< February 20	February 22 >

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

The result of the debate was Rename. -- TexasAndroid 14:32, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original name may be ambiguous to some. Does the category refer to people who converted into Islam or out of Islam? The new name would remove that ambiguity. joturner 23:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as nominator. joturner 23:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity. Her Pegship 23:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename assuming of course that is the meaning it is supposed to imply --T-rex 17:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- the category includes a reference to List of converts to Islam so that's very likely what it means. --David.alex.lamb 17:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. --Saforrest 23:32, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename for clarity. --James 00:20, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with above, but it might be a good idea for somebody to examine each member of the category, and see if any of them are included by accident due to the ambiguity (Muslims who converted to Christianity, for example). — Feb. 27, '06 [03:15] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

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

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

The result of the debate was speedily rename the category and speedily move the templates to the proper capitalization as well, keeping the lowercase names as redirects, so as not to break existing uses. — Feb. 27, '06 [03:19] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

The 'B' should be capitalized. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 05:25, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after discussion. Vegaswikian 23:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• That's fine, but then it seems like all the Musicbrainz templates ought to be renamed to MusicBrainz. – Doug Bell ^{talk•contrib} 06:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete, empty --Kbdank71 15:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

capitalization Bryan 08:50, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
{capitalization) ~ Jeff Q (talk) 05:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved both for the same change from speedy (at least they look the same to my eyes.) Vegaswikian 23:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• uh-oh - I'm seeing double! Is there any reason this category exists? We don't split any other categories by male and female. Most of the characters in this should go into Category:Superheroes - and since this is a subcategory of Category:Fictional characters by occupation, perhaps i's worth pointing out that heroine isn't an occupation anyway. Grutness...wha? 07:03, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• The original category was created as an easy way to concetrate articles on female characters. As for splitting categories by male and female, I assume you are not familiar with Category:Women and its subcategories? Anyway the category:Fictional Heroines has already been emptied. User:Dimadick
• Rename as per nom and strike another blow against the absurdity of ignoring gender in categorisation. CalJW 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; we don't have Category:Heroes as a parent for anything, so there is no existing structure or reason to group together the heroic (whatever that means...all fictional protagonists?), whether or not divided by gender. Or was this meant to be "Fictional superheroines"? Postdlf 22:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Rename -- xaosflux ^Talk/_CVU 01:47, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Tel Aviv University is the correct name of the institution [1] and Tel Aviv is the correct name of the city [2]. The articles have already been fixed. gidonb 22:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nomination gidonb 22:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nomination. joturner 00:02, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename -- Longhair 01:23, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename if that's the correct name. --James 00:19, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge as nominated. -- TexasAndroid 14:29, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Full-size cars" is a subcatagory in Category:Car classifications and currently only has 2 articles listed in it. "Full-size vehicles" is a subcatagory of Category:Automobiles and has the full majority of full-size car articles with 57 listed. This renders the "Full-size cars" subcatagory useless and it should be merged/replaced with "Full-size vehicles" in its place to have just one list of all full-size vehicles. Thank you. (Bobo is soft 22:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC))[reply]

• REVERSE MERGE, article sits at Full-size car, and the correct term is "Full-Size Car" 132.205.44.134 23:44, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge. I was the one who created the full-size car category and I didn't realize that there already was a category for full-size vehicles. --ApolloBoy 06:56, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was merge into Category:Linguistics lists. -- TexasAndroid 14:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"List of languages" is under the same category (Languages) as "language lists." They appear to be the same thing, and the wording "Language lists" doesn't really clarify that it is about linguistics (ie - irregular verbs), not actual languages. It is very confusing, and might be miscatagorized as well. Esprit15d 21:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Comment There's already Category:Linguistics lists, which'd seem to be a more reasonable target for the rename/merge (as the lists aren't linguistic, they're lists about linguistics, and most other similar lists categories are Foo lists or Foo-related lists). Mairi 02:42, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds good to me.--Esprit15d 14:49, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 14:17, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Tally was 7 Keep, 7 delete, with none discounted.)

Divisive category created yesterday, intended to marshall committed anti-deletionists in userbox dispute. See DRV on User:Cjmarsicano/UDUIW and IfD on Image:Uduiw.jpg at Wikipedia:Images and media for deletion/2006 February 21. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 20:21, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Postscript - following Cjmarsicano's comment, I checked the deletion log, which shows that the page was deleted by User:Zoe yesterday. --- Charles Stewart^(talk) 22:46, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. I fall into this category, but I do think it's divisive. Can't we all just get along? Her Pegship 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep. Mr. Stewart's objections against this organization are unfounded. So is the alleged date of creation, as this organization has existed for at least two months and is one of the most pro-Wikipedia around. Shame on you for even nominating this group for deletion. --Cjmarsicano 21:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep. This category or semi-organization was created in protest to the lack of sociocratic or census driven action on Wiki and the fact that those with other ideas where being overlooked. Until this problem ceases, we need to demonstrate large support of Userboxes so the Admins can reconsider their cabal-like actions. Until such a time, these categories are needed. Canadianism 22:04, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Very strong keep This is a legitamate group. This group is in peaceful protest of current policy and is not inflammitory. If you delete this category, you should also delete ones such as this: Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD. Shell <e> 23:20, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, vote stacking tool. No encyclopedic purpose. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I am listed as a memeber of this group and have never been asked to vote on anything as a result of adding my name --T-rex 17:41, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per MarkSweep CalJW 23:54, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, divisive. --cesarb 00:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Isn't it hilarious where non-democratic efforts to prevent divisiveness on Wikipedia lead? Frankly I didn't think division existed until as of late. If you block this group, you're only going to enrage them still further. I also find it interesting that Template:User trusts Jimbo/Category:Wikipedians who trust Jimbo haven't been targetted yet. Sarge Baldy 04:06, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Approved factionalism? --Kbdank71 14:59, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. m:factionalism. Anything that pits Wikipedians against other Wikipedians (i.e. an ADW userbox) should go. Same goes for categories. It's harder to argue political/ideological userboxes or categories are factionalist, because they also serve to identify a POV (however lame this excuse may be). Factionalist userboxes exist only to create factions -- that's that. A more appropriate (if still doubtfully valid) category might be Category:Users who do not endorse the CSD T1 criterion, because that's an ideology, not a faction. Johnleemk | Talk 13:40, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as silly. Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters 19:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I never recieved any invintations to go on a vote stacking parade. I feel so left out. This is utter rubbish.--God of War 21:22, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• To further back up G.O.W.'s claim, neither myself nor DotShell, as founders of the group, ever participated in or encouraged vote stacking. Cjmarsicano 21:30, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I honestly don't believe that this group is "divisive". Besides, isn't the line between divisive and being 'not divisive' extremely hard to define? Can we say that anything that is upsetting to a single member is divisive? If so, then I have a problem with those Mac OS users! LOL --Adam Clark^{(User_Talk) (email)} 22:41, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Watch it, dude, I use an Apple Powerbook! ;) Cjmarsicano 18:55, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep a good group protecting wikipedia, (and why do people use Mac OS?) --T-rex 05:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep pending policy resolution that restricts userbox categories. For now, there is no harm in allowing the category to remain. --Blu Aardvark | ^{(talk) | (contribs)} 07:53, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensous. - TexasAndroid 14:08, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(Tally was 8 Keep/Oppose, 5 rename, with none discounted.)

As per the discussion at Category talk:Murderers, the category name is potentially POV. Where there is some controversy over the conviction, there have been some edits to unconvict some individuals - for example through this edit to Max Stuart which was discussed at Talk:Max Stuart. In the case of Stuart, the doubt about Stuart's guilt was dealt with in in appeals and a Royal Commission; his verdict was upheld, he was never pardoned or acquitted. The descriptor for the Category:Australian murderers is "Australians who have been convicted of murder." It has been suggested that the category name be Category:Convicted murderers and Category:Australian convicted murderers. Further, it has been suggested (and I endorse) that the renaming should be applied to all the categories in Category:Criminals (which should itself be Category:Convicted criminals). If someone has not been convicted, they might go in a category for people who have been charged and awaiting trial. All the others should be dropped from the category.--A Y Arktos 20:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename because not everyone necessarily agrees with the judgement of the courts. Though I think a better renaming would be :Category:People accused of murder Category:People convicted of murder or Category:Murder convictions because calling a person a "convicted murderer" sounds like the person is still being called a murderer which makes it difficult in cases where the verdict is disputed. Q0 20:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All effected categories need to be tagged for the rename, and you really should list out the specific categories here so that people can see just what is being proposed to change into what. - TexasAndroid

Response to suggestion for widescale tagging - I have tagged the following for the category name to be qualified with "convicted": Category:Criminals of Western Australia, Category:Australian criminals, Category:Australian murderers and Category:Murderers. I have alerted potentially interested editors to the debate through Talk:Crime, Category talk:Murderers, Talk:Murder, Category talk:Criminals, Wikipedia:Australian Wikipedians' notice board, Category talk:Australian criminals and Category talk:Australian murderers. While I suspect that the renaming should apply to countries other than Australia, I really do not understand enough about convictions, appeals, acquittals, pardons ... in those countries and therefore will leave it for others to nominate. The same processes probably apply to other Commonwealth countries, but I will not presume.--A Y Arktos 21:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have also tagged for rename Category:Australian mass murderers and Category:Australian serial killers--A Y Arktos 21:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Please don't delete the category, Category:Murderers. You can't put people like Russell Eugene Weston Jr. in Category:Convicted murderers, because he was declared incompetent to stand trial due to mental illness. And what about Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold who committed murder-suicide and were never convicted? And, what about people arrested and charged for murder, but yet to stand trial (thus not yet convicted)? Where would you put Dennis Rader, from the time he was arrested last February to last June when he plead guilty? I think we need a broad category like Category:Murderers to fit these various individuals (of course, all my examples are under the subcategory, Category:American murderers). We could always have another subcategory, such as Category:Disputed murderers. --Aude (talk | contribs) 22:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response - probably we need additional categories which make it clear what label we are applying - if somebody has not been convicted, for whatever reason, are we quite sure that the label is verifiable? I would rather refinement of categories. Obviously someone who has not been tried should not be labelled a convicted murderer. Would we then have a category Category:People alleged to have committed murder?--A Y Arktos 22:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Don't overlook the Prisoners on remand category I use for people who have been arrested, charged, but not convicted of serious crimes. The category is well under used. Probably the most notable person currently on remand (if indeed Iraq calls it that), Saddam Hussein, is categorised there, and nobody blinked an eyelid when I addded him. -- Longhair 22:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

People who aren't convicted of murder should not be categorised as murderers. Also, people who are convicted should not be categorised as murderers. Otherwise, we are stating that they did it, and that is not verifiable. It is also POV. For those who were never convicted because they were unfit for trial should be categorised into something different. Maybe there should be a main category called Category:Murder (which is already there), and in that we can have Category:People convicted of murder, Category:People suspected of murder (someone could probably come up with less POV wording for that) etc. That way we can cover all avenues, and have as little POV as possible. --liquidGhoul 08:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename people are innocent until proven guilty. wikipedia is just asking to be sued for libel by putting someone in Category:Murderers without them being convicted (same goes for criminals or any other crimes). Even where there a case where a decision is being appealed/disputed etc. its at least verifiable that a person has been convicted of whatever crime -- Astrokey44|talk 23:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, do not move. The current name is good. Many of the criminals by country categories already have convicted by an independent judiciary as a criterion. However, especially murderers at times get killed or commit suicide while murdering. These persons may still be filed, if the official inquiry concludes they murdered. Other countries may not have independent judiciaries. I believe that the criteria may be decided on a country by country basis, otherwise this very useful category may get undermined. Also we sometimes need to include historical research, people who confessed on their deathbeds etc. While I agree with the intentions of the nominators some flexibility is needed. Renaming kills that flexibility. gidonb 23:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose Proposed name is based on current legalistic attitudes. Formal conviction hasn't always been a routine part of life and many known murderers died before convition or otherwise got away with it. CalJW 23:57, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

as per above, there could still be a category for alleged murderers, but the distinction of conviction or otherwise is important - at least to Australians - perhaps there are some cultural issues and hence I did not suggest the rename for criminals of other countries.--A Y Arktos 00:00, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename Coming fresh into the debate, I would have thought the primary categorisation should be true crime(s) with as many sub-categories as necessary to distinguish between different crimes, e.g. notorious bank robbers, fraudsters, murderers, etc. Within the broad category, there could also be a sub-category dealing with appeals against conviction which could be added as a parallel category in those cases where the individual was convicted and then appealed (whether successfully or not). However, all those above who require a conviction as a precondition of entry are correct. The presumption of innocence stands until conviction. Thereafter, the person is a criminal unless and until a competent court of appeal declares otherwise or there is a pardon by the head of state or some other authorised person. David91 03:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep; a standard of requiring formal legal conviction is unworkable any category where the people involved were rarely convicted (or where they were convicted of a different crime). Consider, for example, things like Category:Assassins, Category:Spies, or Category:Outlaws. —Kirill Lokshin 04:07, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. There is at least one current category of murderers that do not get in here under this scheme: Category:Murder-suicide. As far as I know, there's no post-suicide trial to "authenticate" that the murderer did it. Also, presumably, those murderers killed by police are unlikely to undergo trial. I favor the current naming, but am not too strong-willed about it.--Mike Selinker 15:52, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. More information is better than less in these circumstances, especially when living people are involved. The great thing about categories is you don't need to express all the information in a single category. While not everyone can fit into Category:Convicted murderers, there is always Category:Prisoners on remand, and perhaps also, Category:People charged with murder. --bainer (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• In response to the specific examples above, although Russell Eugene Weston Jr. was declared unfit to stand trial, the charges against him are still current, thus he can be tagged with both Category:People awaiting trial for murder or perhaps Category:People charged with murder and Category:People declared unfit to stand trial. This accurately explains the situation. --bainer (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For the example of Dennis Rader, from the time between when he was arrested to when he pled guilty, he would be in Category:Prisoners on remand or Category:People charged with murder. --bainer (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• For the example of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, I'm sure there was some kind of investigation into the shooting which must have reached a conclusion of some kind, although I apologise, I can't seem to find anything right now. From what I have seen, it appears that the conclusion of the relevant agencies was that the shootings were a murder-suicide, in which case that would indeed be the appropriate category. --bainer (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another irk, somwhat related, is the category Disputed convictions. It's a grey area, as the category seems to be used to categorise those appealing their sentence, and also those for who the wiki community knows are convicted, but for reasons unknown, shouldn't be. I often remove articles from this category where the subject of the article is clearly convicted, and only allow articles to remain if it's certain the conviction is under appeal.

One example I can think of off the top of my head is Schapelle Corby, who has exhausted all legal appeal avenues, yet continously finds herself categorised as a disputed conviction over and over again. I think overall, the naming of this category in particular is incorrectly leading editors to believe they can categorise people all they like within this category, subject to their own POV. -- Longhair 08:25, 23 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. If there is issue about whether they are convicted or not, slap a tag on the category stating "These are alleged and convicted murderers." --Kbdank71 14:54, 24 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Difference between a murder who is convicted or not. --James 00:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Question about the last vote: could you please clarify what you mean - is it "do not rename but only place people in this category who are convicted murders?" If that is the case - why not the rename. If that is not the case, how do you manage to include alleged murders. What is the criterion for allegation? --A Y Arktos 19:56, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This proposal would make legal conviction the sole arbiter of whether or not someone is a "murderer". This is not appropriate. Here's some reasons:

1. As stated above, people may be widely recognised as being murderers yet die or disappear before being brought to trial. e.g. murder-suicides. If someone is universally recognised as being a "murderer", then we may neutrally apply the tag regardless of whether a conviction is obtained.
2. Wikipedia is international, so there are many relevant legal systems, some of which may lack neutrality. If the leader of a rogue state finds the leader of his opposition guilty of murder in a kangaroo court, do we then label that person a "murderer"? I hope not. To place an article on such a person in any category that contains the label "murderer", whether qualified with "convicted" or not, would be giving credence to a legal system that doesn't merit it.
3. People may be convicted of murder yet doubts remain or surface later.
   • Example one: an illegal practitioner of abortion or euthanasia may be convicted of murder, yet the tag "murderer" may be heavily disputed. To place an article on such a person in any category that contains the term "murderer", whether qualified with "convicted" or not, would be taking sides.
   • Example two: Debate still rages over whether Breaker Morant was really a murderer. To place the article in any category that contains the term "murderer", whether qualified with "convicted" or not, would be taking sides.
   • Example three: the indigenous Australian Midgegooroo was convicted of murder, but it is now widely recognised that his actions were only murder from the white settlers' point of view; from the indigenous point of view his actions constituted retribution under tribal law. To categorise him as a murderer or even a convicted murderer would impose a single cultural viewpoint on the situation.

Snottygobble 01:56, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was deleted rather quickly as a bad joke. — Feb. 22, '06 [05:12] <freakofnur_xture|talk>

This category does not seem appropriate for Wikipedia. Also, it is a matter of opinion whether or not a category qualifies as being too broad, which would make it hard to follow the NPOV policy. I vote to delete the category. I am an inclusionist and this is the first delete vote I have given on Wikipedia. Q0 19:26, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Was holding off nominating this myself until I got a response from the creator, but I generally agree. If a category is indeed too broad, then it should come here from deletion debate, not be tossed into a limbo of another category. - TexasAndroid 20:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Q0. Her Pegship 20:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete If categories are too broad to make accurate or comprehensive they should be posted here for rename or deletion. This category would be empty if the categories listed were deleted here. If they are not deleted, they don't belong in the category. Either way the category will be empty. Therefore there is no logical reason for keeping the category. -- Samuel Wantman 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Samuel Wantman CalJW 23:58, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sounds like a parody on what we are doing. Good as a parody. Not as a category. gidonb 23:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was defer -- TexasAndroid 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is tagged for CFD but I didn't see it listed here. Currently there are only two articles left, which could be taken care of and then re-tagged for expansion or references or whatever's left. -- Beland 15:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Defer - This category is attached to a template. Normal procedure for such attached categories is to put the template up for TFD, and let the fate of the template decide the fate of the category. Some templates can exist without their attached category. However, I beleive the template here relies on the category for it's function. So, put it all together, and I suggest that the template be taken to TFD if the original submitter still beleives that this should be removed. - TexasAndroid 14:55, 1 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 03:59, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Capitalization: duplicates Arabic language. Speediable? JonHarder 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 17:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A grouping of stub subcategories (it only has 2 at the moment), with no corresponding stub type so it's not at WP:SFD. Adds nothing to Category:Film stubs, moving the subcategories here would just hide them from view. Bobet 14:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Currently there is Category:Film Genre stubs and Category:Film genre stub categories, which is confusing. I vote we delete Category:Film genre stub categories per Bobet and rename Category:Film Genre stubs (with lowercase "g"). Cheers, Her Pegship 16:33, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on this, I listed Category:Film Genre stubs for renaming at WP:SFD, since it's a stub category and only populated through the stub template. - Bobet 17:02, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Seems profoundly confused as to whether it's part of the stub categorisation system, or not. Alai 17:31, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment This is actually being discussed at WP:SFD. Circeus 18:42, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete -- TexasAndroid 16:24, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Templates it was created for were deleted. (I am creator).Ac1983fan 14:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

• Speedy delete, csd c3, tagged. - Bobet 14:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Speedy delete -- TexasAndroid 16:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The category appears to be original research; "ultra-scientist" appears to be a neologism and in fact Ultra scientist is just a renaming of Super-scientist, another neologism. Antaeus Feldspar 04:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it is a renaming in an attempt to find a term more acceptable than the original. I thought it was just the term someone didn't like -- I didn't understand until your message that some people might not want any form of this category. I don't consider it original research -- to me it looked like a straightforward category, just like Category:Mad scientists. For both, it just requires someone familiar with the material to decide if the scientist is ordinary, mad, evil, or far beyond his/her contemporaries. If someone does delete it, do I need to go back through the ultra scientists and edit their category back to fictional scientists? --David.alex.lamb 04:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the difference is that while people may question whether a particular scientist meets the commonly understood description of a "mad scientist", if you ask people whether a scientist is an "ultra scientist", they first have to ask "well, what is an 'ultra scientist'?" because that's not a term that's already in general use like "mad scientist" is. As useful a term as "ultra scientist" might be, Wikipedia has to disallow neologisms or otherwise people would be inventing all the new words they could for "people of such-and-such political party who suck", et cetera, and the POV-pushing would never stop. -- Antaeus Feldspar 14:42, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That makes sense. I'll revert the classifications as I have time -- possibly this evening, but more likely tomorrow. If I can think of an appropriate name for the other kind of scientist (those who are compatible with their own time, instead of way ahead of it), might that be allowed? This would be people like Susan Calvin and Samantha Carter and many of Gregory Benford's characters. --David.alex.lamb 01:28, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was Duplicate. Already being worked on by bot, and now gone. -- TexasAndroid 20:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Cleared out everything and moved to Category:Sports in Oregon per template at top. Isn't there some form of speedy deletion for categories? Kind of pointless to have to go through this for an obvious delete. VegaDark 02:18, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You should leave these alone. The bots are going through and switching everything over from "(X) sports" to "Sports in (X)". You just happened to show up on the day they were halfway done. It'll likely all be done in a day or two.--Mike Selinker 05:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename -- TexasAndroid 17:44, 28 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Similar to recently changed Category:MLS Drafts, I'm suggesting changing capitalization, abbreviations, and removing "Individual".--Mike Selinker 01:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• support this could go speedy, couldn t it Mayumashu 02:08, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support good change, FloNight ^talk 04:24, 26 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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