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 Convert to list --Azkar 03:44, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to list and delete. This is not what categories are for. Neutrality^talk 03:05, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep alternatively Convert to list Beta m (talk)
• Keep. These are both legitimate, informative categories. I see no reason to delete them. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:30, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, potential attack magnet. Isn't a charity something that collects money for a cause? So how does any charity test on animals? Is it meant that they support animal testing? Radiant_* 09:21, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
  • It means that they pay for medical reserach that involves testing on animals. CalJW 22:56, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list and delete - having a category for every controversial practice a charity might and might not do would clutter up the article (especially the negative--I imagine there are thousands and thousands of charities that do not perform animal testing, since the category name is too short to specify the context of medical research). A list can present the useful information. Also, whether a charity does or does not do something like this is bound to be disputed, which can be explained in a list format, but not in a yes-or-no categorization. DopefishJustin (・∀・) 17:12, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep. Informative and useful. Kaibabsquirrel 17:43, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list and delete - agree with DopefishJustin. Many more categories on similar controversial practices could be easily created. Moreover, thousands of charities are involved in funding medical research, and it is not at all clear that whether or not they sponsor testing on animals is a "fundamental" categorization. This information makes most sense in a list format.--Pharos 20:21, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Hi Pharos, I see your point, but I'd like to add that, for many people, whether or not a charity funds animal testing is the fundamental issue when it comes to deciding whether to give that charity money. This is one of the reasons I see these as particularly useful categories for our readers. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:17, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
    • Slim, I understand your view here, and though certainly Kbdank71's example below is quite trivial, one can imagine the unnecessary proliferation we could see with Category:Corporations employing child labor or Category:Charities providing abortion services etc., which deal with perspectives quite as significant as that dealt with by this category. All of this I think is best mentioned in each individual article, as well as on a comprehensive list that could be easily maintained.--Pharos 17:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This isn't a fundamental characteristic of these charities, and is pushing a POV (that animal testing is bad, and we should point out who engages in such activity). The information can be mentioned in the article, if it's relevant, but I see no reason to create category structures around it. --Azkar 02:12, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list and delete. I agree that the names are pushing a POV. RedWolf 06:20, May 24, 2005 (UTC)
  • Comment i can see the convert to list as being an alternative, as for POV i must say that pointing out POV of those charities is not POV. Whether or not those charities test on animals is a fact not the opinion. Beta m (talk)
    • Delete. We could point out other facts, like Category:Charities that have angled spaces in their parking lots, but why would you? As Azkar said, such informaiton, if it is important to people, can be found in the article. --Kbdank71 14:08, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list and delete, agree with DopefishJustin. -- Lochaber 09:55, 24 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Incorrect categorization/title. 98% of charities have no relation neither to testing nor to animals. mikka (t) 19:29, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete An article about charities and animal testing would be legitimate but I'm not sure about a mere list, which would have no conceivable purpose other than to discourage people from donating to charities that do test on animals - which I wouldn't do myself by the way, so I'm basing my opinion purely on Wikipedia policy. CalJW 23:00, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. 1) the name is vague, misleading at best. Is the charity testing its donation method on animals? Meaningless. 2) If they mean medical testing, then ALL testing is on animals, because even if they don't test it on non-people, they test it on people eventually, and people are animals too. --ssd 01:43, 31 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 --Azkar 03:47, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

User:Docu, who originally created this category, has backed off of it and has no problem with its deletion. I've depopulated it by recategorizing the month articles the way they originally were, in the first section of Category:2001. Note also the existence of List of months by year: 2000-2005. - dcljr (talk) 21:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure what you mean with "where they originally were" (the pages were uncategorized), but I don't mind the new way of categorization. -- User:Docu

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 --Azkar 03:48, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Depopulated due to merges, now irrelevant. --InShaneee 19:39, 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 Merge --Azkar 03:51, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant duplicate of well-populated Category:Australia biography stubs. Grutness...wha? 11:16, 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 - I don't see consensus, but Category:Peer to peer was deleted in favour of Category:File sharing networks and Category:File sharing programs --Azkar 18:34, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Redundant duplicate of Category:Peer to peer. The latter is listed as a subcategory, but has largely the same entries. If someone were to make a strong case for deleting "P2P" as a category and keeping "File Sharing", I could live with that, but I prefer "P2P". -- Viajero | Talk 15:50, 22 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. File sharing also would refer to swapping a CD with a friend... i fail to see how that is P2P in the computer terms. Beta m (talk)
• Delete, looking at the content of the cat (and the lack of potential articles on swapping CDs with friends) I disagree with Beta M. Radiant_* 09:22, May 23, 2005 (UTC)
• Keep, I agree with Beta m, these are distinct groups (or, rather, the former wholly contains that latter). James F. (talk) 17:48, 23 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question - are there any articles in this category which would only be "file sharing" and not P2P? I understand P2P is a type of file sharing but if there are as of yet no other types which have articles about them then there would be no use for a "file sharing" category. If, however, there are articles which are not "p2p" but are "file sharing" then all that is called for is a reorganization of the category structure (removing redundant tags). --Fastfission 23:46, 25 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any. -- Viajero | Talk 00:45, 26 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete (after merging into p2p, if anything left). While file sharing is wider, but I didn't yout see articles about CD swapping. In any case the cat mut be thoroughly depopulated, since P2P is an indiscriminate subcat of FS. mikka (t) 19:37, 28 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. P2P is not good name for category which is used by general public,because its a computer term.Vorash 00:42, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • What about something like Category:Peer to peer file sharing? --Azkar 01:01, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a vote to keep both these categories or merge them and call it File Sharing? -- Viajero | Talk
    • P2P can be renamed to "File Sharing Programs"..also to create separate directory for file sharing WWW sites - "File Sharing Web Sites", and for networks - "File sharing networks" (don't forget that you have also file sharing networks there like EDonkey Network or Kad Network, BitTorrent(is also network),Gnutella). After that to remove all unnecessary pages from "File Sharing" and to put all these 3 categories as sub categories of "File Sharing" category. Vorash 19:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ok, this makes sense; if no one objects, I will do this in a day or two. -- Viajero | Talk 20:32, 29 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Article about P2P clearly states that pure p2p networks are very rare.... and it almost always include servers !!..its truth that downloading is P2P, but you almost always have a server involvement when you getting sources of files, so most of file sharing networks cannot be called P2P.Vorash 23:35, 30 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Question, where has Category:Peer to peer gone? has it been deleted instead?--ColdFeet 11:56, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It looks like Viajero went ahead and split it into "File sharing networks" and "File sharing programs" and then deleted it. Though I'm not seeing a clear consensus here to do that ... --Azkar 12:13, 31 May 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viajero is an administator and she deleted P2P category. :) Vorash 21:26, 31 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.