< May 19	May 21 >

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 --Kbdank71 13:05, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Correction as per naming conventions (ie. "UK", capitalization of both words in "Radio Stations"). Bearcat 22:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. James F. (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. Neutrality^talk 21:05, May 21, 2005 (UTC)
• Yep Beta m (talk)

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.

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 13:09, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete this category. Its content have been moved to Category:Numerical software.--Fredrik Orderud 20:30, 20 May 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.

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 13:11, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

From Category talk:Logic:

The problems with the category are:

1. Logic is an integral whole, where topics in formal and informal logic closely mirror each other, and it helps navigation to see similar topics side by side;
2. Many topics in logic do not neatly divide into formal and informal, but instead treat the two side-by-side. If we have a subcategory formal logic, should these mixed topics go in or not? Since it is not a clean criterion for division we are best not using it for breaking up the logic category;
3. As far as possible subcategories should be orthogonal to each other. Formal logic cuts across many subcategories (eg. Category:Modal logic, Category:Paradoxes, and Category:Philosophical logic) raising more issues of classification that will not be obvious to the user;
4. Since the category does not help classification, it's main effect would be to add degrees of remoteness between related subjects.

Hence I think we would be better off without such a category.

See also the previous failed CfD Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 May 12#Category:Formal logic, which was opposed by User:Isaac Rabinovitch, who now supports this CfD on the grounds of the difficulties the category puts on classification. Since we now appear to have a consensus to delete, I am relisting this category. --- Charles Stewart 19:24, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete this time. The previous proposal was based on a semantic argument I couldn't accept. I still disagree with many of Charles's other arguments. But the need to have a simple, usable category hierarchy trumps all other considerations. ----Isaac R 19:47, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --- Charles Stewart 19:56, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No fair! You already voted! ;-) ----Isaac R 20:00, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed that I made the case for deletion in a quote. So a follower of Quine's views on quotation would say I had not actually expressed an opinion here... --- Charles Stewart 20:23, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - and may I say that the argument for deletion was one of the most logically presented I've seen here? :) Grutness...wha? 11:51, 23 May 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.

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 13:17, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

There is no year 0. These categories can never possibly be populated. The explanation given on Category:0's page is that the birth year and death year templates create links to these categories. As far as I'm concerned, any one of the following alternatives is preferable to creating categories for non-existant years:

• Creating a new template for the 1st decade of the 1st century that excludes year 0.
• 'Subst'ing in the existing template, and manually editing the code on each page to remove year 0. Really .. how often is this template going to be updated?
• Removing the template altogether. If you need to access the sister categories, the parent category is only one click away.

So ... Delete. --Azkar 18:29, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Azkar is perfectly correct. However, some ignorant person is bound to re-create these categories. Perhaps some kind of block is in order. -----Isaac R 19:50, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

delete right you are. The idea about a block is agood one, too. Grutness...wha? 00:31, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. When i saw 0 births actually i was thinking about 0 birth rate... Beta m (talk)
• Delete THERE IS NO YEAR ZERO! Revolución 23:49, 26 May 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.

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 Category:00s deaths --Kbdank71 13:39, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

They are of the same period. Which one should be removed and which one should be retained? --Hello World! 15:01, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• The 0 cat contains subcats for each decade in the first century, such as 00. This is probably because of some style guide. Radiant_* 15:06, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• 00s is used in the first century deaths template that's on both of these category pages. Neither of these are really great category names, but there aren't really any better choices. I think 00s deaths is slightly clearer, though. --Azkar 16:33, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep one, delete the other. Category:00s deaths is empty and should be the one that gets deleted, although in that case the template link will need to be corrected. -Sean Curtin 05:43, May 21, 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.

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 13:40, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Deprecated and empty (the more inclusive Category:European nobility stubs is now used instead). Grutness...wha? 10:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I agree that we don't need two categories, but I have to point out that "royalty" and "nobility" are not the same thing. Perhaps a single "royalty and nobility" category?----Isaac R 22:19, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • True enough, which was why the royalty categories aren't good ones. By definition, royals are nobles, since royalty is the highest part of the system of nobility. Nobles aren't necessarily royals, though. So, as I saisd, the more inclusive category should stay. Grutness...wha? 01:54, 22 May 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.

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

The result of the debate was Keep --Azkar 18:15, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The subcats (i.e. old elections archive) seem useful. But what about the main cat? Many old pages in the Wiki get tagged with Template:historical which puts them in here, which means that this will eventually become a list of the entire Wikipedia namespace except pages recently edited. Is there any point in that? Radiant_* 10:17, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Not quite - it will become a list of former policies, and pages in the Wikipedia namespace no longer used - a lot of pages still in use have not been edited recently. As such, it is basically a Wikipedian archive. I think there's use in that, so I'm voting keep, even if only to make sure that precedents are available and we don't simply rehash old policies that have been tried before and discarded. Grutness...wha? 10:36, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• On second thought it may simply be more useful to strip the cat from Template:historical. (btw note we already have Category:Wikipedia rejected policies) Radiant_* 10:40, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
  • There's a difference between a former policy being kept for historical interest, and a rejected policy. I think we should keep this category. Possibly rename to Category:Wikipedia archives, Category:Wikipedia historical archive, or something to that effect. --Azkar 16:37, 20 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Of course. The point is that template:historical is also put on pages that are old but have nothing in particular to do with policy. Radiant_* 11:16, May 23, 2005 (UTC) Oh, and I support the rename to archives.
• No need to rename, and it certainly shouldn't be deleted. James F. (talk) 18:02, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and Rename to Wikipedia policy archives. For all the reasons listed above. [[User:BlankVerse|BlankVerse ∅ 09:22, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• It seems that someone has already stripped the cat from the template, so all we really need is a few null edits to have an empty category. Of course, I'm fairly sure we don't have a consensus for this. I'll keep this open for while longer to see if anyone else wants to contribute. --Kbdank71 14:10, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Er, not entirely. Lots of pages have cat:historical on them; this is only partially congruent with template:historical. I admit this isn't really an intuitive way of putting it (so it may need revising) but I tend to put CAT:hist on pages that are historically interesting and need to be locatable; and TEMP:hist on anything that people shouldn't be editing on simple grounds that noone will see their edits (otherwise people can contribute to a year-old conversation, not realizing it's no longer pertinent). Hope that made sense :) Radiant_* 21:41, May 27, 2005 (UTC)

---

In the interests of clearing off this discussion, I'm going to try and summarize things as I understand them, and offer a resolution.

• Radiant! initially nominated this category due to a lack of utility - Template:Historical added this category to every page it was put on. Because Template:Historical is added to old / inactive discussions, as well as pages of general historic interest, this category would eventually fill up with all of Wikipedia's dusty corners.
• Upon reflection, Radiant! decided instead to simply strip the category from the template. Pages that were of historic interest could be manually added to the category.
• There have been a couple of suggestions to rename the category to something more intuitive. Being in the middle of this other conversation, though, there is no basis to determine a clear consensus on this point.

I propose the following:

1. Since the only user to recommend the deletion of this category has since withdrawn that request (instead, looking at different ways of using the template / category pair), this discussion should be declared as a Keep.
   • One could argue that more discussion is required, regarding the use of this category and the template in question (personally, I'd suggest a different template be used for pages being flagged as simply inactive) - however, I believe this is outside the scope of this CfD nomination. I'll trust Radiant! to take the issue up with interested parties.
2. A new nomination be created for the purpose of proposing a name change. There is interest in this, and a new nomination will allow for this to be discussed on a blank slate.

If no one objects to this, I'll execute sometime tomorrow. --Azkar 18:22, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Sounds good. Radiant_* 09:05, Jun 1, 2005 (UTC)

Separating the template and the category was absolutely essential, so glad that's done. Considering how much goop there is other than policy pages, I don't think there's much need for a rename. Indeed, most if not all of the policy-related things there are not (current) policy, so the proposed name would be a bit confusing. I think this category just needs a good cleaning, but don't let me stop a nomination for rename if someone thinks that's worthwhile. I would be happy with just a "keep and tag ((cleancat))" -- Beland 13:13, 1 Jun 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.

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 --Kbdank71 14:58, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Since Category:Terrorist organizations was recently deleted (after a lengthy debate), should these then be deleted or renamed per the same reasoning? Radiant_* 07:43, May 20, 2005 (UTC)

• Absolutely. Delete. -- Jmabel | Talk 23:31, May 20, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The vote taken for Category:Terrorist organizations also apply to these, and they should have been deleted at the same time. -- Viajero | Talk 14:16, 21 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. POV. Kaibabsquirrel 17:52, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, yes. James F. (talk) 17:56, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Azkar 14:05, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.207.73.66.200 15:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteYuber^(talk) 23:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep lots of terrorist organizations that need to be kept in catagories. Klonimus 04:44, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This does bring up something that wasn't mentioned in this discussion. Category:Terrorist organizations ended up being renamed to Category:Irregular military (not a wonderful title, but one that most people could live with). Do we plan to rename these categories along the same lines? --Azkar 04:55, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • With all of the delete votes, I was just going to move all of the articles into Category:Irregular military and delete the cats above. Would anyone have a problem with that? --Kbdank71 13:50, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not really, considering the really inconsistent way they're presently categorized ("Islamic", "Left-Wing", "Northern Ireland" and "Based in the US" can all cross-sect...) Radiant_* 21:39, May 27, 2005 (UTC)
      • Kbdank71: ok with me. -- Viajero | Talk 22:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Not all organizations labelled terrorist are military. I would call them category:Violent organizations, or even more precise: category:Violent political organizations (to exclude, like, mafia), with a clear criterion: organizations that declare or de-facto use violence (not necessarily armed) as an instrument in pursuing its goals. What do you think? mikka (t) 19:01, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find 'violent organization' somewhat misleading... it reminds me of, for instance, hooligan-like sports fanclubs. Or anything related to the organization of martial arts tournaments. Or the NRA, possibly. Radiant_* 21:03, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
    • As far as the Northern Ireland ones go I suggest renaming to "Proscribed organisations of Northern Ireland" and "Reputed terrorists of Northern Ireland". Proscribed Organisations are beyond argument cos they simply are or are not Proscribed, although Reputed Terrorists might be a little more difficult, as in one side seeing someone as a Terrorist the other seeing the same person as a Freedom Fighter...just my two penn'orth..

Jcuk 21:14, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Just make sure all the groups are moved over properly and the cats aren't simply deleted, it's a great reference to see all the current groups like those listed under "Islamic Terrorist Orgs", but without the POV naming convention.--Sherurcij 21:45, May 29, 2005 (UTC)
• How about Militant Political Groups. The BBC likes to use this describe terrorists. For example "Militants associated with the Militant Political Group Hamas have killed 13 people in a suicide bus bombing." Klonimus 07:55, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The BBC wouldn't use clumsy wording like that - more likely they would say "13 people were killed in a suicide bus bombing, carried out by members of the Palestinian militant group Hamas." GCarty 11:41, 5 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• My suggestions:

• • Category:Palestinian terrorists -> already moved to Category:Palestinian militants
  • Category:Zionist terrorist organizations -> already moved to Category:Militant Zionist groups
  • Category:Islamic terrorist organizations -> already moved to Category:Jihadist organizations
  • Category:Leftist terrorist organizations -> already moved to Category:Left-wing militant groups
  • Category:Palestinian terrorist organizations -> already moved to Category:Palestinian militant groups
  • Category:Terrorist organizations in Northern Ireland -> already moved to Category:Proscribed paramilitary organizations in Northern Ireland
  • Category:Northern Ireland terrorists -> delete and replace with categories pertaining to individual orgs...

• • Category:Terrorist organizations based in the United States -> move to Category:United States domestic terrorist organizations
  • Category:Terrorists by region -> delete

GCarty 09:11, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• • I can live with that. --Azkar 18:27, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or Rename. GCartys suggestions are good. 80.203.115.12 09:19, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)
• With regards to the US based category, do we just want to basically shuffle the words around? I thought we were trying to get rid of "terrorist organization". Shouldn't we go with the rest and make it something like Category:United States domestic militant groups? --Kbdank71 17:54, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)
  • Or just leave it, since there wouldn't be much change? --Kbdank71 17:18, 15 Jun 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.