Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 22

< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log
< February 21 February 23 >

February 22 edit

Category:Real-life Superheroes 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 --Kbdank71 15:36, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even if most of this category's entries didn't appear to be AFD fodder, the title and concept are some kind of neologism or original research. I think it's key that there is no defining article for this. The only appropriate rename I can think of that would cover all the present entries would be Category:People who dress in superhero costumes to perform acts of charity and/or political activism...so I'm just going to say delete. Postdlf 22:47, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • NOTE TO MODERATOR: This is a long discussion where each of us takes several sides as we think it through, but consensus is reached at the bottom.--Mike Selinker 15:30, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep My first thought was to delete because superheroes don't exist, but I must admit the actual articles in the category were rather interesting. Wryspy 19:32, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Wow, this category floors me. I want it to exist, but I want to cover both less and more than it does here, and I want it renamed. I would love there to be a category that could cover people like Alain Robert (the climber nicknamed "Spider-Man"), but I don't know if any of the people currently in it are remotely notable, or if that even matters considering the purported development of a community around this activity. I don't think this category should be deleted, but it would be better if it were repurposed in some way. Beats me how.--Mike Selinker 06:38, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely sympathize, but I can't see a solution. Alain Robert wouldn't qualify for this category, btw, because he neither acts as a dogooder nor dresses in a superhero costume. Postdlf 06:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I know. Maybe someone else will come up with a way to recast this thing.--Mike Selinker 06:45, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As the extensive category "description" implies, the category is unfortunately predicated in vanity ala Superhero manual, which I have also listed for deletion. The deletion notices on both the article and the category have been repeatedly vandalized. It all seems to be the work of some club trying to encourage or instruct real life superheroes. Postdlf 06:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't mind keeping this category and it's current membership as Category:Superhero impersonators, but wouldn't terribly mind deleting it either. It seems to me that these, um, individuals should be clustered. Also, I'm not sure exactly what set of people Mike Selinker has in mind (a non urban climber example would help), but I have to think there's a better name for them too. ×Meegs 13:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The majority of them aren't impersonating anyone, though. Most of the personas are original and they're not all politial activists. Mr. Silent and Doctor DiscorD actually patrol Indianapolis to find ways to help people and prevent crime. Captain Jackson did the same until recently. I understand that there are a lot of kids trying to make themselves look cool on the Internet communities by saying that they'll do this and that but that doesn't mean that this category shouldn't exist. Afterall, Whitley's Batman and Robin, Terrifica, and Polarman need a home on Wikipedia, too. -- Kendamu 9:12AM EST, Feb 23, 2006
Good points, but in the end, I'm not really sure I understand you position. Do you want to keep, redefine, or delete the category? ×Meegs 14:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I say that we keep the category but we limit it to known active people who patrol the streets in costume (or have in the past), people who have been named some type of Superhero after going out of their way to do something good like Kevin Charles Godin-Prior, groups like Superhero Ride, and limit the external links to those specifically keeping up-to-date news on the subject. I think the category, with it's current name, has a lot of potential if we keep all the poser kiddies who don't really do anything from performing shameless self-promotions in the article. -- Kendamu 10:19AM EST, Feb 23, 2006
Badly answering Meegs's question, I'm not sure what other people I'm thinking of. Maybe Fathers 4 Justice, the guys in the Batman and Robin suits who climbed Buckingham Palace, for example (entry 2 on this page--and as it turns out, this page also shows Alain Robert climbing in a Spidey outfit). Why am I only thinking of lawbreakers?--Mike Selinker 15:50, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
After re-reading the category, it turns out the category creators don't want to include people like Fathers 4 Justice. What makes one group of real-life costumed heroes want to exclude another, I wonder?--Mike Selinker 16:00, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing because they don't want to include lawbreakers. Polarman is a good example of a guy who doesn't break the law but has a Superhero alias. Kendamu 11:11AM EST, Feb 23, 2006
  • Keep (ed:) or Merge into article (/ed), coming from the same arguments as Pstdlf and Mike Selinker, but ending up with a different conclusion. If we can rename the category in a better way, that's great, but until then, this category is better than nothing. GRuban 14:44, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. More thinking out loud. Maybe the right name is category:Aspiring superheroes or category:Real-life aspiring superheroes (I'm trying to come up with a synonym for wannabe that isn't so demeaning, because I'm guessing they get a lot of that in, well, real life).--Mike Selinker 15:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Why are they only aspiring? What keeps people like Mr. Silent and Captain Jackson from being the real deal? They go out of their way to become Superhero aliases and help uphold the law and help people in general (as opposed to taking up vigilante justice). I think we should take the total posers off of there but the category still should remain. Kendamu 11:13AM EST, Feb 23, 2006
I guess because the "real deal" doesn't exist. That is, the phrase "real-life superhero" defines someone who isn't notable for their costume, but their actions (firefighters get this tag all the time, though I guess you could argue that they're costumed). Maybe moving all these people into an article isn't the worst idea, since the category can't be defined without a long explanation and lack of clarity as to who belongs in it.--Mike Selinker 16:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think merging into an article might be the best solution. Some of the entries may be notable enough to merit inclusion in Wikipedia due to press coverage, but the short stubs should be combined into one article, if that's possible. Postdlf 16:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think all costumed individuals who have made a signifigant enough (positive) impact to receive media coverage (Captain Jackson, Terrifica, Superhero Ride, KC, Whitley's Batman and Robin, Polarman, Superbarrio, Mr. Silent, Doktor DiscorD, etc.) should have the right to be in some sort of Superheroic category. Everyone else will just have to tough it out until they actually do something good, they have a costume, and they get media coverage for it. Totally deleting the category isn't necessary. Making sure it isn't abused by kids caught up in fantasy is what's necessary. If it must be renamed, though, I suggest category:Costumed Crimefighters and Good Samaritans. -- Kendamu 12:18PM EST, Feb 23, 2006
I can also support merge into an article as per Mike Selinker and Postdlf. The category already has a lot of text like an article. That way the two-line articles from the category would be paragraphs, and the larger articles (like Terrifica) would be cross-referenced. There aren't going to be hundreds of these, so it won't be hard to maintain. GRuban 17:31, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: The real-life superhero discussion forums have received a lot of interest. Worldsuperheroregistry is up to about 6000 hits. There have been a number of vandals on the wikipedia article, that site, and other Real-life Superhero sites lately, following an article at Somethingawful.com, forcing them to start requiring a password to post on the forums. I wonder about the timing of the request to have this article deleted: perhaps it is another attempt by the vandals to disrupt the real-Life Superhero community. Anyone who takes the time to review the ongoing and evolving discussions and the growing associated websites will be forced to come to the coclusion that this is a real phenomenon that is on the increase and should be documented. As for changing the name of the article, I feel that that is simply petty. 206.11.112.251 20:16, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Is that just 6000 hits or 6000 unique visitors? -- Kendamu 7:03PM (EST) Feb. 23, 2006
Actually, if it all becomes one article, then the name should stay Real-life superheroes. If I were rewriting it, I would start with a section on the use of the phrase to describe firefighters and such, then talk a bit about the costumed hero movement (putting the individuals in a bullet list with full descriptions lifted from their articles), and talk some about people like Alain Robert and Fathers 4 Justice. I think it'd make a nice article. It just makes a muddled category. (And by the way, please go easy on the accusations. As far as I can tell, no one's attacking the material, so please don't attack us.)--Mike Selinker 01:12, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I hope I don't look like I'm attacking as much as I am supporting the idea of Real-Life Superheroes. The "real deal" is out there and I've pointed it out a couple times already. If any changes are made, I think a well-written article would be quite nice. I just hope nobody abuses the article with self-promotion. Kendamu 02:28, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is 6000 hits. Not sure as to unique visitors. I agree that a section relating to other uses of the phrase, such as for police and firefighters would be appropriate and would make for a more complete entry. I strongly feel the title should remain the same. I am not completely familiar with the deletion process and was unsure who initiated it. We really have been gettin an excessive ammount of extremely malicious sabotage lately, such as posting hundreds of copies of the same obscene post day after day. That, and the timing of the proposed deletion may be making me a little more suspicious than I would normally be. Most of the people who have contributed to this discussion seem quite reasonable.
To Kendamu: Oh, sorry, I wasn't referring to you, Kendamu. I was referring to User:206.11.112.251 calling our discussion petty, and suggesting this listing is vandalism. That's what I objected to, not anything you said. And to User:206.11.112.251, it sounds like you understand what we're trying to do, and that's all cool now. So I think we're all good.--Mike Selinker 04:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Back to the discussion: It sounds like we're leaning toward collapsing this whole thing into an article. Anybody really object to that?--Mike Selinker 04:47, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As long as it's a well-written and informed article I'm all for it. -- Kendamu 18:11, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about merging it with the extant category "Mysterious People" - something like "Mysterious Vigilantes" or "Mysterious Altruists"?
  • What if this were your article? I attempted to unify all the concepts into one article. It could replace all the others except Terrifica, which is too long for the way I handled it, and might deserve to stay its current length anyhow. Comments welcome.--Mike Selinker 20:23, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's a really good effort. I'd support redirecting all the merged articles there once you move it out of the temp name, and then we can kill this category, no? Postdlf 21:12, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • As I look back I don't see the point in why it had to be changed from a category to an article, but the article was written well enough to take it a step beyond where the category was. I support it. -- Kendamu 23:43, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • It's a category that doesn't tell you what goes in it. Do you put firefighters in it, or Fathers 4 Justice, or what? The fact that it needed four paragraphs of setup suggested that change was necessary. If we like the article, we can delete the category and turn most of the articles into redirects. That's where my vote is, anyway.--01:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
          • It described perfectly well what goes into it and what doesn't. I've understood it since the first time I read it. However, I like the article and if the category needs replaced that badly I'm not opposing the article. -- Kendamu 01:47, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Excellent article, thanks Mike. I can support moving to it. GRuban 14:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The category text defines this as an "emerging alternative lifestyle". Let's let it emerge enough to be written about in reliable publications first. Otherwise, as Postdlf suggests, it's just original research. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:57, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It sounds like we're all in agreement that we delete the category and launch the article. Today's probably your last chance to object.--Mike Selinker 15:20, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Films with Explicit Sex 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 per consensus, also empty cat. xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:49, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category is empty, seems to be a complete overlap with Category:Pornographic films and the only content of the page is a bad link, and membership in Category:Films by genre. And the capitalization of the category title is bad. GRuban 22:29, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete as vaguely defined and unnecessary. Postdlf 22:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Films with explicit sex are not necessarliy pornography. However, since this category is empty I don't see a problem with deleting it. VegaDark 01:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as vague. Also, Wikipedia is not an X-rated Movie Guide. Wryspy 06:53, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Open to abuse for advertising. Choalbaton 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Pavel Vozenilek 21:30, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 09:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional Protestants 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. —akghetto talk 05:38, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category Fictional Protestants (and related pages breaking fictional characters down according to beliefs) should be removed because it is excessively broad and can never be kept accurately. When I first discovered the page, it had only about five entries, and even that small number included inaccuracies. For example, it listed Spider-Man. Marvel Comics has always specifically avoided assigning any religious affiliation to this character. Despite his spirituality and belief in God, no formal religious association has ever been established. Plus, there have been too darn many fictional characters in the history of the world. Wikipedia is not meant to be a macropedia for every possible trivial combination of information.

  • Keep - If a Wikipedian interpretted a fictional character's comments as evidence that the person does not believe in God, and classifies the person as a "fictional atheist" that would be POV. However, if a fictional character said "I don't believe in God" it would be NPOV to classify that character as a "fictional atheist". Several characters on The Simpsons have specifically identified as being members of religions. I know that characters on several other television shows have also identified with certain religions or beliefs. Q0 19:03, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - For that reason. (trogga)
  • Keep, it is quite easy to verify whether a character really belongs to a particular religion. Any case where speculation is involved can easily be removed from the category. Personally I found the category "Fictional Jews" interesting. Andrew Levine 21:03, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per previous user.Staffelde 02:41, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move (strong) to a list format, any that have sufficient content (eg fictitous jews. you just know someone will do a term paper/thesis on it, and search for krusty the clown for leads... ;) See Category:Lists_of_fictional_characters and Category:Fictional_characters for comparables. --Quiddity 07:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Fictional 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 no consensus. —akghetto talk 05:37, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category Fictional Americans is excessively broad and can never be kept accurately. Many fictional characters who are assumed to be American might not. The world has too many fictional characters to bother with this distinction.Wryspy 06:51, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Um, if they're fictional, they're not "living" per se... Her Pegship 01:01, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is about nationality, not location. Postdlf 16:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think it would work better if it were about location instead of nationality. Location is a lot more verifyable than nationality. Q0 02:48, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Public schools in Avon 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. —akghetto talk 05:36, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Avon as a county was created in 1974 and abolished in 1996 - it was an artificial creation bearing no relation to traditional counties so, unlike say Yorkshire, residents never related to it as am area or concept. On abolition the county of Avon was divided into several unitary authorities - essentially the city of Bristol and other which all have Somerset in the title - ie Bath and North East Somerset, North Somerset etc - which are all located in the ceremonial counties of Somerset of Glucestershire, therefore people are more likely to relate to Somerset rather than the former shortlived county of Avon. Public schools in what was formerly Avon should be listed as Public schools in Bristol and Public schools in Somerset, Public schools in Gloucestershire. The category Public schools in Avon should be abolished. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sw8 (talk • contribs) 16:04, 22 February 2006

Please sign your nomination, with four tildes, like this ~~~~. --Saforrest 23:20, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Temporary entity of no historic or current relevance to this subject area. Choalbaton 08:21, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Transclusionist 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 speedy delete by creator, though Alphax was also a member for quite some time. Chill the hell out while you're at it, okay? — Feb. 24, '06 [18:29] <freakofnurxture|talk>

Only 1 member and not recognised as an official Wikipedian philosophy anyway. haz (user talk)e 15:42, 22 February 2006

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:Salesian to Category:Salesian Order 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:23, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, (a) to make it clearer what the category is for and (b) for consistency with similar categories. Staffelde 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps we can stick to the categories actually nominated. The use of an unqualified name such as "Salesian" to mean "Salesian Order(s)" is IMO not helpful or clear. As you say, there needs to be a category that covers all Salesian-related articles, and the suggested change is much better (ie, clearer to those trying to categorise or locate articles) than what we have. But if you can come up with a workable alternative... Staffelde 00:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC) and 08:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral. --evrik 21:32, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Augustinian to Category:Augustinian Order 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 15:08, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, (a) to make it clearer what the category is for and (b) for consistency with similar categories. Staffelde 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. -- Necrothesp 15:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The Augustinian article states there are two Augustinian Orders; and if one counts the Premonstratensians and Bridgettines, perhaps there are six or more. While I dislike the adjectival form of the existing category, the new one is no less ambiguous. Note also the existence of Category:Augustinian orders. -choster 02:46, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (a) The important point you made re the Salesians, also applies here: there is a need for a category covering all things Augustinian, and the present name is not useful. "Augustinian Order" may be slightly inaccurate but it is far clearer than what we have. The detail can be spelt out in a category note.
(b)There is a pressing need for greater consistency in the categories of the Religious Orders, and the suggested re-naming seems the least awkward and misleading way to achieve it.
(c) Category:Augustinian orders is a sub-category of Category:Augustinian and is used precisely for orders such as the Bridgettines and Premonstratensians which follow the Augustinian rule but remain separate from the Augustinians, and therefore are also best categorised separately. There would be a good case in a separate nomination for renaming to "Orders following the Augustinian rule" [without being Augustinians]. Staffelde 09:13, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Gilbertine to Category:Gilbertine Order 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:30, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, (a) to make it clearer what the category is for and (b) for consistency with similar categories. Staffelde 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. -- Necrothesp 15:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Actually it's not that useful a category really, The Order has been extinct for close to 500 years. And there won't be many if any articles to speak of under it. Williamb 10:51, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I don't agree with you concerning its usefulness. The Gilbertines don't fit easily into any of the other orders, and as the only medieval order of specifically English origin it has a particular interest. You are right, of course, that it will never be an enormous category, but as the English religious houses are systematically worked through, there will be enough content to justify its existence. Staffelde 15:03, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Passionist to Category:Passionist Order 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. —akghetto talk 05:42, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, (a) to make it clearer what the category is for and (b) for consistency with similar categories. Staffelde 14:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename. -- Necrothesp 15:26, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Rename. --Saforrest 23:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Wikipedians wanting a dragon on the Union Jack 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 deleted as nonsense. — Feb. 25, '06 [07:40] <freakofnurxture|talk>

No articles. OGoncho 09:17, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary category. haz (user talk)e 15:44, 22 February 2006
  • Rename Category:Wikipedians in drag wanting to jack in unison 12.73.195.1 20:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - can you Speedy Delete a category? If so, vote for that. Self-reference, not notable, nonsense, everything in the book. GRuban 22:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I don't even know what this means; is it a Welsh thing, or is the dragon supposed to refer to St. George and England? On the other hand, we do have some pretty weird categories for Wikipedians. --Saforrest 23:21, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not the site for someone to plop a survey. Wryspy 06:54, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No members as of yet. As far as I remember, isn't the Union Jack a composite of the four home nations anyway? -- Greaser 09:55, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:To do, Ancient Egypt 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 delete. -- TexasAndroid 14:37, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue that this category is unencyclopedic. We do have maintanance categories, like Category:Pages needing attention, but this to-do category has articles which do not appear to need any work. I think people should use a To-do list rather than categorizing articles in To-do categories. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 06:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm glad that I have that category listed in the Vandal Fighter otherwise I would have kept on doing my work oblivious to the fact that it could soon be erased. It's a good idea to also leave TALK when you see another editor is currently working on something that you submit for deletion to avoid wasted effort and bad feelings.
Regardless of that, (I was using it temporarily) I do agree that it is a category that should be removed.
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-22 07:03Z
I had written about it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Ancient Egypt, right under your message there, so I assumed you would see it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 16:33, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
And I think you were too rushed to remove things from that category. Probably you are not familiar with how categories get deleted, but it takes one week for the vote. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 17:44, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
My understanding was that it's a 48 hour process but I may have misunderstood what that time period meant. I figured that I'd remove that category from the articles ASAP because it was fresh in my mind, to keep anyone else from having to bother with it, and because I agree (after reading your reasons) that the category should be removed.
Thank you for your time and contributions!
—-- That Guy, From That Show! (talk) 2006-02-22 18:42Z
That's only if the category is tagged with {{cfr-speedy}}, per Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion#Speedy_renaming, which this was not.
Either way, the category is empty, and I will delete it. Oleg Alexandrov (talk) 02:58, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Goodie Mob Albums 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:29, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to Category:Goodie MOb albums [sic]. --FuriousFreddy 05:03, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Listify. Not category-worthy material. 12.73.195.1 20:09, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cursory Googling does not reveal other sites using the unusual capitalization of MOb. Do you have a source for that? - EurekaLott 07:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That's how the group apparently its own name. Ususally, the "b" in Mob is rendered in lower-case, as on the covers of their album Soul Food and their greatest hits LP Dirty South Classics. It could be simple stylization, in which case we should go for Category:Goodie Mob albums (and move the page back). Thoughts? --FuriousFreddy 23:09, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to fit with the article title. Kappa 01:38, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Dungeon Family Albums 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 as nominated --Kbdank71 14:17, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Underutilized crops 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 --Kbdank71 14:16, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Rename: While I believe there is a good reason for diversifying food production, this is an opinion and doesn't belong as a category. However I can see a category of, say, high-protein/amino acid crops which could potentially feed a population. This would include the major crops as well. Citizen Premier 05:16, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'd agree, yes. Many of them are little-cultivated for all sorts of good reasons. I'd suggest renaming it to Category:Minor crops. - MPF 00:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Me too. The comments at the top of the page seems to say that this category should include all crops except wheat, maize and rice! At the very least, the category should be deleted and replaced by the much, much smaller Category:Overutilized crops 8-). And, of course, one may argue that even those three crops are underutilized in some sense... All the best, Jorge Stolfi 15:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The preamble warped my thinking for a minute too. It seems to suggest that the members are potential staples (like wheat, maize and rice), but that seems like quite a stretch given their current position. There are, of course, tons of other crops (e.g. in Category:Fruit) that are not in the big 3, but that you wouldn't consider underutilized or minor either. ×Meegs 14:12, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as inherently POV. Rename to "minor crops" might be workable. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:50, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or rename per Lulu. Pavel Vozenilek 21:34, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm the person who formed the category, and added most of the entries. The entries come mostly from entries on UN or other NGO organisations who try to promote underutilized crops. See, for example, CGIAR or GFU for Underutilized Species. The criteria that I've used are:
  • The plant must either be currently used, or have been used in the past, as a food plant on a significant scale
  • Little or no acreage is currently devoted to cultivating the plant
as attested by well-credentialed organisations that promote them. Not sure that leaves the category open to being labeled POV, but I'm certainly happy to submit to the judgment of people who are better placed to make a call. In any case, the list of plants here serves a useful purpose, in particular for people interested in food security (see [1], for example), and I'd argue strongly for keeping some category. Category:Minor crops doesn't necessarily work, because not all of these are even cultivated at all these days. In a sense, many of these plants are below the radar of even "minor"... Waitak 04:20, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wouldn't it be more NPOV to create an article to discuss underutilized crops and link to it from each crop article, mentioning who exactly thinks it's underutilized? Kappa 00:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I considered that, but (1) the term is attested as NPOV by its wide use in the UN and other organisations that fight poverty (so the charge of non-NPOV for the category doesn't hold up) and (2) by using a category, readers who are interested in one such plant, but don't know about others, have a way to find out. The link back to the category serves a useful purpose for people interested in biodiversity, permaculture or food security. The name of the category as it stands makes this more obvious than Category:Minor crops would. Perhaps I could modify the preamble a bit to make the category's purpose a bit clearer? Waitak 01:06, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I've added a number of citations to the category preamble that give authoritative sources for NPOV usage of the term. There are at least two UN organisations that have the words (or similar ones) in their name, for example! I've likewise listed some international conferences. As an aside, I'm grateful for the gentle prodding to go looking for sources for the term. I think it strengthens the category. Waitak 08:19, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well these are highly reputable organizations but they are still making a judgement with which others might disagree. It might be NPOV to categorize them as "crops described as underutilized by the UN" or something like that but that's too long for a category name. Make an article and put the list of crops in it. Kappa 08:46, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not trying to be obtuse, but I really don't see the case for a charge of POV. If you read "Underutilized crops" as "crops that have been shown to have value as food or energy, that been shown to be able to be cultivated, and that are currently cultivated significantly less than crops with comparable properties", there's no real judgment involved, let alone non-neutral judgment. If you were to change could to should, then, yes, you'd have a valid point, but there's no such slant here. Further, to say, "Yes, the UN says so, but maybe they're biased, so we shouldn't taken that as authoritative" seems like a pretty slippery slope to me. If the UN's not authoritative, then what does it take to be authoritative? In any case, a list article does sound like a good idea, and I'd be happy to start one in the next few days, but I just don't see the case for deleting the category. Waitak 10:10, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I am concerned "underutilized" means "utilized less than they should be" and is a value judgement. " 1,916 " would fit the definition you provided, that could be an alternative name. Kappa 19:08, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Travb 10:37, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Seems strait forward enough to me, and much needed. Brimba 18:13, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Any produce marketer will tell you that any crop they sell is underutilized. Therefore, this category is completely redundant with Category:Crops. ~ Jeff Q (talk) 10:03, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm partly involved in this category, having creating the embryonic List of useful plants, I'm also involved with an external website Plants For A Future which lists 7000 useful plants., many of these could be classed as "Underutilized crops", "alternative crops", "novel crops", "new crops" [2], "lost crops" [3], "Specialty and Minor Crops" [4] or even plants of interest to Ethnobotany. In general I'm keen to see greater coverage in wikipedia of these plants, A list does offer some advantages as it could be crossed referenced which the group which designates them. I don't think there is a perfect name for the category, any name necessarily will include some POV. A better solution might be to be more specific in the plant uses, with a higher level category Category:Useful plants. I wonder if wikipedia is really the best place for extensive treatment of such issues and it may be better to spin off material to a less restrictive site. --Salix alba (talk) 10:46, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Public servants by nationality 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:Public servants by nationality, keep the others --Kbdank71 14:10, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Civil servants is the standard for other countries, that is in the cases of Category:American civil servants, Category:British civil servants, Category:Turkish civil servants, Category:Israeli civil servants. I discovered the inconsistency when creating the Civil servants category tree. gidonb 02:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move articles and delete categories or create redirects as necessary, per nomination gidonb 02:38, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose - they are not known as civil servants in Australia but public servants. I do not have an objection if the Category:Public servants by nationality is renamed or merged with Category:Civil servants by nationality, and the Australian cats are sub cats of civil servants, but the Australian categories should be named in accordance with Australian terminology.--A Y Arktos 03:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the "by nationality" cat, per nom; but Oppose rename of the Australian cats, per AYArktos. --Mais oui! 14:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment well, in that case not more than one merge is necessary. This means that we all vote the same, with some small nuances. I assume that the request will run a little longer before it gets the blue seal of approval. gidonb 21:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete them all. These are ridiculously broad categories, no matter what you call them. Wryspy 06:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Wryspy. A well defined and specific categories may be useful but without having this broad one as a parent. Now it is asking people to add just everyone into here. Pavel Vozenilek 21:36, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • More cultural misunderstanding it seems - in Australia a Public Servant is a government employee - all current entries in this classification are correctly classified (and are notable people). Why would "people to add just everyone into here"?--A Y Arktos 21:47, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge the two head categories if they mean the same thing in each country (employees of the government). However the policy for articles is to write them in the local variant of English. The same should apply for category names — and in Australia we use the term Public servant. --Scott Davis Talk 13:23, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Films based on Jane Austen's books to Category:Films based on Jane Austen works 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. —akghetto talk 05:47, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

More inclusive, and per naming conventions (as in Category:Novels by author, etc.). (See also the parent category Category:Films based on books by author, where there are several other sub-cats in the same format.) Her Pegship 01:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Looks like the trend for those sub-cats is Films based on (author)'s works, so I revise my request to follow the trend, e.g. Category:Films based on Jane Austen's works. Her Pegship 17:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.

Category:Children of U.S. Presidents to Category:Children of Presidents of 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 speedy rename per precedent. — Feb. 25, '06 [07:30] <freakofnurxture|talk> Rename to remove abbreviation and make a better match to Category:Presidents of the United States. Sumahoy 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

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

Category:Article III tribunals 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. —akghetto talk 05:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant. It's the same as its parent category, Category:Judicial Branch of the United States Government. —Markles 00:54, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

Category:Mormon actors to Category:Actors associated with LDS cinema 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 retain existing category -- xaosflux Talk/CVU 02:51, 2 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure that's the best new name, but it reflects the idea of a category being more related to their LDS faith and LDS cinema. Originally it was kind of random.--T. Anthony 00:14, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support rename. Postdlf 22:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not support. The meaning is simply not the same. Wryspy 06:55, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Please avoid initialisms in category names. - EurekaLott 07:27, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The Category Mormon actors specifies that the category would be for actors that are LDS(Mormon). THe Category actors associated with LDS Cinema specifies that the category is for actors in LDS themed movies regardless of what religon the actor is affiliated with. (Hypernick1980 22:14, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
    • Yes, that's the point—to narrow the category criteria. Postdlf 22:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Then how about creating a category titled "Actors in LDS themed movies" and keeping the category "Mormon actors" with the above mentioned guildlines for both categories(Hypernick1980 23:30, 25 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • oppose new name confusing and clunky.Travb 10:38, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_February_22&oldid=1132031779"