians description, those years are "approximate." According to the Generation Y article, there is a considerable amount of debate regarding the precise cutoff points. Therefore, this category is loosely defined, and is comprised of individuals whose arbitrary definitions enable self-inclusion. It's of little encyclopedic value, but we can afford to impose lax restrictions upon user categories. —Lifeisunfair 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between about 1977 and 1993. If that generation can't agree on what to call itself, it's not Wikipedia's job to impose a name on them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even "about 1977 and 1993" is far more specific than the range that is undisputed. Such a name would be significantly more arbitrary and less acceptable than the "imposition" of either of the two widely used slang designations in question (one of which — "millennial" — appears to have been accepted by the vast majority of Wikipedia users who have opted to categorize themselves as members of this generation). —Lifeisunfair 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate? Why should we keep two 100% redundant categories (only one of which is popular)?
They're not actually 100% redundant. For one thing, as a 1979 birth I apparently qualify for the Millennial wikipedians club but not the Generation Y club. — brighterorange (talk) 13:53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The description from the Category:Generation Y Wikipedians page was written by a different person than that of the Category:Millennial Wikipedians page. The chronological disparity reflects a difference of opinion regarding the birth years encompassed by the generation, not a difference in meaning between the two terms in question. (All of this is explained in the Generation Y article.) —Lifeisunfair 17:39, 18 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them again. I knew they'd come back here even as I restored them from a pointless VfU debate. -Splashtalk 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please provide a link to the VFU debate? The only time this category was deleted, to my recolectionwas when it was posted here for deletion and was deleted improperly as no CFD otice was place on its page. When that notice was posted, and the vote placed back here; consensus was nor reached. Surely you would not consider the restoration for continued debate of an improperly deleted category pointless? -JCarriker 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the debate in this diff. I then asked the nominator what he wanted done. Repopulation? Renomination? He was wilfully obtuse and wouldn't answer me, other than to mumble about some love of process (which hinged basically on when a single edit was made). So I didn't do anything (and neither did he), and left a bunch of completely empty categories lying around. I commented at the time that they became speediable 24 hours after my restoration, but I didn't act on that observation. I made a little bet with myself over when they'd next be on CfD. It took longer than I thought. -Splashtalk 16:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you providing the link, and I'm sorry you found the nominator unresponsive (you won't have that problem with me). However, the vote for undeletion in the link was over Wikipedians by Generation, not Millennial Wikipedians. Has Millennial Wikipedians itself ever been on VFU? When Millennial Wikipedians was no notice of its CFD nomination was provided before its deletion. Again I ask: In that particular instance how was it pointless to restor a catgegory that was improperly deleted? -JCarriker 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as per CalJW's initial judgment. 12.73.194.179 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per CalJW. siafu 03:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now I created Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians. As for me I'm in all three categories, and will remove myself from the ones which shall have been deleted. I'll write a message to all people in the two already-pop'd categories.--Army1987 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've written messages to all those beginning with letter A or B. I am going to be quite busy this week, so please help me. Simply copy and paste the message fromUser:Army1987/MilGenWiki to the users' talk pages and sign it with four tildes. TIA. --Army1987 14:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I favor the use of Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians, but this debate's outcome is far from certain. It was imprudent to create yet another redundant category. —Lifeisunfair 16:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them into Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians and redirect Category:Millennial_Wikipedians and Category:Generation_Y_Wikipedians to it. If those categories are vanity, so are all of those Category:Wikipedians --BrendanRyan 19:33, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both as per CalJW. --Kbdank71 13:26, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as per JCarriker. Cheers. Redwolf24 (talk—How's my driving?) 23:05, 15 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Molotov (talk)  
     02:49, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all per CalJW. Kirill Lokshin 12:22, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - these so called "generations" are culture/country specific and are not tightly defined/have standard definitions. Identify by decade. Less sloppy. --MacRusgail 19:26, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep all (why not?), with strongest preference for keeping Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians. Christopher Parham (talk) 20:07, 16 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep both (or weak delete both). If these can't be nailed down exactly, then the only real criterion is self-identification, in which case we already know that the two categories aren't redundant. If their redundancy makes you cringe, then perhaps delete both in favor of a decade-based system (although as a guy who was born in the last 4 months of 1979, I appreciate that some slop may be desirable). Otherwise, let people identify as they like. The whole point of these categories is to foster some kind of community among editors, not to establish some kind of encyclopedic knowledge. — brighterorange (talk)span53, 17 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep, merge together, merge to decade category, whatever, but don't delete them all. I can see the problems with redundancy and imprecision here, but there should be some categorization system for Wikipedians by generation. ~~ N (t/c) 13:28, 19 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep allwhile inserting cross-references from each cat to the others. Let Wikipedians identify themselves as they please. Why not? Septentrionalis 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.


Continent-related lists edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. Naming conventions candidate. ∞Who?¿? 06:10, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The preferred format for country categories in category:Lists by country is officially undecided, but in fact all 51 country categories in it are in the form "X-related lists". The only inconsistency is the existence of Category:Asia lists and Category:Africa lists, so I suggest that they should be renamed category:Africa-related lists and category:Asia-related lists (and possibly moved elsewhere). CalJW 23:59, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Villages of the Czech Republic to Category:Villages in the Czech Republic edit

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

The result of the debate was SPEEDY RENAME per speedy-rule #4. -Splashtalk 16:21, 9 October 2005 (UTC) The "in" form is standard for settlements. Rename CalJW 23:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 01:20, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename --Herzog 01:37, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy per new rule #4. -Splashtalk 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:UNV television network, Category:UNV network affiliates, and Category:UNV network shows to Category:Univisión television network Category:Univisión network affiliates, and Category:Univisión network shows edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename all. ∞Who?¿? 06:07, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Propose the following renames as listed above or similar to, UNV is the three letter desingnator for the network, but when used in categorires is should be put out as Univisión. --Boothy443 | comhrá 23:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wholeheartedly approve. Be WP:BOLD and do it. BlankVerse ∅ 11:29, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom, but note that even being bold the cats ought still to come here for their eventual deletion. -Splashtalk 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename all. No argument. siafu 03:43, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Liberal related stubs to Category:Liberalism stubs edit

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

The result of the debate was Moved to WP:SFD. ∞Who?¿? 22:50, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I think the proposed name meets the naming guidelines better. Aecis 22:39, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:3-letter acronym disambiguations to Category:Three-letter acronym disambiguations edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:05, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Three should be written out, not a numeral, per stylistic conventions. jengod 20:30, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Neither of those categories exist. -- Reinyday, 01:21, 6 October 2005 (UTC)
Each of the two category names contained an extraneous colon. I've corrected the problem. —Lifeisunfair 02:42, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Japanese prefectures to Category:Prefectures of Japan edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:03, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The "of" form is standard for subdivisions such as these. Rename CalJW 14:44, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Cities in Finland to Category:Cities and towns in Finland edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 06:04, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Finland is another country where there is no distinction between towns and cities. Indeed the lead article in this category is called List of towns in Finland (though come to think of it that should be changed to, so I'll do so in a minute). In this situation the standard practice is to rename category:Cities and towns in Finland. CalJW 14:27, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Millennial Wikipedians to Category:Generation Y Wikipedians (or vice-versa) edit

There's no need to have two such categories. Let's use only the one which is uncontroversial, there are no users who "do not accept to be described" as Generation Y AFAIK, and the title is also clearer. Army1987 14:00, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete both Imprecise and slangy. This whole scheme is a bad idea imo. But if we must have it, the categories should be named by decade, ie. Wiikipedians born in the 1980s etc. CalJW 14:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE BOTH. Same old stuff - vanity pages for a clique within a clique. Juvenile, egotistical, unencyclopedic, worthless. Grow up, grow up grow up, or you will continue to be not taken seriously. 12.73.198.38 17:42, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Grow up, grow up, grow up.." Why 12.73.198.38, what maturity you show in arguement. -JCarriker 02:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Again Merge both categories into Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians These are user categories and both terms are controversial. Gen Y plays to the stereotype that this generation is nothing more than GenX II, and I find that offensive. Neither term is accepted and both are controversial. This has already been debated, and no concensus was reached. Frankly, I find the nomination of a user category for deletion needlessly confrontational. It also worth noting that there are more people in the millenial category than in Gen Y, in other words this merge proposal is backward in size and is mistaken in in the neutrality of the term Gen Y. -JCarriker 02:01, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • What a pile of pompous poop, Carriker [Note, altho JCarriker feels free to chide my comment, above, he is utterly censorious when it comes to my responding in kind. And he sic's someone named "France2000" on me with a threat of banishment if I don't quit twitting him for twitting me. All of which goes to prove my original comment - as 12.73.198.38 - is quite apt. Those who dish it out but cannot take it are full of it, and not to be taken seriously. As for a site that supports them... 12.73.194.10 02:13, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just for the record: no-one "sic"d me onto you, I noticed you editing other people's comments in this discussion and reverted what you did. I stand by the vandalism warning I gave you on your talk page, I notice you've now received another and I have no qualms about blocking you from editing this site if your behaviour deems it necessary. -- Francs2000   02:31, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then you will also have to banish Carriker, for vandalizing *my* post at the outset. Or are you too much of a Wikicliquer to dispense Wikijustice fairly? (PS - you can threaten banishment all you want; since I'm not registered, you have no way to find me; and, be careful, I might be Prince Charles in disguise). Charlie Flagpole 14:32, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
          • Can you point out the edit where JCarriker altered a comment to this discussion that you or anyone else had made? I have looked in the history and see no evidence of this. -- Francs2000   15:39, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • The reason why I prefer the term "Generation Y" is because it is clearer. If one reads "Millennial Wikipedian" without knowing what that means, they cannot understand the label until they read the description of the category. Instead someone reading "Generation Y Wikipedians" can immediately understand that it refers to the generation after Generation X, or at least that it refers to a generation. See also: [6]. In addition, it is consistent with cat. Generation X Wikipedians whose title is Generation X Wikipedians and not 13th Generation Wikipedians. However, if the name "Millennial Generation" is agreed to be more suitable that "Generation Y", the title "Millennial Generation Wikipedians" will more intuitive than just "Millennial Wikipedians". --Army1987 16:26, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I have no problem with changing the title to Millennial Generation Wikipedians if you insist on it. However that search provided is not particularly conclusive: Do a search for the proper plural nouns Gen Yers +generation[7] and Millennials +generation [8]. Then compare both searches to Baby Boomers +generation [9] and Gen Xers +generation [10]. Gen Yers does not stand up it alternative nor to the other generations. Millennial is not a perfect name, but it is given the fervor over the changing of the millennium that has and is still occurring during this generations birth and formative years its not a bad one. Gen Y is comparable to 13th gen in that it has been rejected by most of the generation it has been used to identified. Further more numbers aren’t everything there are reasons why Roma people does not appear at Gypsy. My generation has fought long and hard to distance itself from the negative stereotypes that were forced on Gen X. The term Gen Y is offensive, and while most wikipedians of this generation are not in love with the term Millennials they have chosen it over Gen Y. Is it really so much to ask that when we identify ourselves through user categories, that we do so through a term of our own acceptance. -JCarriker 21:17, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Why is it offensive?--Army1987 12:02, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have elaborated above on that, but in short it implies that the generation is a continuation of Gen X—which is wrong—and this assumption has lead to forcing the negative stereotypes about Gen X on this generation while ignoring the good traits of both generations. An anon (172.199.22.234)user, put it somewhat cruder on my talk page and several others he/she apparently used this cat to spam about the article title. -JCarriker 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge Category:Generation Y Wikipedians into Category:Millennial Wikipedians (the opposite of the original proposal). I don't like the idea of categorizing users in this manner, but the practice obviously is going to continue (and is largely harmless). With this in mind, the more popular of the two designations should prevail (given the fact that they mean exactly the same thing). It may be true that both terms are controversial, but maintaining redundant categories defeats the very purpose of their existence. —Lifeisunfair 03:28, 6 October 2005 (UTC) Merge both categories into Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians (per Army1987's suggestion), thereby preserving the overwhelmingly preferred designation while clarifying its meaning. —Lifeisunfair 21:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between 1977 and 1993 --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:58, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
As indicated in the Category:Millennial Wikipedians description, those years are "approximate." According to the Generation Y article, there is a considerable amount of debate regarding the precise cutoff points. Therefore, this category is loosely defined, and is comprised of individuals whose arbitrary definitions enable self-inclusion. It's of little encyclopedic value, but we can afford to impose lax restrictions upon user categories. —Lifeisunfair 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, then merge them both into Category:Wikipedians born between about 1977 and 1993. If that generation can't agree on what to call itself, it's not Wikipedia's job to impose a name on them. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 21:38, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Even "about 1977 and 1993" is far more specific than the range that is undisputed. Such a name would be significantly more arbitrary and less acceptable than the "imposition" of either of the two widely used slang designations in question (one of which — "millennial" — appears to have been accepted by the vast majority of Wikipedia users who have opted to categorize themselves as members of this generation). —Lifeisunfair 21:54, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Can you please elaborate? Why should we keep two 100% redundant categories (only one of which is popular)?
  • Delete them again. I knew they'd come back here even as I restored them from a pointless VfU debate. -Splashtalk 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Could you please provide a link to the VFU debate? The only time this category was deleted, to my recolectionwas when it was posted here for deletion and was deleted improperly as no CFD otice was place on its page. When that notice was posted, and the vote placed back here; consensus was nor reached. Surely you would not consider the restoration for continued debate of an improperly deleted category pointless? -JCarriker 21:22, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • I removed the debate in this diff. I then asked the nominator what he wanted done. Repopulation? Renomination? He was wilfully obtuse and wouldn't answer me, other than to mumble about some love of process (which hinged basically on when a single edit was made). So I didn't do anything (and neither did he), and left a bunch of completely empty categories lying around. I commented at the time that they became speediable 24 hours after my restoration, but I didn't act on that observation. I made a little bet with myself over when they'd next be on CfD. It took longer than I thought. -Splashtalk 16:18, 9 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Thank you providing the link, and I'm sorry you found the nominator unresponsive (you won't have that problem with me). However, the vote for undeletion in the link was over Wikipedians by Generation, not Millennial Wikipedians. Has Millennial Wikipedians itself ever been on VFU? When Millennial Wikipedians was no notice of its CFD nomination was provided before its deletion. Again I ask: In that particular instance how was it pointless to restor a catgegory that was improperly deleted? -JCarriker 22:46, 11 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both, as per CalJW's initial judgment. 12.73.194.179 02:08, 8 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete both per CalJW. siafu 03:45, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Now I created Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians. As for me I'm in all three categories, and will remove myself from the ones which shall have been deleted. I'll write a message to all people in the two already-pop'd categories.--Army1987 14:37, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
So far, I've written messages to all those beginning with letter A or B. I am going to be quite busy this week, so please help me. Simply copy and paste the message fromUser:Army1987/MilGenWiki to the users' talk pages and sign it with four tildes. TIA. --Army1987 14:59, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
I favor the use of Category:Millennial Generation Wikipedians, but this debate's outcome is far from certain. It was imprudent to create yet another redundant category. —Lifeisunfair 16:38, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alt country to Category:Country music edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename to Category:Alternative country. ∞Who?¿? 05:59, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Alt country is misnamed (see its talk page), but more importantly, it is not defined, and probably is not notable enough to deserve a separate category. As of today it has only one stub article about a band. Merge into Category:Country music. Pablo D. Flores (Talk) 13:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. The article Alternative country lists at least 50 artists or groups with existing Wikipedia articles - I think that constitutes enough for a separate category. Various other versions of the term including Alt.country, Alt-country and Alt country all redirect to Alternative country. Logically the category should share the name of the defining article, so rename to Category:Alternative country. There is already a (miscapitalised) Category:Alternative Country but this has been unhelpfully re-directed to Category:Country music. (BTW, contrary to the proposer's comment, the cat has no talk page). Valiantis 23:43, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per Valiantis. If there are in fact enough articles, then this mess should be cleaned up instead of just axed. siafu 03:47, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename and reparent per Valiantis. --Kgf0 23:22, 12 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Kazakh politicians to Category:Kazakhstani politicians edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 05:54, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"Kazakh" is an ethnic group, "Kazakhstani" is a nationality. See recent move of Category:Kazakh people to Category:Kazakhstani people. This one is much more appropriate, since these are public figures in the politics of Kazakhstan. The fact that they are ethnically Kazakhs is irrelevant. Staecker 13:19, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy Rename. - Darwinek 20:23, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. Nom is correct; ethnicity is irrelevant in this case. siafu 03:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Football (soccer) player stubs to Category:Football (soccer) biography stubs edit

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

The result of the debate was Moved to WP:SFD. ∞Who?¿? 04:39, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category contains more biographies than just player biographies. As the category itself says, "while the category was originally envisioned only for players, non-playing personnel (managers, coaches, chairmen, executives) can also be included in this category, as long as they are directly connected to the sport." I think a rename is needed to better fit the articles in this category.. Aecis 11:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Renaming for stub categories must be directed to Wikipedia:Stub types for deletion. -- Rick Block (talk) 04:05, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Serbian and Croatian Americans edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete and split. ∞Who?¿? 05:53, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

The Serbs and the Croats are two different communities, at home and abroad. Let me repeat that in American English words: there are "Serbian-Americans", and then there are "Croatian-Americans". There are two groups, not one. They can be clearly distinguished between one another, both by members of the groups and by outsiders.

No, you can't just recognize them as two different peoples out of a crowd. But that is not a criterion for national categorization, for crying out loud.

Sure, they are similar. But don't we lump together Czech and Slovak Americans, and we don't lump together Finnish and Estonian Americans, and we don't lump together Norwegian and Danish Americans. It's simply not done.

I'll probably split up the category myself, but I needed to say this so that it's spelled out for the future. --Joy [shallot] 10:47, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Cf. Category:Serbian diaspora and Category:Croatian diaspora. --Joy [shallot]

In principle, it's probably a good idea. But there may be difficulty in deciding, since probably a lot of the people in this category were originally from the unified 1918-1992 Yugoslavia, and then you have to go digging through their individual histories to discover if that meant Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegonia, Serbia, Montenegro, or Macedonia. (In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if there were people in this category who were neither Serbian- nor Croatian-Americans, but rather Slovenian-, Bosniak-, Montenegrin-, or Macedonian-Americans.) --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:55, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Gosh, that's even worse, and even more reason to destroy such a horribly misnamed category. --Joy [shallot]
  • Concur - split/unmunge and create as many foo-American categories as needed. 12.73.201.111 02:26, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Divide per nom. This probably arose from the continued (mis?)use of "Serbo-Croatian" as a single language. siafu 03:50, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Articles which lack sources to Category:Articles that lack sources edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename Category:Articles lacking sources. ∞Who?¿? 05:51, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This is a simple grammatical correction (changing "which" to "that"). Improper grammar isn't a criterion for speedy renaming (though it should be, in my opinion), so I'm listing the category here. —Lifeisunfair 09:48, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename. However, you could shorten the category name and even avoid the grammar problem by renaming it to "Category:Articles lacking sources"... Lupo 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
What about "Category:Unsourced articles"? Or is that too short? Aecis 12:10, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename I second Lupo's idea of Articles lacking sources, otherwise that is correct — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jengod (talk • contribs) 20:31, 5 October 2005
  • Keep. Insisting on "that" in restrictive relative clauses is pedantic. There's nothing grammatically wrong with the category name the way it is. --Angr/tɔk tə mi 07:49, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Would Category:Articles which ain't got no sources also be acceptable to you? Where do you draw the line? —Lifeisunfair 14:17, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
If you're going to get your grammar wrong, please do so properly: Category:Ar?icles wivaat sources. -Splashtalk 15:14, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
Nonononononono, there's nothing quite like Category:4rt1c13$ \/\/1th0ut $0urc3$. Aecis 22:09, 6 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:4rt1c13$ \/\/1th0ut $0urc3$ per Aecis. -Splashtalk 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I know that's not being debated here, but most of the time I see articles with this tag it's because someone is being nitpicky and/or trying to harrass the author(s) of an article or push their POV (when you don't like what "they" are saying but can't articulate a good argument, demand they produce documentation for every single sentence & claim it's for the good of Wikipedia). Most of the articles at Wikipedia lack sources so the usage is entirely arbitrary. Take a look at Jake Epstein, for example. Why is this article worthy of being tagged as opposed to any other one out there? BrainyBroad 04:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to "Category:Articles lacking sources" as per Lupo. - TexasAndroid 12:56, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:London history to Category:History of London edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename. ∞Who?¿? 05:44, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Non-standard category. Amend to the same form as the other categories in category:History by city ie. category:History of London. CalJW 09:22, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename. -- Reinyday, 11:58, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
  • Rename and add this to the speedy list in Naming Conventions since countries are already defined that way. -Splashtalk 02:35, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think we should apply the same rules to sub-national entities, but if you want to do that it is a big step. We would need to rename the page. It would effect a huge number of categories, especially American categories, and based on my nomination of the American state politics categories there might be considerable opposition. CalJW 06:08, 7 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename. I have no objection to labelling this a speedy for cities as well as nations. siafu 04:09, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:South Korean companies to Category:Companies of South Korea edit

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

The result of the debate was Merge. ∞Who?¿? 05:43, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Swap these two. The one that is the redirect (Companies of South Korea) is named according to the convention at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), the populated one (the other one) is not. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Botanical gardens by country edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:42, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant: Category:Gardens is good enough. I created it, then decided it isn't necessary. Cleduc 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete CalJW 09:03, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete at the request of the creator. -- Reinyday, 11:56, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Botanical gardens in the United States edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:41, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant: Category:Gardens in the United States is good enough. I created it, then decided it isn't necessary. Cleduc 02:20, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All the state categories should be renamed too so no gardens have to be left out. CalJW 09:02, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete at the request of the creator. -- Reinyday, 11:55, 5 October 2005 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

U.S. case law categories --> United States case law categories edit

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

The result of the debate was Rename all. ∞Who?¿? 05:40, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Per the CfD in the reverse order below, let's unabbreviate them all. -- BD2412 talk 01:35, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

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

Category:Hot Women edit

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

The result of the debate was Delete. ∞Who?¿? 05:39, 13 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category picks up NPOV and throws it out of the window head first. Who decides who's hot and who's not? Can I add Ann Widdecombe? Francs2000   00:23, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

rename as Category:Women currently suffering from fever Just delete the thing. Grutness...wha? 00:43, 5 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_October_5&oldid=1126796347"