< October 11 October 13 >

October 12

Category:Furry comics

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: merge. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Furry comics to Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters
Nominator's rationale: Merge. This is already a case of "Parent/Sub" categories. The difference seems to be a POV issue - what is and isn't a Furry comic seems to be a debatable point. J Greb (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Such a list would fail on NPOV and OR grounds due to the "as defined by fans" part. You could ask me, but that would be original research and a non-neutral point of view. RP9 (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The category is not "arbitrary" according to WP:OVERCAT. The subject in no way fails the Google test and is used to describe specific comics (see here, here, here, here and here). It defines a distinguished characteristic (not all anthropomorphic comics are furry comics). I can see where there would be a dispute about "anthropomorphic comics" because it is often used shorthand for "anthropomorphic animal comics" and thus is often used interchangeably with furry comics (see here and here). However, these types of issues should be dealt with on a per article basis, not just deleting the whole category. RP9 (talk) 03:47, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Looking at the links provided, the only one to provide a basis for a definition is the Yarf time line. And that one casts a mighty wide net - essentially most, if not all, of the contents of Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters meet the criteria it sets. - J Greb (talk) 10:50, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. Let me try to explain this in a different way. When talking about Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic characters, this essentially defines a theme of which the meaning can be inferred. If a comic was described as "a comic with animals that talk"-right there, I can infer without OR that such a comic could go in this category. However, furry comics are a genre and there is no definitive definition we can use. But we don't have to and shouldn't because like Rock music, Thriller films, Gothic fiction or basically any other genre, exactly what it is, is up to interpretation. So instead of us using some particular definition to decide what comics are indeed furry comics (which would be OR) we instead assume what ever the author or other respected source claims it to be, assuming that claim is not contentious. The links I've provided show that furry comics are not just something made up and that is does apply to specific comics. Exactly which ones it applies to needs to be dealt with on each article. RP9 (talk) 04:26, 16 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, once you step into a category like this - defined by the genre or an aspect of the story - the contents should give a clear indication of what else would be included. If we take the half step - Category:Comics featuring anthropomorphic animals as characters - the category itself is very clear. It would contain articles on comic strips and books that feature one or more characters that are, or are derived from, real animals and which show human qualities. All nice and neat. And nothing that needs to have a reference attached to justify inclusion in the category.
The criteria you put forward for the Furry subset of that category though does need a reference to be cited. I'm not arguing that "Furry comics" don't exist or that it is a just coined phrase. Far from it. The concern I'm raising is that it is a bit on the nebulous side for inclusion criteria - it requires either a self identification from the author and/or a "claiming" of a work by the Furry fan base. - J Greb (talk) 15:27, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly! *claps* ...a citation is needed. How is this any different from similar categories? It is actually not true that a category like Comics featuring anthropomorphic animals as characters is necessarily without needing a citation. It is just a convenience that it is describing a discrete plot detail. And a plot being a source on itself doesn't typically need a citation. For instance Category:People with bipolar disorder is "very clear" in its definition but would obviously require a citation, especially considering WP:BLP. However, Cyberpunk or specifically Category:Cyberpunk comics would need a citation while something like Category:Comics in a futuristic high tech setting with a low life plot may not. RP9 (talk) 16:56, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Before you go turning somersaults - 3 things:
  1. BLP categories are a very separate topic. BLP topics, guidelines, and policies tend to be much more stringent than others.
  2. Base line genre categories tend to eschew the citation since they are fairly well defined. Even the sub-genres tend to have solid definitions, be it Cyberpunk, Steampunk, Wuxia, or what have you.
  3. There is a difference between "Furry" and most other genres. I'm tempted to say it is unique in that a work needs a combination of self identification and fan base recognition, with the latter being more important, before it qualifies for the genre. And even then, if the fan base is split o a work, it may or may not be appropriate for the category depending on the editor and the cited refs used.
- J Greb (talk) 19:45, 18 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse the bipolar example. I thought it made for a good example because it is a case where a citation is almost always required. It was only to show that whether a category is "defined" or not can't be used as a rule of thumb for whether an article using it needs a citation.
Editors do not get to decide what a furry comic is. (or Cyberpunk, Steampunk, etc.) This is the gist of what I am saying. So how well "defined" one of us thinks a particular genre is, is basically not important. I wouldn't say anime was particularly well defined, but that is just my POV. The third point exemplifies this, your projecting an opinion about furry comics, and one that not everyone (including me :) ) would agree with. Which is why a citation is important. This would apply to "[b]ase line genre categories" too, because it would be OR either way.
Could you reiterate your rationale and explain a bit more? If POV is the problem, then this should be dealt with by adding sources to the respective articles. Indeed, if that is the issue deleting the category wouldn't help solve the issue on the articles in this category. RP9 (talk) 01:55, 19 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Deaths due to horse attacks

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. There's consensus to delete the category but not really with what to do with its one article (Philip of Burgundy, Count of Auvergne). However, the fate of the article does not need to be decided here before we delete the category. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:07, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Deaths due to horse attacks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant to Category:Deaths by horse-riding accident. Prezbo (talk) 19:55, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

NHL "Fram" teams

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete all. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:17, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Chicago BlackHawks Fram Team/Affiliates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. On top of the obvious spelling error, this category structure is redundant. Minor league affiliates are already placed in the parent team's category. i.e.: the Bridgeport Sound Tigers are already in Category:New York Islanders. No need for a separate sub cat at this time. See also some discussion on this at WP:HOCKEY.

Nominating the following:

Resolute 18:22, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Pashtun Taliban leaders

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:15, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pashtun Taliban leaders (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete. Redundant--as far as I know there are no Taliban leaders who aren't Pashtun. Prezbo (talk) 18:20, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if that is a fact, then merge. I'm not an expert. Debresser (talk) 17:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Republic of Texas ships

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:16, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: These categories are for ships and naval ships, respectively, of the Republic of Texas. Proposed renaming to match the main article on the country, and to help avoid confusion with Texas (the U.S. state) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:06, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support the rename per nomination. Karanacs (talk) 18:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Lepidoptera by U.S. state

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Upmerge all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:27, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Indiana to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America
Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Maryland to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America
Suggest merging Category:Lepidoptera of Michigan to Category:Butterflies and moths of North America
Nominator's rationale: Upmerge, OCAT. Species with wide distributions should not be categorized in such narrow subnational range categories. All of the contents of both have already been merged into List of butterflies and moths of Michigan, List of butterflies and moths of Indiana, and List of butterflies of Maryland (the Maryland Lepidoptera category does not include any moth species), which is the proper way to organize this information at this specific level. Postdlf (talk) 15:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:TheAudition albums

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:15, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:TheAudition albums to Category:The Audition (band) albums
Nominator's rationale: Rename to match corresponding article The Audition (band). -- KathrynLybarger (talk) 04:37, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename all. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:34, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming:
Nominator's rationale: Rename. To resolve names that are slightly confusing in their present form. The hyphens in "Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu" help, but "Brazilian Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners" (especially) is a bit jarring and I submit less clear than what I've proposed. Another possibility is Category:Brazilian-Jiu-Jitsu practitioners from the United States, etc. (See previous discussion (which I closed), which only involved the Brazilian nationality category. No one else has followed this up so I do so now.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:14, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Car bombings in the Chechen-Russian conflict

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Nominator withdrawal; category deleted as empty; see below. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:49, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Car bombings in the Chechen-Russian conflict to Category:Car bombings in the Chechen wars
Nominator's rationale: Rename. "Chechen wars" is usually used if we are referring collectively to the First Chechen War and the Second Chechen War, which together comprise the "Chechen–Russian conflict". Parent category is Category:Chechen wars. Good Ol’factory (talk) 03:08, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Zoos in Palestine

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Merge Category:Zoos in Palestine to Category:Zoos in the Palestinian territories. --Xdamrtalk 20:56, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Zoos in Palestine to Category:Zoos in the Palestinian territories
Nominator's rationale: Rename. It's usual to use "Palestinian territories" rather than "Palestine" for categories like this, unless we are either (a) referring to the pre-Israel land of Palestine, or (b) referring to Palestinian diplomatic relations, where many states treat it as a sovereign state, as in Category:Ambassadors of Palestine. Neither of these situations apply here. Renaming will match the naming format to the parent Category:Buildings and structures in the Palestinian territories. Good Ol’factory (talk) 02:41, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
n.b. For the same reason I have removed the category [[Category:Zoos per country|Palestine]]. Debresser (talk) 16:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, very good. BTW, it would be on the list, but under the "z" of "zoos". Debresser (talk) 17:25, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think he meant if we didn't include the parent category "Zoos by country" it wouldn't appear in that category at all. I agree that "Palestinian territories" categories should generally appear in by-country schemes, not for political reasons, but just out of convenience for category browsing. Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:02, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I understand your point, but would be reluctant to do so, out of fear it would be seen as a political endorsement. Debresser (talk) 13:24, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It's done on most PT categories and as far as I know has been done without incident in the past. It's probably less controversial than tying it into the tree by making it a subcategory of a Category:Zoos of Israel, for instance. Leaving it out of the tree altogether is not a good solution, in my opinion. I don't see including it as a huge issue. As long as it's not called "Palestine", there shouldn't be any confusion. Good Ol’factory (talk) 22:22, 15 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Rachel Stamp singles

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 01:14, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Rachel Stamp singles to Category:Rachel Stamp songs
Nominator's rationale: Rename. Naming conventions for songs by artist categories should put this under the suggested renaming. Wolfer68 (talk) 02:40, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedia disabled volunteers

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Rename Category:Wikipedia disabled volunteers to Category:Wikipedians who are disabled. --Xdamrtalk 21:03, 22 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedia disabled volunteers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - "Wikipedians by physical characteristic" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion here (I linked to the medical condition section as that is similar, scroll down to see the physical characteristic category) as not supporting collaboration. Does not help Wikipedia to be able to find users via a category who are disabled. Additionally, "Disabled" is extremely broad and could be hundreds of different things, I don't know why anyone would ever be searching, even for a nonencyclopedic reasons, for anyone in such a category. Finally, this doesn't follow standard user category naming conventions (Correct would be Category:Wikipedians who are disabled). VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete.
"...the purpose of user categories is to aid in facilitating coordination and collaboration between users for the improvement and development of the encyclopedia." - WP:USERCAT
Is this category an aid to collaboration or is it simply an expression of unhelpful factionalism? If it is the former then it can be kept, if the latter then it clearly can not.
Having had this category on the go for more than a fortnight, since 6 Oct, we are now in a position to make a judgement - indeed the tenor of this debate gives us ample indication of the net effect of this category as presently constituted. Both here and on the category talk page I have seen a deplorable absence of good faith with a good deal of unpleasant carping from all sides. Whatever the theory behind its establishment, whatever justification there may be for the view expressed in the category's name, this seems to be a clear case of "by their fruits ye shall know them". In the case of this category this seems to be an atmosphere totally inimical to any meaningful collaboration between parties interested in the Cfd process. Ergo this category fails the test for justification in WP:USERCAT quoted above.
Many contributors have identified the present name as contributing much to the problem, given its decided negativity and critical overtones with respect to current Cfd participants. There have been a number of suggestions for a rename. I am not convinced that any of these are likely to remedy the septic atmosphere which has afflicted this category, therefore I opt for deletion. I leave it open to editors to create a more 'positively' worded replacement if that is something that they really want to do. That, of course, is the question - do editors want spend time creating wiki-political categories, or do they engage in meaningful and constructive debate in the appropriate, already extant, fora? Wikipedia_talk:Categorization, Wikipedia_talk:Categories for discussion, Wikipedia_talk:Deletion policy - take your pick, any one of them is a far more appropriate vehicle for gaining community consensus for change.
--Xdamrtalk 00:03, 23 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who say CfD is broken (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete or Rename - Doesn't support collaboration. If this category was intended for people who actually wanted to come together to improve the CFD process, there are plenty of better name options for such a category. "Wikipedians who say" should never be the starting name for a category. It does not help to group users by anything they may say. If kept, this at least needs a more encyclopedic-benefiting name, such as Category:Wikipedians who would like to improve the CfD process. If this category is kept as is, the members of the category may be proven correct in their assessment. Let's at minimum rename this to help prove the members of this category wrong. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good Ol’factory, I don’t see it an unpositive, but a simple fact. If there is something wrong at CfD, it need not be seen as a criticism of the people there. There are convincing suggestions that do not blame the participants. I do desire its continued existence, because it has been alleged that very few people hold this opinion, despite much the same complaint being voiced by many people, at CfD and DRV, for years. A category is an excellent way to hold the names of people who continue to hold a position, given the implicit argument that past complainers were satisfactorily answered, and given that this is a longstanding problem that is very unlikely to be fixed soon. I can see that there is a kind of ironic humour here, but that is not the prime purpose, nor is it a reason to delete.
  • I am open to suggestions of a rename, but ideas don’t come easily. Category:Wikipedians interested in the notion that there is something wrong at CfD I suppose is more neutral. However, I don’t see why it matters, it’s not as if this category is prominent to the readership. (Actually, I suspect that few non-wikipedian readers ever even notice, or use, categories). --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:27, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I meant "positive" as in "being for something" as opposed to casting it as just being critical of something. "Wikipedians who would like to improve the CfD process" is a positive statement. "Wikipedians who say CfD is broken" is just critical. "Wikipedians interested in the notion that there is something wrong at CfD" is critical. "Wikipedians interested in expanding participation at CfD" (or whatever your goals are) is positive. If you haven't figured out exactly what it is about CfD that you would like to change, or if in fact CfD is even the problem, then a category that can help collaborators work together in a positive way is probably premature. (On the outside chance that a user just needs to be negative and have a snarkily-named category on their userpage as a statement or a protest, then redlinked ones are usually permissible on user pages. There's no need to actually create them as category space. E.g., Category:Rouge admins continues to have a decent-sized membership.) Good Ol’factory (talk) 07:23, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • OK, I understand, but finding a new name (ie a specific goal) that is positive is where we are at. Deleting because you can't think a of a way to positively rephrase reasonable criticism amounts to censorship. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 08:42, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, I don't think it does—not any more than deleting any other thing on WP amounts to censorship. It puts things in their proper sequential order. Calling it "reasonable criticism" begs the question—what would you change? If you know what you would change, then you can surely phrase it positively and have a corresponding user category. If you don't know what you would change, it is not reasonable criticism—it's just a catch-phrase political statement that has the effect of causing divisions with other users rather than building something positive. Good Ol’factory (talk) 09:48, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reordering, or redirection, is one thing, but deletion of something that doesn't fit your norms is censorship.
  • Things I would like to change: More diverse participation at CfD; Less upset felt by the "loosers" at CfD "battles", less CfD cases at DRV where the discussion of participants doesn't reflect the close, where the close might be justified and many !votes "wrong". It's how to make these changes I don't know, but note that my (also Alansohn's) suggestions have been rejected without counter-suggestions. One, that relates to this category, is that user-categories (categories that don't appear in mainspace) should be given more leeway, so that more wikipedians (like myself) can have some involvement in creating, using and managing categories, and thus gain experience as seems needed to understand wikipedia-categorisation. So, you might see that in deleting this category, yet another suggestion/effort is being flatly rejected by the CfD regulars. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I haven't seen any comments from anyone here who is in favour of deletion merely because it "doesn't fit [their personal] norms". Raising a hue and cry about "censorship" is an easy out whenever you might disagree with deletion, but it typically has little relevance. I've never seen consensus agree to a deletion that could reasonably be classifiable as "censorship". Most of the discussion here has revolved around renaming, not deletion, so it's hard for me to view claims of censorship as a serious allegation.
  • Who exactly are these "CfD regulars" you refer to? Alansohn for one is as active as anyone here, and he is not rejecting the category. So far, the only user who has cast a "delete" vote without adding a proviso that would allow for renaming is User:Chick Bowen. Is Chick Bowen a "CfD regular"? If so, what does that mean? Do we consider his opinion as less valid or relevant? Who exactly is insisting on deletion and thereby flatly rejecting a rename of the category? Is Chick Bowen? Or someone else? Good Ol’factory (talk) 21:33, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Criticism of the positivity of the name come under the bolded !votes “delete or rename”. It is not clear enough that you are not saying “delete because the name is not positive”. You and the nominator have essentially !voted “delete or keep”.
  • Reference to “CfD regulars” is perhaps undesirable, but note that the term long standing. Arguably, in short, they are the ones who make the decisions. No Chick Bowen is not a regular. VegaDark and Good Ol’factory are regulars offering a confusing “delete” !votes. Being a "CfD regular" is not a bad thing, but I use the term in observing a gulf between CfD regulars and CfD newcomers. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:13, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks for telling me how I voted and its precise meaning. Actually, you've either misinterpreted it or misrepresented it, which is a mistake, but ultimately fine because you will not be the reviewing administrator. Thankfully, the reviewing admins tend to read beyond merely the bolded portion of a comment.
  • I dispute whether the term "CfD regular" is "long-standing". You're gonna have to provide some diffs to back that one up. (Alansohn has used it for a long time, but Alansohn has said a lot, and been blocked for it in the past, too. Not always the best move to take cues from some quarters.)
  • But let me get your system straight. According to your system of categorizing users, VegaDark and I are "CfD regulars"—and look! We voted to "delete or rename". Proof, right? Yeah, except that Chick Bowen is not a "CfD regular", and he voted for "delete". But we'll just ignore the fact that he happened to vote that way, probably because he doesn't fit the stereotype of your "CfD newcomer" or "outsider", who must be faced with some sort of "gulf" between his own commonsense opinions and those of the hoity-toity "CfD regulars". Alansohn, although he participates quite a bit at CfD, is also ignored and not classified as a "CfD regular", because he doesn't fit the mold of how you think stereotypic "CfD regulars" vote. I don't want to be blunt in a crude sort of way, so I'll be satisfied with just pointing out that this is "a porringer of excrement". I suggest we focus less on trying to compartmentalize users into stereotypic "types". I can't see how doing so could ever lead to building collaboration or anything other than divisive feelings here or elsewhere in WP. We could follow that up by resolving to avoid creating any more divisive user categories with self-evidently controversial names. Good Ol’factory (talk) 10:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • If it's undesirable, perhaps you should avoid using it and saying that the "CfD regulars" are flatly rejecting suggestions at improvements, which is how the phrase was initially used in this thread. When it was used in 2007 it was a porringer of excrement, and it still is. Using that type of language to draw artificial boundaries between editors into "types" is just inherently divisive, and has no positive benefits that I have seen. It's no different than criticising someone's opinion by labeling them as a "deletionist" or an "inclusionist". Who cares? Everybody just edit and work on the things you enjoy with the perspective you bring to the table. Good Ol’factory (talk) 11:17, 14 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why are wikipolitical user categories long since discouraged? Is there a policy page? I object to it being called political. The issue concerns a process (CfD) and a feature of he project (categorisation), and a category was created to recognise members holding a strong, but apparently minority position. I think this is an excellent use of a usercategory. Anyone can enter and leave, and all that matters is the current membership, not last years membership. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • This, like any serious user category, contrary to the nom’s assertion, does indeed support collaboration. It records wikipedians who remain interested, and is important because it has frequently been retorted, to many people, that people with complaints are very few.
  • The nominator seems to believe that categories should not be used to reflect differencing opinions related to wikipedia, but gives no clue as to why not? Why is there this restrictive control being forced on the community?
  • There is no good reason offered by the nom to delete. Is “delete” an ambit claim, intended to force the members into quickly suggesting a rename?
  • If “rename” is the serious intention, then the onus should be on the complainer to suggest the new name. One was suggested: I don’t like it, because it implicitly limits the scope of discussion. The question at hand is still lingering on “what is broken” and “how is it broken”. There is a good chance that it is not CfD itself that needs improvement.
  • The current name is succinct, precise, and neutral. It certainly doesn’t hurt anyone to leave it as is. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 06:11, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • The nominator seems to believe that categories should not be used to reflect differencing opinions related to wikipedia, but gives no clue as to why not? Why is there this restrictive control being forced on the community? - I never actually said that in the nom, but it isn't too far off from the truth that I don't think there should be "Wikipedians by support/opposition of a Wikipedia issue" categories. I think "Wikipedians interested in improving xyz" would be much more appropriate than categories that divide the community by taking sides on an issue, which is what I would consider this category to be. My proposed rename would address this issue. There is no good reason offered by the nom to delete. Is “delete” an ambit claim, intended to force the members into quickly suggesting a rename? - I suggested delete because I don't necessarily equate "People who say CfD is broken" to "People who wish to improve the CfD process", so it has potential to create miscategorization with that rename. I don't think it is worth categorizing people who say CfD is broken, so if there is consensus that the two don't necessarily equate to eachother enough, my preference would be deletion. If improving CfD is the intent of the category, however, then a rename could be appropriate. The question at hand is still lingering on “what is broken” and “how is it broken”. There is a good chance that it is not CfD itself that needs improvement - I don't see how my proposed rename would limit discussion to exclude these topics. It sounds like it would fit right in. VegaDark (talk) 18:12, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • No objection to VegaDark's and Alansohn's above suggestions for rename. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:04, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Wikipedians committed to ascetic editing

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Speedy deleted by original author per G7. VegaDark (talk) 17:47, 13 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians committed to ascetic editing (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Apparently created after the essay Wikipedia:Ascetic editing was written , seemingly for the author to promote the essay. Per the essay, "In order to lessen these negative aspects of editing, I have decided to completely and forcefully ignore articles relating to fictional elements of works, biographies of living people, political topics, or philosophy. I shall not participate in deletion discussions, community noticeboards, noticeboard requests calling for the behavioral modification of another editor, or other trifling advocacy. It is my hope that situations will not arise where my personal involvement will be the subject of any of the above." - Unfortunately due to this nomination the author won't get their wish, since categorizing users based on this preference does not benefit the encyclopedia, and thus the category should be deleted. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:User bat-smg-0

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 11:05, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:User bat-smg-0 (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - 0-level category, which has extensive, unanimous precedent to delete as knowing who doesn't speak a language is not helpful to categorize. Further, the parent category has already been deleted via a deletion discussion (see here. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Users who are fans of The Prodigy

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: delete. BencherliteTalk 18:50, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Users who are fans of The Prodigy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Nominator's rationale: Delete - Improper naming convention, as well as a "Wikipedians by band" category, which have unanimous precedent for deletion. VegaDark (talk) 02:13, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Welsh self-government

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: rename. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:17, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose renaming Category:Welsh self-government to Category:Welsh nationalism
Nominator's rationale: to match the name of the main article, Welsh nationalism. Prezbo (talk) 01:56, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

Former and future Interstate Highway categories

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was: Split and rename and nominated. Good Ol’factory (talk) 04:18, 21 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Propose splitting Category:Former and future Interstate Highways into Category:Former Interstate Highways and the already existing future Interstate Highway category below
Propose renaming Category:Future U.S. Interstate Highways to Category:Future Interstate Highways
Nominator's rationale: The second category was created in December 2008, presumably as an offshoot of Category:Future roads. However, it is partially redundant to the first category, which was created over a year before. I suggest that the newer future category be retained, but renamed to Category:Future Interstate Highways to match the parent cat (Category:Interstate Highway System, which was renamed from Cat:U.S. Interstate Highway System a few years ago), and that the older former and future category be reduced in scope to just former Interstate Highways and named Category:Former Interstate Highways. Any future Interstate Highways in the first cat but not the second should be moved from the first to the second upon the completion of this CFD request. – TMF 01:32, 12 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The above is preserved as an archive of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.
More