The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:57, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all, This is a disaster in progress. We do not need to put MPs in 10+ extra categories! It is hideous category clutter to the umpteenth degree, and conveys no significant information. Senior politicians are already in too many categories. The category system should focus on the key defining characteristics of the subject, and not attempt to duplicate all the facts in the articles (or in this case, facts that are mostly too obscure to rate a mention in the articles!) Look at the list of categories on Winston Churchill - a nightmare, and that is one that is in fairly good order. The system of numbering Parliaments is in itself very obscure, as I have never seen it outside of Wikipedia. Please note that there are already several subcategorisation schemes in place for UK MPs in place, and this one had only just been added. It does not fulfil a need. There is a case for chronological subcategorisation, but it would be better to do it by century, so that no article will be in more than 2 additional subcategories, and most only in one. I will tag the subcategories tomorrow. Chicheley 22:07, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I was just using some 1950s Congress articles and wishing there were a simple list of Senators in each Congress. It is apparent that older Congresses do not have all the articles in place, and a list (unlike a category) permits a redlink. Thus in this analogous case, this is properly handled as a list. --Dhartung | Talk 06:21, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all The lists already exist, eg MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 2001. Twittenham 09:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all It is not conventional to think of MPs in terms of cohorts who sat in a particular parliament. Merchbow 16:23, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all- per above Astrotrain 17:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per comments above. Now I've seen it used in practice in a few articles, the number of categories is excessive. And it doesn't address the "from English constituencies" issue, which still needs to be sorted out. JRawle (Talk) 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep, but rename. As the creator of these categories, I'm disappointed that this nomination has been made without first joining the discussion at Category talk:British MPs, and I have several points to make:
  1. There has been extensive discussion there about how to categorise MPs, and a consensus for this method.
  2. Very few MPs to end up in 10+ categories as the nominator suggests: that applies only to a very few long-serving MPs in periods of frequent elections. For example, the current chancellor and PM are only in their 6th parliament, and the huge batch of MPs elected in 1997 are in their 3rd.
  3. There are already articles on over 3,000 MPs, and the catch-all categories have long been regarded as next-to-useless for mnay purposes because they are so big, hence the support for this system.
  4. Category:MPs of the United Kingdom House of Commons, by Parliament mirrors the system used sucessfully for the Irish Parliament, where Category:Teachtaí Dála includes sub-categoriastion by Parliament. Before dismissing this system, please look at that one in operation.
  5. I am very surprised by Merchbow's comment that it is not conventional to think of MPs by Parliament; on the contrary, for anyone studying parliament, one of the crucial things is to know who was in a particular parliament, and who were contemporaries. The category system provides a rapid way of getting to that information and of seeing which of those MPs actullay have articles on them.
  6. Yes, there are lists of MPs by Parliament (see Category:Lists of members of parliament and in particular Category:MPs elected in UK elections). They are useful, but they have limiations: they are ordered by constituency, which is not always appropriate (by name or party may be more useful). Additionally, there is a huge amount of work involved in maintaining those lists: as articles are moved and renamed, the lists rapidly become out of date, with links which point to other articles, and redlinks where articles do exist. The result is that only the lists for the last few parliamemts emoely reflect the number of articles which atually exist. The categories will not only be more useable, but will also allow a two-way check on the integrity of the lists.
  7. The suggestion of categorisation by century is, I'm afraid, next-to-useless. In the twentieth-century alone, there must have been well over 3,000 MPs: indeed the sheer size of the eisting catch-all categories was one of the reasons that there was support for categorisation by parliament.
  8. Finally, the category names are too long, which why there appears to be "category clutter". The best soluton would be to rename the categories to shorter names, as already discussed and agreed at Category talk:British MPs: with shorther names these categs would be as unobtrusive as those for the Irish TDs. --BrownHairedGirl 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional lists can be created. Article moves are completely irrelevant as redirection is automatically used. Categories are a very poor means of checking anything. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There is no sign of a consensus for it here. This shows that categorisation needs input from people who understand categories, and cannot be left to subject specialists, who are likely to overestimate the importance of minor aspects of their field of interest. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The most important MPs, the ones that already suffer from category clutter, will be in most categories. Choosing MPs who have not yet finished their parliamentary careers are examples is misleading. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some categories are big, that's how it works. It doesn't mean that category clutter is desirable. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Irish system is dreadful and those categories should be deleted too. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm a British adult in my mid thirties and I have never seen these parliament numbers before in my life. These articles will mainly be used by non-specialists, and they are not relevant or useful to us. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't make this system a good one. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The number of categories is the problem. Excessive categories impede navigability by making the key categories harder to find. Chicheley 18:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • In reply to Chichely:
      • Additional lists are no solution. The maintenance load is so huge that they rapidly become out of date. Categories don't need that sort of maintenance.
        • Most of the lists will be historical and will not become out of date. Chicheley 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Article moves are NOT irrelevant: when Joe Soap is moved to Joe Soap (politician) and a new article created at Joe Soap, the redirect is overwritten. In the last few days of populating this category, I have found dozens of cases where this has happened with MPs.
        • Any broken redirects can be fixed. Chicheley 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Your insistence on this makes me question whether you have ever tried to maintain such lists. "Can be fixed" is true; but the fixing is so time-consuming that it mostly doesn't get done. Are you volunteering to maintain the MPs-by-Parliament lists? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Your suggestion that those who designed this system do not understand categories is not very constructive, and grossly inaccurate.
        • On the contrary, I think it is very accurate. I see a looming situation whereby the category system for biographical articles will become so useless that is may as well be written off, and you are rushing us towards that day. Chicheley 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Not at all. There is little more useless than a category with 5,000 members: spread out over 25 pages, it's next to un-navigable. That's why sub-categoristaion has been supported by (I think) all the partcipants in discussins at Category talk:British MPs --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • You know perfectly well that there are already many detailed overlapping categories. Also, it is a fair assumption that most readers know the alphabet. Chicheley 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most important MPs will not necessarily be in the most parliaments. John Major was only in six, as was Douglas Hurd; Michael Portillo was in five. The longest-serving MPs tend to be obscure backbenchers.
        • You are selecting examples to suit your agenda. In any case, five nearly identical categories is four more than is acceptable. Chicheley 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Nearly-identical" suggests a rather limited understanding of parliament. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Please don't be patronising. We are talking about categories and these ones are nearly identical in that each states that the subject of the article was a member of the UK Parliament for a certain period. Chicheley 22:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Calling the Irish sytem "dreadful" doesn't tell anyone much. Why do you dislike a system which allows an easy way to check which TDs in each Dail Wikipedia has articles on, without wading through long lists of redlinks and broken links?
        • Because it creates category clutter. Chicheley 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "Category clutter" is a rather judgement-laden term. With any category, there is a balance of be struck between usefulness and the space it takes on the list. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
            • Of course, but I think your judgement is exceptionally poor. Chicheley 22:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The numbering issue is obscure, which us why each category contains a one-line explanation; however, if we dispensed with the numbers and just used dates, the catgegory names would be a lot shorter (e.g. "UK MPs 1964-1966", "UK MPs 2001-2005").
      • In nearly all cases, these categs when alphabetically-sorted will be in one group at the end, so they don't make other categories hard to find. --BrownHairedGirl 19:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alphabetical ordering of categories is not policy and I am one of many users who strongly oppose it. It is not reasonable to assume that categories well be well organised when in so many cases they patently are not. Chicheley 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reluctantly, Delete all. Whilst conceptually I think this is useful, in practice it has resulted in too much clutter and overcomplication. Also, per nom WRT the system of numbering Parliaments and per Merchbow. DWaterson 17:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename - At Category talk:British MPs, I proposed grouping several Parliaments together to reduce clutter. This suggestion didn't find a consensus there, but if people here like that idea, I would support a change to the categories. If not, I support BrownHairedGirl's proposal to shorten the category names but keep the categories as they are very useful. In many cases, they already work fine; examples such as Churchill are few and far between - the solution is to fix the system, not to remove it entirely. Warofdreams talk 18:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename as proposed. People who sat in as many parliaments as Churchill are quite unusual. There are several ways of organising massive categories like British MPs, and the by parliament method seems to be a perfectly logical, and useful, method to me. There is no reason why this method cannot live alongside the by geography and by party methods; after all, those are the ways the UK Parliament uses on its own website in order to organise the presentation of its MPs. --Mais oui! 18:42, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is the most prominent people who sat in most parliaments, and they are the ones with most category clutter, and they are the articles visited by most users on the whole. I think that anything over ten categories is an impediment to quick navigation to the most relevant categories. The Parliamentary site uses lists not categories, and therefore it is consistent with my proposal to delete the categories and create more lists. Indeed it even provides opportunities to create some of the lists quickly by cutting and pasting. Chicheley 09:21, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Surprised comment: Chicheley, I do wonder how much you have actually studied the subject area. Others considering this issue may already have discovered that there are already plenty of list of MPs on wikipedia, probably far more than on the parliament site; the problem is maintaining them.
      • The Parliamentary site only lists current MPs. Wkipedia has articles on, and lists of, MPs going back several centuries. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The Parliamentary site doesn't have individual articles on MPs, so it can't use categories. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The lists already exist; the problem in maintining them. These categories make the list maintenance much easier (I have just used the categs to spend several days fixing the list of MPs elected in the United Kingdom general election, 1983. Without the categories, that job would be much much harder --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename Category names need to be much shorter. At the moment the T. P. O'Connor category list is nearly as long as the main article. Acceptable maybe in some one like T.P. but would not be acceptable on either Churchill or Lloyd-George's articles. Galloglass 20:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is list material. People should only be in a handful of categories. Landolitan 08:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Olborne 10:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all as requested. Only one category is required for members of the UK Parliament, as that is itself a subcategory of Category:British politicians and there are additional categories for office holders. Wimstead 11:12, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, strong rename. Suggesting that Category:British MPs requires no hierarchical organisation whatsoever seems to me to be quite unreasonable, and extremely inconvenient for anyone trying to use the category for almost any purpose. Some sort of split seems essential, and this is the best scheme offered up so far, and seems to have some sort of consensus at the category discussion page. OTOH, the names are excessive: parliamentary numbers aren't a usual form of reference at all, and end dates are generally redundant. In the couple of cases where there were two general elections in a year, add the end date as a "disambig". I'd also suggest a reorganisation so that MPs are categorised only by the last/latest parliament they sat in, to avoid excessive multi-catting (and perhaps also their first one, if that's deemed necessary), rewording the category page to make this clear. My first thought on learning about this scheme was "what will this make Ted Heath's page look like?", and the answer, per the old student rag mag joke is, "like a sheep's backside". Alai 14:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm really not at persuaded that a clustered form sub-categorisation-by-parliament is particularly useful. To my mind, the most attractive suggestion so far is by century, so along as MPs are classified by all the centuries they sat in (or entered/left, whatever we use), so we don't end up with (for example) an artificial divide between the 1997 intake and the 2001 intake. However, those categories will still be huge: the 20th century would contain over 5,000 articles if fully populated, which makes them not-very-useful.
  • OTOH, splitting by smaller time-periods bring its own problems of what split to use? A logcal split is by parliament or groups of parliaments, not by decades or groups of decades. So we'd end up with 1900-1924, 1924-50, 1950-Oct 1974, Oct74-2001, etc: ugly.
  • Suggestion: rename to shorter names for now, and review this later. This really merits wider discussion at Category talk:British MPs, rather than rejection of the only scheme so far to achieve consensus there after discussion over several months. If people don't like this scheme, please could we agree a better one before deleting this? --BrownHairedGirl 16:17, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • You are just trying to put a spoke in the wheels, hoping we will forget. There is no need for discussion or delay, they are bad categories so they should go now. Chicheley 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Not at all hoping anyone will forget. But I am hoping that people will try to apply themselves to the question of how to usefully subcategorise the huge numbers of articles on MPs, rather than simply saying a post-facto "no" to the one system which has achieved consensus before implementation. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I have already made my postion clear, though I wonder why I bothered as you seem to have simply deemed my point to be beneath your notice. There is no need to apply to anything, as we have too many categories already. I despair that if you continue and move into other areas of the category system, always looking to create category after category after category the whole category system will be rendered totally unusable by category clutter. The guidance on categorisation initially said that articles should be in no more than four or five categories. That was too few, but it was better than the disaster of extreme category clutter the system is hurtling towards at an alarming rate now. Chicheley
• Keep but amend Perhaps the MPs should be categorised by the first parliament they were in which they were elected, for example, if they were initially elected in the 1959-1964 parliament, they could be categorised as such. How about British MPs first elected in the 1959-1964 Parliament, etc. Would that be a good compromise anyone? --Dovea 16:31, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. Chicheley 17:29, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Chichely, rather than just saying "no" to everything, how about turning the question around? Why not explain what sort of categorisation for MPs you would support? --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 18:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Everything you say seems to be based on an assumption that we need more and more categories for MPs, but I think we have all the categories we need and then some. If you want me to say yes, try nominating some of them for deletion, as I will certainly oppose every further addition. Things have gone too far already. All we need is groupings by parliament (English, Irish, UK etc) and by party. All the rest can go. Chicheley 18:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Severe overcategorisation. Osomec 18:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename: it's helpful to see which Parliament people were elected to, but the name is very long so the category list becomes too long. I suggest something along the lines of UK MP (1992-1997). Stephen B Streater 22:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like that suggestion: UK MP (1992-1997) etc. Concise, conveys all that's needed. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 11:39, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep and rename. The current category is overlarge and unnavigable, and in fairly dire need of organization. While there's a strong aesthetic case for short category names (fleshed out in their descriptions), the categories are too potentially useful for there to be a good aesthetic case for deletion. I suggest to those who have already voted delete that they propose an alternate organisation scheme if they are serious about preventing the use of this one. --CComMack (t•c) 09:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have already made my position clear. It is not necessary to subdivide categories automatically when they reach a certain size, and there were more than enough schemes in place before these categories were introduced. We really need some lateral thinking here; if there are so many categories that looking at the list at the bottom of an article makes the reader go "Urggh!" and look away, there might as well be no categories at all. Chicheley 11:33, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Hmmm. It seems that you, Chicheley, and everyone else in favor of outright deletion, AFAICT, are looking at categorization from the aspect of article-side navigation, while those of us in favor of a subcategorization scheme here are mostly concerned about category-side navigation. There has to be a way to reconcile these concerns, but it will require more discussion and negotiation than are happening here. Therefore, I'll start (but I'll be out of internet contact for the next day or so - fair warning.) I see article-side category navigation as less crucial simply because even an "overlong" list of categories has 15-20 items in it, which can be browsed quickly by an interested reader, while an oversized category (going from my experience from WP:WSS,) has over 1000 articles, and one with 2000 is grossly outsized and requiring immediate slimming. Yes, a list of 25 categories may be unsightly to look at (I don't actually think that, but I'll stipulate to it for the purposes of finding common ground), but it's tucked away at the bottom of the page, and anyone can easily ignore them, while on a category page, the list of articles is what you're there to see. --CComMack (t•c) 13:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all No one has pointed out that there are lots of categories which include the most prominent MPs, eg Prime Ministers, Secretaries of States, Chancellors of the Exchequer. Carina22 17:26, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Those ministerial categories include only some of the most prominent MPs. Plenty of very significant MPs, such as Tam Dalyell, Enoch Powell, Michael Mates, Eric Forth, Jeremy Corbyn, Dennis Skinner et al, are not in those categories. The cats you mention are useful, but no substitute for per-parliament classification. --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 20:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • These categories don't do anything to organise MPs by prominence, and thus they don't justify the effort and clutter they involve. Piccadilly 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Prominence is a complicated issue with MPs: it's not just ministers and frontbenchers who take a prominent role in Parliament, though ministers tend to get the most publicity. As to effort, the ctaegories make it easier to maintain the lists. (Feed the list into AWB, and find non-MP links to fix; check the category to see if the list matches, recurse until error-free). --BrownHairedGirl ^{(talk) • (contribs)} 01:46, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to list per Landolitan. Tim Ivorson 2006-08-17
• Delete/listify Being a member of a particular parliament isn't in itself a defining feature. Piccadilly 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Excessive categorisation. Lists can give more information, eg party and constituency, which is probably necessary as few people will recognise more than a small fraction of the names. Hawkestone 10:55, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. Athenaeum 22:50, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all or at least abbreviate, but preferably delete. Cloachland 02:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep but rename as per Stephen B Streater and CComMack. The arguments in the original proposal are unimaginative and take no account at all of the benefit of this structure to the readers of Wikipedia. To suggest that BHG's structure is not useful to students of Parliament, who really do need to understand which Parliament an MP was in, shows a lack of understanding about the subject. The whole point of having categories is to present the subject in its best light and the great benefit of a sound categorisation structure like this (apart from the naming convention, I agree) is that it enables navigation. Navigation by category simulates realtime screen navigation and is infinitely preferable to lists which are only really useful as a means of checking that nothing has been forgotten. Finally, the tone of the original proposal is out of order and I think one of the admins should be looking at that and making appropriate comments. --BlackJack | ^{talk page} 10:29, 20 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American Revolutionary War people into Category:People of the American Revolution

• No vote. Old nomination from May 12 that is still tagged and looks like it should be a catredirect. Vegaswikian 21:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge definitely, and I'd say merge the former into the latter, as nominated, because the latter is much larger and more closely follows my (fairly ignorant) understanding of the category style guide.--M@rēino 21:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:People of the American Revolution, which is more comprehensive. Chicheley 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge, the second one is a better name for it as well, IMO. Recury 16:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Recury -- SatyrTN 02:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per Recury Cloachland 02:08, 19 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:9-11 Survivors to Category:Survivors of the September 11, 2001 attacks

• Rename, Cat should be renamed for consistency with Category:Victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks. musicpvm 20:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. SatyrTN 02:11, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 11:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Mantanmoreland 21:08, 17 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:21, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject 9/11 Truth Movement (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Empty cat, wikiproject and templates that populated it were userified on 8/13. Rosicrucian 20:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete, i created it.--Striver 21:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Merchbow 16:22, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Chicheley 18:57, 16 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Shopping in Bangkok to Category:Retailing in Bangkok

• Rename, Retailing is a more formal, less consumer-focused term. The proposal matches Category:Retailing in London and the subcategories of Category:Retailing by country. Merchbow 20:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 22:09, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. SatyrTN 02:12, 16 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Khet of Bangkok to Category:Districts of Bangkok

• Rename, in English. The article is already at Districts of Bangkok. Merchbow 20:01, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Chicheley 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. SatyrTN 02:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. David Kernow 10:05, 16 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:23, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:American reality television stars into Category:American reality television participants

• Merge, "Stars" is a subcat of a previous category that was merged to "Participants". See here. Crumbsucker 18:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Stars" is a POV term. --musicpvm 20:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Chicheley 22:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. --Elonka 03:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Carina22 17:29, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Lil Flip246 02:18, 18 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Councils in the Jervis Bay Territory (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, There are no local government areas in the Jervis Bay Territory, and no evidence has been provided that the councils in the category exist. See Talk:Sussex Inlet, Jervis Bay Territory for previous discussion. JPD (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can see no evidence of the existence of a council on the weblink provided in the article. Hawkestone 18:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The existence of a body that provides services in lieu of the existence of a council does not mean that body is ipso facto a council. It's a Territory, not a State, thus it need not be parallel with the States. --Dhartung | Talk 06:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - the territory's affairs are managed by DOTARS - I don't think there are any "local councils". This category would only have one entry anyway, so it's not worth having. (JROBBO 13:34, 16 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
• Delete There are no councils to categorise. Chicheley 18:58, 16 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 18:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Administrators open to recall (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete. This category is inherently divisive. It creates a double standard by which some admins could be seen as better or more responsive than others. I fully support the creation of admin recall procedures as policy, but creating divisions within the admin community is not helpful. Now, some individuals are trying to using its existence in the course of WP:RFA to "peer pressure" admin candidates into joining (Crzrussian's admitted goal [1]). As long as this was just being used voluntarily by established admins, it was little more than a strange curiousity, but using this to backdoor new policy by pressuring admin candidates is a very bad idea and makes the existence of the category disruptive. Further discussion at WT:RFA. We are better off without categories that can be used to pressure admins and candidates. Dragons flight 16:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, I oppose a one size fits all recall policy and doubt very much you'll ever get consensus for one. This is a good compromise that achieves some of the goodness without requireing one size fits all. ++Lar: t/c 16:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I am not a proponent of recall per se. I would like to either see it made near-universal or deleted altogether. I am most definitely interested in standaridizing this process after having been recalled, not to "backdoor new pllicy". - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I find this comment a bit confusing. You voluntarily added yourself to the category, you chose which of the many ways it can be worked to use in your case, the process went smoothly and collegially to an outcome which everyone accepted at the time, and now you're not a proponent? But you want to force a process on everyone anyway? Maybe I'm missing something there, sorry. I think your case (upt to when you asked to have your bit turned off) demonstrates amply that the process itself works, and works well, with far less acrimony and upset than if you had been referred to ArbCom, and therefore is a strong argument for retention. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • OK. What I meant was, I am neither defending nor promoting the category. I support the concept, and plan to declare my openness to recall if reëlected, whether within it or independently. - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:37, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • "...creates a double standard by which some admins could be seen as better or more responsive than others." Er, maybe some admins are better or more responsive than others, eh? It doesn't create a dichotomy. It may highlight it. That may also be undesirable, but it's an altogether different thing. Herostratus 06:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with Dragons flght. Asking that question of RFA's is nothing but pushing a point of view on admin candidates. The category is inherently devisive as it splits admins into two groups with the implication that if you don't join it, you aren't as good an admin as those who did. This category should never exist because if a consensus were reached on recall it would apply to everyone and listing everyone would not be needed. pschemp | talk 16:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep a necessary compromise for the time being until a workable recall policy is put in place. It would be nice if this was a mandated thing, but there's absolutely nothing wrong with allowing administrators to demonstrate that they feel the need to be held responsible. Possible misuse of the category as a leverage tool at RfA is not a reason to eliminate it. --badlydrawnjeff talk 16:30, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Well I'm not sure that it will be all that easy to show this category is divisive, actually... as has been explained many times, there is no requirement to be willing to be recalled the easy way for any admin. Rather, isn't being recalled this way actually less divisive than an RfC or an ArbCom action? We just saw evidence of that, we had a very collegial process that got to a result that everyone accepted. This category works, provides a useful service to the encyclopedia and has the support of a not completely insignificant fraction of the admin population. If people are trying to use it for things you don't agree with, resist that and make sure it doesn't become consensus but this is a useful and important mechanism. Keep ++Lar: t/c 16:34, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because you don't see the implications made by this category doesn't mean they don't exist. This category implies that not joining makes you a bad admin since you won't consider the community's opinion. It doesn't matter if joining it is optional, its the implications that are harmful. pschemp | talk 16:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Just because you see implications made by the category doesn't mean they are necessarily there. This was the same argument you made back in May when this category was first developed and (prematurely) publicised on WT:RFA. It wasn't shown to be true, or satisfactorily refuted either, then, and it hasn't been now either. See below... you're not a bad admin if you don't join it, you're a bad admin if you say (whether in or not) "screw the community, I don't care what anyone thinks, I got my bit, you don't like it, take it to ArbCom because I don't care"... that's bad. And I know you wouldn't do that. I'll be keeping my pledges to collegially consider inputs about my behaviour as an admin whether this category gets deleted or not. ++Lar: t/c 17:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I'd agree with you except that I'm not the only one who thinks this is a devisive category. Seven of them are one this page and more who have expressed the opinion that the category is nearly blackmail said that on WT:RFA. pschemp | talk 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  RfA Blackmail? that's something I have spoken out about and will continue to do so, vigorously. I suggest that you work to fix it rather than deleting, because the idea of recall, the idea of accountability, is a good one. But it must remain optional. Mandatory recall is a non starter of a proposal. ++Lar: t/c 00:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Joining is 100% optional. Though a pledge to step down is self-enforced and could be made outside of this category, it does help standardize things. - CrazyRussian talk/email 16:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Absolute keep: if they wisely choose to make themselves accountable to the community and their peers, that's their decision and there is nothing wrong with this. I applaud them (but do think their standard for recall of number of users is way, WAY too low). rootology (T) 16:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Nice that you agree with recall, but that doesn't have anything to do with the fact that this category splits our community. pschemp | talk 16:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Pschemp: The assertion that it splits the community, I'm not sure it's a fact, I certainly see no establishment of it as fact. I don't think it's divisive, except perhaps to split off those admins that don't actually want to be accountable from the much larger group of us who do want to be accountable, which includes both those of us in the category and those of us such as yourself who aren't in a formal category. But suppose for the sake of argument this deletion succeeds, and at some future point (hypothetically), you do something that causes 6 people you trust and respect to say "hey, wait a minute, let's talk about that"... would you dismiss them out of hand and say "Buzz off, take it to arbcom, I care not a whit what anyone else thinks"?? Or would you listen and work through and do what's right. If you would listen, then you're actually "in this category" whether you're formally in it or not, and whether it even exists as a category or not.... I'm convinced you would listen, aren't you? ++Lar: t/c 17:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  I am accountable to arbcom. They are the representatives of the community. No I would no be open to recall because the community has already empowered arbcom to make those decisions. And yes, pulling out 20 odd people who have listed themselves as accountable implies the rest are not. It is a split. pschemp | talk 20:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well I can take that one of two ways. First, it might mean that you are saying that while you would welcome the input of your peers, that ArbCom is the final arbiter and the group or body that should make the final decision in your case. That's fine, that just means that you'd choose the RfAr option. But being in the category would mean that you were assuring the community that you'd be collegial and participatory, not divisive, during your RfAr. That's all good. However the other interpretation is not so good, for it uses the (unstated) implication that you're accountable ONLY to ArbCom... that you don't care so much what your peers think, that you're above them, and not here to work collegially. I just can't believe that to be the case. For if it is, for if not being in the category means that, then you're right after all, the category is divisive, just not the way you claim, but instead the exact opposite. On one side, in the category, are those admins who don't think they are better than their peers, those who value input... and on the other side, tnose admins not in it, who by not being in it say "we are better than our peers, only ArbCom has sway over what we do or think"... Frankly I find that inconceivable. I frankly cannot believe that is what you meant. You've elsewhere stated that some people view the category as divisive. But I think if it is, it's the opposite sort of divisivieness than what you think. That's not why I am here. I didn't come here to be better than everyone else, I came here to write an encyclopedia, shoulder to shoulder with my peers, and being in this category is my way of showing that I'm not better than everyone else. IF this category is deleted, I will still feel that way, I will still say the same things on my user page I do now, that I willingly submit myself to my peers and their inputs and will not fight tooth and nail against being desysopped if I have erred. Does that make me better than others? No. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Arbcom is composed of my peers. pschemp | talk 00:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  This reads like you think ONLY ArbCom members are your peers, or at least that you're not accountable to the rest of us. We all made you an admin back when, after all, not ArbCom. Surely this is not what you really mean, but if it is, it certainly validates my feeling that the elitism here might well be on the side of those who don't want to place themselves in the category, rather than those that do. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Rootology: Six seems a good number to start a discussion about whether there's anything to the thought that someone might not be doing a good job as an admin. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep encouraging admins to be more responsive is never a bad thing. You won't see me joining anytime soon though. Mwahahaha! >:)  Grue  16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This CfD is ridiculous. Please AGF. Nobody is forced on anything. Rather, those that want this cat to have deleted want to force their views onto those that are willing to add themselves to that cat. Don't play wiki police here, thank you. --Ligulem 17:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. Martin 17:10, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Well then. I'm really astonished. This starts smelling like this ridiculous userbox drama... Ok, Lar, you probably should create a userbox now :) --Ligulem 17:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment My problem with the category is that it says Administrators open to recall when in fact it means Administrators pledging to stand down if six established editors ask them to. There are plenty of admins, I'm sure, that are open to recall or being held accountable for their actions but feel the process outlined by the category is not good. The name of the category, however, does not allow for that. Perhaps a rename is in order; otherwise, delete. -- tariqabjotu (joturner) 17:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  It's not saying that at all. Czrussian chose to stand down on 6 asking. His choice, and one I don't think was the best choice, given everything. I won't. I would instead want to see a discussion first. If the process needs work, get in there and help fix it. ++Lar: t/c 17:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  PS: see User:Lar/Accountability for my criteria and process. Everyone has their own. ++Lar: t/c 17:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  On the category page, it says under "inclusion requirements," These adminstrators are willing to stand for re-confirmation of adminship if six editors in good standing request it. -- tariqabjotu 18:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Yes, that's what it says all right. To me, it doesn't mean an RfA is mandatory, or that a resignation is mandatory on 6 supports for the notion of recall either. If that's not clear to you (or the majority of folk) then it needs fixing. Perhaps you could try a better wording, because it's clear to me as written so I may not be the best person to fix it. ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - at first, I thought that this was another of these *fDs trying to delete proposed policy. Since it isn't (this category just divides the community), deletion is totally appropriate, in my view. —Celestianpower ^háblame 17:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree mainly with nom and Celestianpower. Aren't I Obscure? 17:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per nom.--Alabamaboy 18:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. This one's about as divisive as any other user category. Either you delete them all or keep this one. After all, noone is forced to join it and we are not violating any rules by encouraging others to participate. Misza13 ^{T C} 18:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a false dilemma because Wikipedia is not required to be consistent. Aren't I Obscure? 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Agree it's a false dilemna. However the greater part of Misza's comment stands, no one is forced to join, no one has shown any stigma by not joining (do we have 900 some BAD editors now?? I hardly think so!!!) and there is no violation of rules, policy, practice or procedure by encouraging people to be accountable. Heck, I could as well say "anyone arguing for deletion of the category is QED a bad admin" and that would be just as untenable an assertion as the one that this category divides admins into 35 good ones and 900 bad ones. Because those arguing for deletion aren't necessarily bad admins. They're just wrong about this one thing. :) ++Lar: t/c 18:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep A good idea, it would be nice if it was incorporated into the dispute resolution process before a conflict reached RfCs. The ikiroid (talk·desk·Advise me) 18:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I laud the intention, but it's self-defeating by being voluntary. The noblest admins will list themselves, thereby making themselves vulnerable to knee-jerk reactions, while any long term abusive admin (should one exist) wouldn't go near it. I think it's first "hit" on Crzrussian is a mark of its failure, as in the normal course of events he would have ridden the storm and learnt from it for the future: I don't think the current consquences are of overall benefit to the project. Even its voluntary status is ambiguous, as RfA candidates are going to be under pressure to sign up. This alone is a good reason for its deletion. This has already resulted in a neutral on Alphachimp's RfA, and don't think it's going to be helpful for this to become accepted as an RfA criterion, because it doesn't address the overall issue to include existing admins. There should be a recall system that is equal for all. Tyrenius 18:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If it is voluntary, the question about joining should not even be asked during an RfA as that creates a false impression, people can always decide after it to join. There are many reasons not to join, not only because you deem yourself a worse admin. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please elaborate what does asking some questions on RfA have to do with this category? After all, even without it, people could be asked along the lines of: "If promoted, would you state on your userpage/wherever that you're open to recall at any moment?" Misza13 ^{T C} 19:33, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Asking those questions puts pressure at admin candidates (not wanting to join can result in oppose votes), which is in full conflict with the 'voluntary' nature, and as such, this category has become divisive due to the actions of editors to get people to join up during their RfA. If the joining is irrelevant for the voting, there is no need to ask the question in the first place. Besides that, I disagree with the notion that admins in this category are hold to higher standards; they just have made those criteria explicit. Other admins, without being a member can have even have higher criteria (I have my own criteria, just not written down). Besides that, as the admins determines the criteria themselves, they can set the bar so high that it is easier to go through the ArbCom to get an abusive admin out of the way. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 19:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Modified, per Lar's response below. -- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 20:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I will change my delete to keep if the category remains voluntary, with the notion that new admins are approached AFTER the RfA, and not during it with a question on the RfA. The category itself is not devisive, it is the way it is currently inclued as additional 'voluntary' questions at RfA's.-- Kim van der Linde ^{at venus} 03:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've so indicated my willingness to do this elsewhere. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. Every part of this category and its associated process is voluntary. Admins decide whether to join, how to set their renomination criteria, and what to do when those criteria are met. The category is simply a way to collect and concretize the standards admins are willing to apply to themselves. Its existence is an admirable demonstration of openness and accountability, and I commend its members wholeheartedly. Tim Smith 18:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, as Lar says, the category allows admins to define for themselves how to respond to a recall motion. In addition, deleting the category does nothing but hamstring WP:RECALL without a proper discussion there hide a voluntary association, which doesn't strike me as good faith or good politics. -- nae'blis 19:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • RECALL, like similar proposals, would apply to all admins, in which case you wouldn't need any category. As I said above, having a desysoping/reconfirmation procedure that applied to all admins would be a good thing, but using methods like this to set some admins apart from others is not. Dragons flight 20:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Except you're never going to get one unless the community is convinced it's workable and fair. The current proposal is a non starter I think. This voluntary process is a step in the direction of such a convincing though... we've seen it work well once already (it did exactly what the admin who chose the fastest way out of adminship (reminder reminder reminder!!! NOT the only choice and not the one I'd take!!!) asked that it do, and it was collegial and smooth), among other beneficial things about it. I don't agree it's divisive (and I wonder if I'm the single admin KimvdLinde means, since I was asking on RfAs) and just saying it is will not convince me. But suppose it is, what could be done to make it less divisive and yet retain the benefits (you do agree there are benefits, don't you?) of recall as an idea to address community concerns in a way that's less dramatic (and more successful) than RfC and less heavyweight than RfAr ??? ++Lar: t/c 20:13, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Grah. I somehow thought WP:RECALL was going to send me to a project-space page for the category under discussion, not a relatively new proposal. Color me mistaken. -- nae'blis 20:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - This is really the best solution for non-ArbCom RFDA since it's more community-driven and not based on a lynch mob (the latter are Cyde's words, I don't know who said the first part). —this is messedrocker (talk) 20:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Why do you need a category for it then? Just have people put their names down on a project page. The category is not necessary and is devisive. pschemp | talk 20:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  How is a list not devisive but a category is? --W.marsh 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Categories are generally viewed as superior to lists, we often delete lists for the very reason that a category can do a better job. This seems a false argument to me. ++Lar: t/c 00:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  They are both bad in this case. Neither shoudl exist. Recall should apply to all or none. pschemp | talk 00:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Then I guess I'm confused as to why you suggested a list would be a good way to go, just above. Perhaps I misunderstood you. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - if you don't like the category, don't list yourself in it. BigDT 20:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Biased Keep as I added myself to this category as soon as I heard about it, several months ago. If admins want to be "accountable" I think that's a good thing. That other admins are apparently bothered by this shouldn't be a reason to delete the category. --W.marsh 20:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. If some admins wish to associate themselves with this that's fine, I won't be joining it though. I think this category is only divisive when people choose to make it so - I am responsible for my edits, therefore I must be accountable for them (the two words are synonymous). If some wish to hamstring themselves by signing up to this then that is their lookout, but they cannot claim to be more accountable than those who are not members. Rje 00:59, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I share the concerns of Tyrenius, and as a non-admin, this category does bother me as it creates a two-tier system of admins. Notwithstanding whatever reason an admin might have for adding or not adding himself or herself will have no bearing on how it is generally perceived by others. Despite whatever their intentions may be, Admins listing themselves will be seen on somewhat a greater moral high-ground than those who are not listed. I also question how "voluntary" the system is given the tone of discussions at RfA. I'm sure there must be undue and unnecessary pressure on admin nominees to say "yes" when asked if they'll join. Agent 86 02:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Participation is voluntary. Plus, I see deleting the category as something that would be disrespectful to those dozens of admins who are choosing to take part in it. --Elonka 02:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I am unconvinced that this is poisonous to the community, and while it's not my bag, I can respect the sentiments that inspire it. The only concern I have is that it and things like it tend to create more drama and spend more community time on contentious things, but as of right now, I don't think that's strong enough to remove this. I'm open to argument either way on this. --Improv 02:53, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Biased keep as this is my baby... but "divisive?" I don't understand how it's only become a problem after it's been used for the first time, and the adminstrator whom it was used on conducted himself well, and that everyone involved seems to believe this was the correct outcome, and there appears to be zero ill-will. Yes, I'd like to think that this will guide behavior, but that's the intent of practically everything in the Wikipedia space. I really don't understand the strength of the objections here. I'd encourage wider participation on the talk page of this and the wp:recall pages as well. - brenneman ^{L} 02:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Most definitely divisive - it is being used to create momentum for the idea that admins should be subject to recall (there is even discussion about adding it to the template of RFA questions). Any admin who blocks, or who fights POV-pushers, or who deletes pages, or who does any of a dozen other things will get people pissed off at them. Recall becomes a tool for trolls and makes people less likely to make the hard blocks. The more broadly it is applied, the weaker Wikipedia is to fight disruption. Sorry Aaron, while it's well-intended, it's a bad idea. Guettarda 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  The category contains provisions against such abuse. Members define their own renomination criteria, and can discount editors who are not in good standing. They also decide what actually to do when their criteria are met. As evidence that these provisions work, the category has existed for months with no abuse at all by disreputable users. On the wider idea that admins should be subject to recall, it's true that in the course of their duties, admins sometimes upset people. But if an admin upsets so many people that a substantial number of users in good standing question their adminship, something is wrong. Yes, we want admins to fight disruption, but not to cause it in their own right. With proper safeguards, recall can help to keep them from crossing that line. Tim Smith 15:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per Guettarda, when the process is better fleshed out/more used then it will make sense to have some sort of category. As it is now, admins who subscribe to this should just say so with a userbox or a simple statement if they dislike userboxes. JoshuaZ 04:04, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category has existed since 24 May 2006. I'd suggest that the idea that admins whom are doing their jobs will be punished doesn't match the reality we've seen between then and now. I myself use my administrative powers often with regards to deletion. The times I've deleted video game/internet/Brian Peppers articles "against the numbes" I cannot even count. I regularly kick a stink in public places, and supported unblocking Karmafist even. I went so far as to advertise to my biggest detractor that I was in this category. Not a peep from anyone with regards to recalling me. This may be due to my dashing good looks, or to the fact that people are not aware of the category, but it's clearly not the "troll fodder" that people appear to believe. The only editors whom have used the category are listed below, which speaks more to the defence of this idea than I can. - brenneman ^{L} 04:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    1. Dmcdevit (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 08:54, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    2. Bishonen (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 12:52, 7 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]
    3. Bunchofgrapes (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 15:31, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    4. Isopropyl (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 15:43, 7 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    5. FloNight (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 06:14, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    6. Rebecca (talk · contribs · blocks · protections · deletions · page moves · rights · RfA) - 06:26, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There you have it. A bunch of damned trolls if I ever saw one. Bunchoftrolls 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. A fatally flawed idea, too easily gamed by grudge-holders, cliques and chronic troublemakers. Might as well just cut throught the pretense and formalities and give them a desysop button. FeloniousMonk 04:41, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you tender a theory as to why the grudge-holders, cliques and chronic troublemakers haven't struck yet? Or are we the ones in the category? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 05:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Likely because the admins who take on the most difficult, controversial tasks are not willing to open themselves up to that sort of pointless risk. Nor should they suffer in comparison. As Kelly Martin has pointed out 50% of admin actions in March 2006 were performed by 29 out of nearly 900 admins; 90% by 170. Kelly rightly stated the project could probably lose 500 admins without any real impact on our ability to get administrative work done.[2] I see no reason for testing that theory. Looking at the top 170 most active admins for March I only see 4 or 5 of the two dozen or so admins in the category. FeloniousMonk 06:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm on that list. - brenneman ^{L} 07:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm on that list too... although I don't really think number of admin actions correlate directly to level of controversy. A dutiful janitor might make hundreds of by-the-books deletions, blocks and page protections each month. --W.marsh 17:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not on that list, but then I wasn't an admin in March... and alot of my admin actions since have been editing protected pages in response to requests, giving patient explanations why I am denying unblock requests, and several other things which wouldn't show up on those stats (along with many that would of course). Admins aren't just deletion, block, and protection machines... there are alot of other things only we can do also. As to 'controversial', I've called out admins, arbitors, the community in general, and Jimbo himself when I thought they were wrong... and that was all before I became an admin. Danny once too, but I think that was just after I got adminship. Try to tell me I'm not a royal pain in the ass... go ahead. I dare ya. :] Yet I'm in the category... because I think we have to be answerable to the community or we inherently damage the encyclopedia effort as a whole. There are several people out there who have said they want me desysoped, and probably more that have thought it... but nobody has ever asked for recall or ArbCom on me. Because as much as I may annoy some people I remain civil, follow procedures, and always work to better Wikipedia... keeping myself answerable to the ArbCom and the community. --CBD 12:25, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Gee, it might make you look bad? Um... maybe it's not that those pants make your butt look fat; maybe your butt is just fat. Herostratus 06:16, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete:Since being used for the first time last week the most vocal admins who submitted their names now seem to be unable to agree on the exact detail and criteria of the category. This will always be the case when a recall decision is unpopular with those signed up. Hence the category will be permanently unstable. It has fallen at the first fence. It seems to me it was an ill thought out project rather like joining a smart health club without realising one may have to actually use the pool and get wet. I suggest those admins, with masochistic tendencies, who feel they would like to resign if a certain amount of editors call for their desysoping should just announce that fact on their individual talk pages along with their individual criteria. Giano | talk 06:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Although announcing willingness to undergo recall on a user page is fine, a category makes the information easier to find. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Admins who believe there should be a formal recall process for admins. The category is probably useful in that it is a public pledge to behave, which places peer-pressure on other admins to do the same. But given that people can opt-out at any time, it isn't as useful as a formal process would be. I don't agree that opt-ins are masochistic. They haven't promised to resign if they get 6 people who don't like them, only that they will restand, a very different thing. Regards, Ben Aveling 06:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'd oppose such a rename as I don't feel that way at all. This should remain voluntary. ++Lar: t/c 17:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The idea of "open to recall" somehow reminds me of WP:weasel. Heck, just invent a reason for inclusion in such a category. No need to worry about WP:VER, WP:RS, no worry about WP:NOR, no worry about WP:NPOV. What an easy gig compared to the nonsense we need to deal with in actual articles. ... Kenosis 07:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• A bunch of us have been in this reasonably well publicized category for quite some time now, including people who do difficult admin work and yet there has not been a single instance of "trolls" ganging up to recall someone they disagree with. I'd like to keep the category; I think it's already shown that the community can be trusted with a desysop procedure. We trust it with almost everything else, so why not this? Haukur 08:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, and the fact that members of the category are touting this and lording it over those here who choose not to join is evidence that the category and the idea behind it are inherently divisive. How long before those who do not join have their character called into question? Not long I see: [3] FeloniousMonk 16:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Celestianpower, and Guettarda. This is becoming divisive. There is already de-admin; that is called Arbcom. KillerChihuahua^?!? 10:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Those who don't want to be in the category don't have to be, and those of us who are in the category might like the option of remaining in said category. I don't believe it's any more of a divisive category than most of the other user categories. --Firsfron of Ronchester 10:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is entirely voluntary to be included in this CAT. Anyone listed has done so themselves, aware of the problems with it. Viridae^Talk 11:09, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. •Jim62sch• 12:35, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or Rename to Category:Wikipedian Administrators who voluntarily submit to Recallability Standard #1 or somesuch. It's voluntary. — MrDolomite | Talk 14:57, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep. I'm not in the category, for reasons I've outlined in the past on the category's talk page, and don't think it's the best of ideas but if others want to use it I don't see it doing any great harm. --kingboyk 15:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Completely harmless category. --Tony Sidaway 17:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep It is a completely voluntary category that will help to keep some admins accountable (the one's that join it of corse). Being recalled is also completly voluntary, but if an admin were to add themself to the category, then refuse to be recalled, it would count against them (it's called being accountable). RfA exists so that the Wikipedia community can invest extra powers in select induviduals who they believe would use them wisely and for the beterment of the project. Since being an admin is related to holding the confidence of the community, there should be a way for the community to voice non-confidence if something should happed (the Westminister System). -Royalguard11^{TalkMy Desk} 18:17, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep (at least pending a more unified recall system) We need more accountability for administrators, not less. If I'm ever "mopped" I'll be signing up with this if it's still around. I don't see what's so divisive about it. Ungovernable Force^{The Wiki Kitchen!} 19:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, Celestianpower, Guettarda, KillerChuahua. Jayjg ^(talk) 20:52, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ZOMG, strong keep per above and below, and especially per The Ungovernable Force. MaxSem 08:53, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Blech. Yes, pressuring people to join this is bad. However, I don't think that is the intent or has been done to any significant extent. I would prefer a formal review procedure applying to all admins (basically RfA with a precursor step where bureaucrats dismiss frivolous requests), but this category is a reasonable way of holding myself accountable to the community in the meantime. I oppose 'ArbCom only' de-adminning primarily because it separates admins from the community. Once you become an admin you need to stay on the good side of ArbCom, but not the community. That inevitably leads to admins slowly placing themselves above the community, being less respectful of regular users, violating civility when dealing with users but not arbitors, et cetera and is inherently damaging to Wikipedia as a whole. Admins should be the people trusted by the community currently... not those who were trusted by the community for a week (during their RfA) or more at one point in the past and now approved of by the ArbCom. This category doesn't do that, but it allows those who believe that to say so and hold themselves to that standard. --CBD 11:59, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep What CBD said I can't say any better. --hydnjo talk 01:50, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per CBD abakharev 05:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This is divisive and as the length of this discussion shows has the potential to waste a great deal of time - probably without achieving anything. Carina22 17:30, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Celestianpower's (and many others above) comment on divisiveness; per Carina22's comment on how much time would be wasted with this without actually accomplishing anything; and the poor effect it is having on AfD's, "Well, I'll vote for you if you promise to put yourself on the list (so I can change my mind later...)" Admins eat a lot of poop, there are tough decisions to be made, all of which currently have formal channels to oppose. How many second guesses do we have to throw on the backs of an administrator? Why vandal fight when a vandal plus a few of his sock/meat puppets can threaten you? Ifnord 00:48, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep. It's a start, anyway. KleenupKrew 03:19, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ifnord and many others. Administrators make enemies, and there are people who disapprove of their actions. This is inevitable. The problem with this category is that it is voluntary, so only some people will be on it. As of now there are only around 40 people on this list: these administrators can be recalled if they make too many enemies, so they may stay out controversial issues. This isn't what we want, we want administrators to have the tools and use them. Furthermore, with the question posed on the RfA. Users are pressured into pledging to join, if not this will be seen as a sign that they won't be held responsible for their action. If this is a category, then it should be a copy of Category:Administrators. Either they should all be accountable under this rule, or none; they shouldn't be peer pressured into a lower position. --Daniel Olsen 09:09, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's voluntary, and I added my name in my own will to the list. - Mailer Diablo 17:18, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was very disappointed to see the category created, for reasons I've expressed many a time and oft, here and in private conversation with Aaron (who created it) and Lar (who promoted it). I'd personally prefer that nobody had been silly enough to create it. However, now that it exists, "the damage is done", so to speak, and who knows? It may actually do some good. It's certainly not my place to tell other administrators that they aren't allowed to add themselves to a category of this nature. fuddlemark (befuddle me!) 18:37, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I see no evidence that this is divisive. It's completely optional. I also don't see anyone pressuring others to join. --Fang Aili ^talk 13:29, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I would refer again to the list of editors above who have used the category. There is another at the current recal request where that one endorsement looks very lonely. Does this mean that Bunchofgrapes is not a representative admin, that there is no one who disapproves of his actions? Or is it perhaps the predictions of a rush at the gates has no data points? - brenneman ^{L} 14:32, 22 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 18:17, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Tokimeki Memorial characters. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:03, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 21:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. SatyrTN 02:15, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• rename per nom. Piccadilly 23:15, 17 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 as recreation [4] --Kbdank71 18:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Automotive Companies (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• duplicates Category:Motor vehicle companies. GraemeLeggett 15:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_July_19#Category:Automotive_companies_to_Category:Motor_vehicle_industry. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • However Category:Automotive companies should be a category redirect to Category:Motor vehicle companies. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Motor vehicles clearly states that automobiles is a sub category of motor vehicles. Why do we have to up merge all of these? Category:Motor vehicle companies has 177 entries, clearly some some sub cats are in order. If kept, rename to Category:Automotive companies Vegaswikian 21:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per ProveIt. Also note that we have Category:Car manufacturers inside Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers. Ian3055 23:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Automotive Companies is an intuitive and logic search term deriving from Companies, which is clearly a main one in its own right. It is still empty because it has been created just yesterday. Beautifulswitzerland 07:42, 15 August 2006 (CET)
• Speedy delete as recreation of deleted/renamed content. We had this discussion. --Dhartung | Talk 06:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Category:Automotive Companies records 16800 searches on Google and motor vehicle companies 6270. The intuitive term is Automotive Companies. Childsplay 09:15, 15 August 2006 (CET)
  • If you are American maybe, but not everyone is. Chicheley 19:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Automotive Companies" is a much more obvious term than "Motor vehichle manufacturers". Also, do not just delete, before an agreement has been reached, otherwise you might want to delete "alcohol companies" and put it under "beverages", and so on.Sunsetexpress 14:00, 15 August 2006 (CET)
• Rename to Category:Automotive companies, which should become a subcat of Category:Motor vehicle companies. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, this category was obviously made by someone not familiar with the category structure we have in place. Agree with Vegaswikian that subcats are needed here, but this is not the one we need. Whether you prefer "automotive" to "motor vehicle" or not, keeping this category is not the solution (I think people are arguing in support of renaming Category:Motor vehicle companies to Category:Automotive companies, but that isn't the issue here). Recury 17:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not. I just want all significant types of motor vehicles to have a sub cat. They all need to be treated the same. Vegaswikian 07:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• STRONG KEEP: Automotive Companies are major players, and should not be put on a secondary role as a subcategory without then being consistent and in this case "demoting" items like "Coin manufacturers" and "Aluminium companies" under a "Metal Companies" category Sunsetexpress.
• Ultra strong delete Confusing US-centric duplicate. Chicheley 19:01, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a car or automobile is a type of motor vehicle how can this be confusing. Trucks and buses are also motor vehicles. If some parts of the word equate motor vehicle to a car then that difference needs to be addressed. Combining into motor vehicles is not how to do this. A note in the motor vehicle category explaining this difference in usage and pointing to the correct subcategory seems to be the most logical. This does not force a wrong definition onto anyone. Vegaswikian 22:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ULTRA STRONG KEEP: "Automotive Companies" is how we understand this category in this part of the world (please note the CET (Central European Time) marker from the supposedly "US Centric" contributor. A universally valid nomencalure is important, however way it should be resolved, "Motor Vehicle" is not the logical path for automotive for all people, Automotive (from the latin derivation "Auto-Mobile" is an industry in its own right.Beautifulswitzerland 08:05, 17 August 2006 (CET)

I don't believe you're supposed to vote twice. GraemeLeggett 08:43, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See also [5]. Please only use one account for voting and please only sign with your own name - use ~~~~. Thanks, Ben Aveling 04:47, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• KEEP: Automotive Companies is a universal and obvious, non-US Centric, term (only to the british, but not to other non-native English speakers. Carslover.07:37, 18 August 2006 (CET)
• Speedy delete as a recreation of a renamed category and a duplicate. Cloachland 02:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Duplicate of what? Motor vehicle means cars, buses, trucks, motorcycles and more. Vegaswikian 20:17, 20 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge into Category:Motor vehicle manufacturers. Regards, Ben Aveling 04:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Arguments on this CFD indicate that a) people confuse "automotive" with "automobile" (including Americans), and b) people can't agree what "automobile" means (including Americans). There's clearly some scope for clarity to be increased. Alai 07:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  Last I checked, all entries in the cat were motor vehicle manufacturers, despite the name suggesting something more general, more along the lines of Motor vehicle companies. Mostly these companies manufacture cars, as far as I know, but not entirely. So Category:car manufacturers would be too specific but Category:automotive companies too general. IMHO, of course. Regards, Ben Aveling 07:42, 21 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 17:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sole member is an article about an online running club. Do not merge with Category:Internet history. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:38, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow 15:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a virtually empty category that is already covered. Themindset 17:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and I'm gonna flag that article for its grandiose claims. --Dhartung | Talk 06:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nom. —dima ^/sb.tk/ 21:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SatyrTN 02:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• reverse merge to History of the Internet although there is no naming convention that I could find, I prefer History of.... Tim! 17:42, 16 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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, list has been removed and cat populated --Kbdank71 17:56, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This would probably work better as a list. The description lists dozens of members, but the actual category only contains one. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:23, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to article or delete. David Kernow 15:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to article, tag for verification. --M@rēino 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but Revise I consider this a legitimate category as much as "Best Actor Academy Award Winners", "Hollywood Walk of Fame", "Grammy Winners", and dozens of other such categories. I admit it was perhaps set up wrong but I did not know how to set it up otherwise and distingush between current members, deceased members, and former members which I feel is important. If anyone can move the names properly inside the actual category and can seperate the three groups, be my guest. -- User:Teeb

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 regarding 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 17:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Articles not used by Wikipedia:WikiProject Shark. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete; associated template on category page is a redlink. David Kernow 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Seems to be pointless. Osomec 19:05, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as above. Hawkestone 10:56, 18 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:42, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Non-fictional British literature→Category:British non-fiction literature
Category:Non-fictional French literature→Category:French non-fiction literature
Category:Non-fictional Greek literature→Category:Greek non-fiction literature
Category:Non-fictional Irish literature→Category:Irish non-fiction literature
Category:Non-fictional Portuguese literature→Category:Portuguese non-fiction literature
Category:Non-fictional Spanish literature→Category:Spanish non-fiction literature
Category:Non-fictional Swedish literature→Category:Swedish non-fiction literature

This proposal is twofold:

1. To create a parent category, Category:Non-fiction literature, which would fall under Category:Non-fiction. Category:Non-fiction books, Category:Essays, etc. would be its children.
2. Some of the sub-cats of Category:Non-fiction books use non-fictional [country] literature and some use non-fictional [country] books. The term most widely used and preferred, in real life and (I think) within Wikipedia, is Category:Non-fiction literature and Category:Non-fiction books. I propose the changes above, and a note on naming conventions to promote the use of this phrasing. For past discussion, see "Fiction" vs "fictional" discussion and WP naming conventions for books. Respectfully submitted, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Landolitan 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. David Kernow 15:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom, very sensible changes. Themindset 16:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. feydey 19:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Osomec 19:04, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ??? I don't understand the suggestion; are you really proposing to make Category:Non-fiction books into a subcategory of Category:Non-fiction literature? What happens to non-literary books such as computer manuals? Where would you put A Million Random Digits with 100,000 Normal Deviates? I see the point of reorganizing the old categories but I suggest a more extensive discussion on an appropriate talk page to figure out the best new arrangement, before doing this move. Phr (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per LA (below), "literature" just means something written; it doesn't mean "socially important written works of art", or "books one reads for pleasure or entertainment", or any other popular qualifying conception. I would put the computer manuals and the other title you mentioned under non-fiction books, which are [written] non-fiction literature, as distinguished from other forms of non-fiction, i.e. documentary films, essays, etc.
  • And I did instigate a discussion on the talk page and gave a heads-up to the Books WikiProject before I brought it here for continued debate, which I'm glad to see is progressing. Cheers, ♥ Her Pegship♥ 15:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Phr...know that all that is written is literature, fiction and non-fiction. Have you ever heard anyone ask for literature on a company or product? I have even asked to have literature sent to me about a product once, and actually used the word literature. - LA @ 09:09, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Are you seriously saying that a book consisting completely of random digits is "literature"? I understand the idea of literary nonfiction and I thought that's what this category was supposed to be about. If it's supposed to include nonliterary stuff like mathematical tables, I oppose the restructuring. If I meet someone who says she's a literature major I generally wouldn't interpret that as meaning she studies product brochures or tables of random numbers. For Wikipedia category purposes, literature is what literature majors study. Phr (talk) 09:26, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, that's what I'm saying. It's a book containing statistical data, used (presumably) by mathematicians in their research, therefore scientific literature. When you say, "For Wikipedia category purposes, literature is what literature majors study", I think you are in the minority. It serves WP users better if we implement "literature" in its broader sense, with additional articles/categories for types of literature (see Literature#Introduction for a discussion of this very issue).♥ Her Pegship♥ 18:28, 19 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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/merge to Category:Municipalities of Seville --Kbdank71 17:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Municipalities in Sevilla to Category:Municipalities of Sevilla

• Nominated for speedy rename by User:Asterion, but not valid. the wub "?!" 13:36, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Landolitan 15:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Category:Municipalities of Seville, which is what the proposal was when I originally voted. Landolitan 10:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom (plus "Sevilla" → "Seville"...?)  David Kernow 15:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• OK, now I'm really confused. This was listed in the speedy section as a rename to Category:Municipalities of Seville by Asterion. I moved it from speedy after seeing that it was in Category:Municipalities in Spain and checking WP:NCCAT#State-based topics which seems to explicitly exclude such moves for Spanish categories, as well as the fact it was changing Sevilla to Seville. But when I checked the tag on the category itself was for a speedy rename to Category:Municipalities of Sevilla. It turns out the tag was actually placed on 4 August by User:Tim!, who also tagged Category:Municipalities in Spain and its subcategories, but didn't list them. the wub "?!" 16:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • They were nominated for speedy renaming and later moved to the discussions for August 8 after a comment from a user. There are now two open discussions regarding the category. Situations like these are the reason I started this conversation. - EurekaLott 18:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I did list them but due to the objection to 1 element, the whole nomination was listed as a full cfr. Tim! 18:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rebame using Seville, which is the English name. Hawkestone 18:25, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Municipalities of Seville. Subdivisions, which is what these are take the "of" form. Chicheley 22:12, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Municipalities of Seville per the convention. Carina22 17:31, 17 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 17:35, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:People of San Antonio

• Delete - category has already been emptied (by someone else, I might add) and all entries put in Category:People from San Antonio, whose title better conforms to the standard phrasing. Badbilltucker 14:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not much to debate here. Themindset 16:56, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, I put this in as a speedy rename (one of two US cities using the "of" construction), it must not have been properly completed. --Dhartung | Talk 06:43, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Hasn't it been deleted already? The link is red for me. Piccadilly 23:16, 17 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 as vandalism. Kimchi.sg 08:06, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Mexican Awards is listed for deletion as a hoax. All of the articles created by the creator of this category are either speedied or listed at AfD as hoaxes. There is no evidence that the awards this category supposedly recognizes actually exist. User:Zoe|(talk) 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Totally fails verification. Alleged winners look pretty much like the Oscars/Golden Globes winners except for the hoax in the middle. You'd think a real such award would notice Mexican films. Fan-1967 04:45, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete, part of total hoax campaign by Homie 01. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a hoax. --Cswrye 05:58, 14 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cat is poorly named; description is "List of colombian real people portrayed in films". We don't and shouldn't have categories containing people that have been portrayed in films, so it should be deleted (or at least renamed). --musicpvm 02:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete... so someone has portrayed some Colombians in films. Not a very useful function for a category, and poorly named to boot. --Kinu ^t/_c 05:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a poor category. --Cswrye 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 08:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per musicpvm. Mike Christie 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Kinu. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as a poorly named catergory, as well as a very bad precedent. Themindset 16:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. SatyrTN 02:20, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator, couldn't have said it better. Can't sleep, clown will eat me 08:33, 19 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 17:32, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles not related to sociology (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• I believe this is an attempt to clean up Category:Sociology, but creating categories like this isn't the best way to go about it. Delete. - EurekaLott 02:43, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't usually vote on such things, but this category name makes me giggle. I mean, would this category almost by necessity become larger than Category:Living people? So, um, delete amusingly-named category. --Hamiltonian 03:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Funny funny. Delete. Dekimasu 03:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• WP:DAFT and delete. BL Lacertae - kiss the lizard 04:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --Cswrye 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 08:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per EurekaLott. Mike Christie 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as an inherently insane category. Themindset 16:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not quite thought through here. Tyrenius 18:46, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete But first list at WP:BJAODN! This is such a funny category I can't help but smile! --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:40, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sincere but misguided. This is what WikiProjects are for. --Dhartung | Talk 06:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Jayjg ^(talk) 21:34, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Listed at WP:DAFT, oh and delete Eluchil404 03:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dugwiki 17:26, 16 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 17:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Celebrities with Myspace accounts
• Category:Music celebrities with Myspace accounts
• Category:Pornography celebrities with Myspace accounts
• Category:Fictional characters with official Myspace accounts
• Category:Communities and projects with Myspace accounts

A similar category was deleted not too long ago. These are definitely not a good idea. Every celebritiy seems to have a MySpace account these days (and it is often difficult to verify if they are authentic or not). It is also in no way a notable characteristic and is category clutter. --musicpvm 02:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I found the previous discussion: Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 30#Category:Famous members of MySpace.com, an overwhelming consensus to delete. --musicpvm 02:21, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are too many people per category to warrant a delete. 63.23.21.155 02:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Category:People with a brain would be even larger, but it wouldn't deserve to survive. Casper Claiborne 08:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Wouldn't those categories be disjoint? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Having a MySpace account is fairly trivial to have a category (except maybe for individuals whose sole notability is their relationship to MySpace). --Cswrye 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is trivia. Casper Claiborne 08:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, per nominator. Also, if anyone could tell Alan Parsons to stop asking me to be his myspace friend every month, I'd appreciate it. -/- Warren 08:35, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per musicpvm. Mike Christie 11:53, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 14:51, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Deletel all myspace categories on the principle that it is both unmanageable, and definitely not encyclopedic. Themindset 17:05, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all, you missed one: Category:Communities and projects with Myspace accounts Crumbsucker 17:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks, I'll add it to the list. --musicpvm 18:24, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. It is far outside of our competence to monitor the legitimacy of myspace.com. Myspace.com can maintain those lists, and if it does, we'll refer to them in the external links section of the MySpace page. --M@rēino 18:41, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all unmaintainable. feydey 19:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all This is myspace's concern, not Wikipedia's. Chicheley 22:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Trivial, unmaintainable. If a person has a MySpace page that can be verified as actually being their real, official MySpace page, then list it among the external links in their article. No further attention is necessary or desirable. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:51, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I saw this category on an article and opened the cat so I could nominate it for deletion. Glad to see someone beat me to it. Begone! Delete all. --kingboyk 23:33, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all per nom. And Warren, get Alan to contact me - he owes me money. SatyrTN 02:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all. This is pointlessly trivial. KleenupKrew 03:14, 19 August 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 17:18, 22 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Spoiled fictional characters (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, subjective categorization. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of fictional spoiled brats. —tregoweth (talk) 00:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Dekimasu 03:50, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Too subjective for categorization. --Cswrye 05:58, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - as per nom. Badbilltucker 13:59, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete subjective, unmanageable, unrealistic, deluded, hopeless, and kinda sad. Themindset 17:18, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Lacks signifant demarcation. Tyrenius 18:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Tregoweth. The article wasn't deleted because it was better suited to be a category, it was deleted because it didn't belong on Wikipedia at all. --Icarus ^(Hi!) 04:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Landolitan 10:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Too subjective. Dugwiki 17:28, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. KleenupKrew 03:13, 19 August 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.