edit
The result of the debate was merge back into Category:Songs by artist AND Category:Pop songs. the wub "?!" 12:56, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Pop songs by artist should be merged back into Category:Songs by artist AND Category:Pop songs.
The whole point of Category:Songs by artist is to have a complete list of ALL song by artist categories. It should not be further subcategorized. The new Category:Pop songs by artist was created today and it is being added to song categories while Category:Songs by artist and Category:Pop songs are being removed. This does not follow the WikiProject Music category guidelines. Also, I don't see how Category:Pop songs by artist is in any way different from Category:Pop songsasCategory:Pop songs should only contain songs by artist subcats (and no articles) as well. --musicpvm 23:37, 8 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.
Category:Naturalized Jewish citizens of the United States
edit
The result of the debate was merge back to Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States and delete. the wub "?!" 12:54, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Naturalized Jewish citizens of the United States (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
-
Perhaps this is supposed to be "Naturalized Israeli citizens of the United States." --ElKevbo 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
If it can be established that this is supposed to be "Naturalized Israeli citizens of the United States" (as hypothesized above), then rename.
Otherwise, delete per Csernica. On second thought, why wouldn't we want a "category for naturalized Muslim citizens?" Keep assuming, of course, the inclusions are supported by verifiable sources. --ElKevbo 22:54, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Hello,
I am working on naturalization lists and I thought long and hard about this. I agree this needs to be resolved. I just have read "Who is a Jew" and it seems to me many Jewish wikipedians would find this category useful. I agree that it seems a bit of an oddball category and I discussed this with an administrator who directed me to put Jews as a separate category. I normally put two categories for Jews:
The first category is the country of their naturalization (Follows same policy for all other naturalization lists)
and then the second category:
Is for Jews who have been naturalized to the United States because Jews in the past did not traditionally come from one specific country unlike other people. I believe this can be useful for many people and helps categorize the pages. I think it is beneficial to keep but I guess we should just have a vote on it. Let me know how to proceed so I can further organize this group accordingly to wiki guidelines.
PS-
TTC,
Being Jewish is not only a religion but an ethnic backround. One can be born in France, Russia, Germany etc and be Jewish. You can read about it here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jew under ethnic divisions.
Here2fixCategorizations 23:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
I am aware of that. However, when we get to issues of citizenship and naturalization we are talking about nationality, not ethnicity. There are many ethnicities that are not confined to a single nation, or which have never had their own nation.
-
-
By the way, internal links look like this: [[Jew]]. TCC (talk) (contribs) 03:32, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Keep - Many people indentify themselves as Jewish without meaning to imply a specific religious connotation. Further, this category is very useful, as many famous Jews naturalized in the United States were refugees from other countries. Their motivations behind emigrating and contributing to American society are notable in this context. ˉˉanetode╦╩ 23:43, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete, I don't think it's a good idea to subcategorize Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States by anything but original nationality. --musicpvm 23:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete. Come on. Where is Naturalized Christian Citizens of the United States? And Naturalized Hindu Citizens? What about Naturalized Wiccan Citizens? I'm sure there are some Naturalized Zoroastrian Citizens of the United States that would feel left out of this taxonomy too. This is ridiculous. There is no reason to note religion here. Nationality is perhaps useful but religion in this context does not seem useful.--csloat 02:34, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete. `'mikka (t) 03:49, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete/ merge back to generic category. Excessive splitting. These poeple are all identified as Jewish in other categories, so I don't see a point to splitting out naturalized citizens by religion or ethnicity. The same goes for other naturalized citizen categories. -Will Beback 04:00, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete Clearly incongruous.--Mcginnly | Natter 08:44, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Either DeleteorrenametoCategory:Naturalized Israeli citizens of the United States if appropriate. I kept going back and forth on this, but Will Beback made a good point when he said that anyone in this category will probably be identified as Jewish in other categories. That being the case, I don't think it's necessary to make an exception, so let's keep the naturalization categories based strictly on national origin rather than ethnicity. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment I must say though, that thinking the matter over for myself I can see where it might get complicated. Suppose, for example, that we were discussing ethnic Greek immigrants of the mid 19th Century who hailed from, say, Smyrna/İzmir. Do we call them Turkish? I'd love to see someone try. Would a Russian Jew be as offended at being called a Russian as a Greek would be to be called Turkish? If so (and I actually don't know) then we have a problem. Yet I don't disagree with my original reasoning. Perhaps the most sensible solution is to use the generic Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States as far as this issue goes and allow other categories to sort by ethnic group and national origin. TCC (talk) (contribs) 21:51, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Neutral, but if this is to be deleted, first make sure that all these articles are first placed in the Category:Naturalized citizens of the United States Thanks Hmains 04:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete/merge back Excessive categorisation. Osomec 13:50, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete/merge back. One cannot be "naturalized" from one's Jewishness. One can only be "naturalized" from one's former citizenship. --M@rēino 15:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete and merge back. Michael 17:09, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete This is too much. One Jewish American category on an article is sufficient. Merchbow 16:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment: The category creator, Here2fixCategorizations, is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. He was banned, in part, for his POV pushing regarding Jewish subjects. -Will Beback 21:44, 15 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.
Women
edit
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Hello,
I was the one who started these pages. I feel that listing actors and actresses together is simply overwhelming. The current list is simply HUGE. I believe this will lead to better categorization and help people find exactly what they are looking for. I mean if someone for instance wants to look at "Irish American actresses" why should they have to look through a huge page of Irish American actors? This has nothing to do with politics but simply organization and helping people use wikipedia effectively and find what they are looking for. I feel that the current list is just so intimidating due to its size that people just leave and do not enjoy or look at the pages that other editors worked hard on and took the time to put together. I know that this is the case for me personally.
Here2fixCategorizations 23:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment Many of these categories, under your system, would only have one person. It is not disorganized to have both genders listed together. Those lists are alphabetized. You just need to look for the person's name in the alphabet. All of these links are problematic. "Actor", as I said, is ambiguous. Also, will Category:Italian-Americans only be for men now? That isn't pragmatic. Michael 00:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I dont know what you mean that many of these lists would only have one person listed because I just started it and they already have more then one person. I also only applied these changes to categories that are pretty big. I barely hit the tip of the iceberg for many of these categories and I am already well over a few people. I just started American stage actresses: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:American_stage_actresses and already have 182 listings. When you receive the finished product you will have two lists:
American actors and American actresses (Each list will be very big)
Futhermore you will be able to alphabetize each list so nothing will change other then splitting the category which I dont think will hurt anything. It will be more specific and categorize the huge lists. I imagine that many people do not always have a specific person in mind they want to look and just browse which is more easy to do when you have the seperate list to get down to what they are looking for. I would like to apply the same standard to all articles as the Italian American list is pretty big so I believe it will alleviate the huge pages to make a seperate category for Italian American women. I mean if someone wants to look at Italian American women why should they have to search through a huge list of Italian American men?
Here2fixCategorizations 00:37, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment Actually, you said it yourself...You said that people "do not always have a specific person in mind they want to look and just browse". If they choose to browse, they probably don't have one gender in mind. Further, the categories are in excess. Does Category:Italian-Americans now only apply to men? If people choose to browse by ethnicity, then they are not browsing by gender. Michael 02:33, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment While you may say such, other factors are, too. We don't have categories for brunette, young, thin Italian American actresses, do we? Those other factors may be just as important. The term "actor" includes both male and female. Do you then define "actor" as only male? That violates WP:NOR. A merge is necessary here. Michael 17:06, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Note: The creator fot these categories, Here2fixCategorizations, is a sock of banned user:Jerry Jones/user:JJstroker. He was banned, in part, for his POV regarding ethnic categories. -Will Beback 21:48, 15 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.
edit
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 21:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Decapping "the" per the article title.--Mike Selinker 14:53, 5 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment: Unless you know otherwise, the word and in band names is always an ampersand (&) is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Music guidelines. --Dhartung | Talk 03:51, 10 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.
edit
The result of the debate was renametoCategory:Moomin series. the wub "?!" 21:48, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
plural Tim! 11:09, 5 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.
edit
Note this discussion was moved and relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19#Category:Municipalities in Spain and all of its subcategories to Category:Municipalities of Spain. Please continue discussion there. the wub "?!" 13:06, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit
The result of the debate was rename to Category:New World Order wrestlers . the wub "?!" 13:08, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
per Speedy criteria 2 and 4. McPhail 18:42, 2 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.
edit
edit
The result of the debate was no consensus. the wub "?!" 13:18, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
-
Moved from speedy after dicussion. Vegaswikian 22:09, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This is consistent with other subcategories of Category:Orientalists by nationality and the subcategories of Category:Egyptologists. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 June 12. GregorB 21:26, 31 July 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.
edit
The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 13:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Merge into Category:Wikipedian students. -- ProveIt (talk) 22:04, 8 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.
Category:Companies based in Orange County
edit
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 16:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Companies based in Orange CountytoCategory:Companies based in Orange County, California
-
Rename. This category refers to companies in Orange County, California. The term "Orange County" alone is ambiguous because there are many counties with that name in the United States, such as Orange County, Florida and Orange County, New York. szyslak (t, c, e) 21:59, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename per above. David Kernow 06:04, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename per nom. --Cswrye 18:45, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename per nom. Also please support my requested move. -- ProveIt (talk) 23:23, 9 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.
edit
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I created this overly long name in line with the JEL classification codes system. The change would make the system more consistent with general Wikipedia practice. JQ 20:34, 8 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.
edit
-
Merge into Category:Canadian Football League kick returners. --Amchow78 (talk) Amchow78 19:30, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Note this discussion was moved and relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19#Category:Canadian Football League punt returners. Please continue discussion there. the wub "?!" 13:12, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit
The result of the debate was Withdrawn --William Allen Simpson 21:14, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Merge into Category:Student Wikipedians. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:11, 8 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.
edit
The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 13:15, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Merge / Redirect into Category:Wikipedians by degree. -- ProveIt (talk) 19:07, 8 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.
Category:SciFi Channel original movies
edit
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Sci Fi Channel original films. the wub "?!" 14:50, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:SciFi Channel original moviestoCategory:Sci Fi Channel original movies
-
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.
Category:Wekepedians' notice board
edit
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:01, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wekepedians' notice board (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
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.
edit
The result of the debate was renametoCategory:Golden Globe Award nominees. the wub "?!" 15:09, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
originally nominated by ProveIt (talk) 02:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC); (moved from speedy)-♥ Her Pegship♥[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.
Category:Wikipedians who like Cybermen better than Daleks
edit
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:08, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Wikipedians who like Cybermen better than Daleks (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
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.
Category:South Dakota class battleships
edit
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 21:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:South Dakota class battleshipstoCategory:South Dakota class battleships (1939)
-
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.
edit
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:19, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
This is really a shame, someone went to a lot of work. But we really don't want to classify animals based on Zoo Tycoon 2. -- ProveIt (talk) 16:23, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete. BoojiBoy 18:20, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete per nom. But, A for effort to the user who created it. Resolute 18:37, 8 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.
Category:Contemporary Theocracy
edit
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 16:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Contemporary Theocracy (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
-
CommentCategory:Fundamentalism is one of several categories that already include the articles listed under Category:Contemporary Theocracy. There is no need to merge. Bejnar 16:29, 8 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.
Category:Goaltenders in the Stanley Cup Finals
edit
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 15:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Goaltenders in the Stanley Cup Finals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
Delete, Overcategorization. It's not necessary to list all the players who played in a specific series of games, let alone players at one position. BoojiBoy 14:13, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete. Agree with Booji.--NMajdan•talk 15:07, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete - complete listcruft. RGTraynor 16:16, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete per nom Masterhatch 17:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete Fun trivia, but...yeah. Either they won the Cup, in which case, they go under Category:Stanley Cup champions or they didn't, in which case, who cares? Doogie2K (talk) 21:17, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete - Trivial information. --Cswrye 19:16, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete Excessive categorisation. Osomec 13:53, 10 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.
Wikipedians by profession
edit
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:01, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I’m actually endorsing the less common construction in category:Wikipedians by profession, as I can more easily see “Wikipedian” as an adjective than “cryptozoologist” or “bachelor of medicine”. (I may switch "military personnel" to "military people" depending on how the previous nomination goes.)--Mike Selinker 12:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename all except this one: Category:User degree/MBBS. I would recommend Category:Wikipedians with a Bachelor of Medicine and Surgery degree. I know that's a long name, but it's more correct than just Bachelor of Medicine according to the article for it. Also, I think that degrees are normally capitalized. Note that there are a number of other categories for degrees that probably should be renamed, like Category:User degree/BA, Category:User degree/MA, etc. --Cswrye 13:58, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
I didn't see the degree category. That's a hornet's nest. I think I'll just remove it from the contenders for now, and we can decide later if any of the degree ones change.--Mike Selinker 18:01, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename all -- Fyslee 18:45, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename all, except for Category:User degree/MBBS per Cswrye -- ProveIt (talk) 02:43, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
No problem with the rename (though it will probably be a bit of an effort to complete). Also while you're doing it can you get rid of "Wikipedian chemical engineers" and move the four such engineers to "Wikipedian engineers". Cedars 09:36, 9 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Comment: you could move the "Wikipedian chemical engineers" to a subcatigory within the "Wikipedian engineers" because sooner or later, each engineer would like to differenciate (pun not indended) their title from all other engineers :) Project2501a 09:21, 12 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.
Category:Academy Awards winners
edit
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 10:34, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Academy Awards winnerstoCategory:Academy Award winners
-
This is potentially a speedy candidate under criterion 3, but given the scope of the change (24 articles, 22 subcats, and perhaps all the articles in those) and the following oddity, I thought it might be better to discuss at more length. It appears to me that "Awards" should be applying to the event (Category:Academy Awards ceremonies, Category:Academy Awards hosts) while "Award" applies to the Oscar itself (Category:Academy Honorary Award recipients, Category:Academy Award nominees). This also would appear to align better with the subcategories (Category:Best Actor Academy Award winners, etc.) --Geoff Capp 12:28, 8 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.
edit
Note this discussion was moved and relisted at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 19#Category:Freiburg School and Category:Freiburg School economists. Please continue discussion there. the wub "?!" 13:14, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
edit
The result of the debate was rename. the wub "?!" 14:00, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename, The name of the category should match the name of the article itself. GCarty 09:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename, Sharia is sufficiently popular, and more accurate descriptor as well as the reason mentioned above.--Tigeroo 13:49, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename, Sharia is a common term. BoojiBoy 14:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename. It certainly wasn't the case when Wikipedia started, but by now I'd say that the majority of literate English-speakers understand the term Sharia and will know that they should click on that category to seek more information. --M@rēino 14:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Rename. However, keep Category:Islamic law as redirect to Category:Sharia. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:19, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Neutral. I do not know much about Islamic law, but is it safe to assume that Sharia law is the only form of Islamic law? If it is, I would support renaming. Also, shouldnt it be Category:Sharia law?Resolute 18:42, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Undecided as I feel this violates WP:UE. Sharia is The code of law based on the Koran per the AH dict., and as such it is endlessly variable although theoretically immutable. I simply object based on the vast numbers of users, who I feel are a majority, who will be helped more by the English term. --Dhartung | Talk 04:04, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
RenametoCategory:Sharia law - many people know what Sharia law is. Keep Category:Islamic law as a redirect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpatel (talk • contribs)
-
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.
edit
The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 16:06, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
We have Category:Portuguese-Americans. With only one inclusion, this is in excess, esp. when considering other x-American categories. This fails WP:NN in the sense that there is no tremendous amount of famous female Portuguese-Americans that necessitates having its own category. Michael 05:51, 8 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.
edit
The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
This category is ambiguous. "Being called a hacker" is very unclear criterium: it could be Richard StallmanorMafiaboy. This category should be deleted: suggestions of splitting are welcome.
See also:
A.J. 05:40, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete - but I'll support any proposal that handles controversial meaning of "hacker". A.J. 05:44, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
If there were more hackers listed, I'd suggest including better subcategories (possibly overlapping) to clarify the intended types. EG: Security Hackers (black/white/grey hat sub-sub-categories), Hacker Groups, Code Hackers, Hardware Hackers, Hacker Media Personalities, and Fictional Hackers. It might allow for yanking the "Recognized Hackers" section from the Hacker piece that silly wannabes keep adding themselves into. However, there are so few listed in Category:Hackers at the moment, I'm inclined to say just Delete and be done with it. Abb3w 20:21, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete per Abb3w. Inherently subjective category. --ElKevbo 22:51, 8 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
-
Delete per nom. KleenupKrew 02:22, 11 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.
edit
edit
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:17, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cats definitely don't follow naming conventions. The second is a duplicate of Category:Bangladeshi people. --musicpvm 03:49, 8 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.
edit
The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:20, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Cat is duplicate of Category:Christian Wikipedians (which is properly named) and only contains one user. --musicpvm 03:41, 8 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.
edit
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:16, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Even worse than the platinum and multi-platinum cats. Can't imagine it being useful. --musicpvm 03:38, 8 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.
Category:House of Avis
edit
The result of the debate was rename/merge to Category:House of Aviz --Kbdank71 15:19, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:House of Avis (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
Rename this to Category:House of Aviz, since either the category or the main article needs changing for coherence. In addition, this category needs checking - half the articles use English names; half use Portuguese. Ian Cairns 02:58, 8 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.
Category:Delphine Wikipedians
edit
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Delphine Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
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.
Category:American Indian Wikipedians
edit
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:American Indian Wikipedians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
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.
Category:Penguin users
edit
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:08, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Penguin users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
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.
Category:Saturday Night Live Cast
edit
The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 15:07, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Saturday Night Live Cast (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
-
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.