Revision as of 16:04, 2 June 2006 editTheda (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users23,969 editsm →[]: close bolding← Previous edit | Revision as of 17:10, 2 June 2006 edit undoとある白い猫 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, File movers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers55,796 edits →[]Next edit → | ||
Line 187: | Line 187: | ||
'''Delete'''. Usernames that were in this category, ], ] have been blocked due to being inappropriate (and vandalism); there is no proof that they intended to "impersonate" me, and it is only speculation that they intended to attack me. I do not believe in building shrines to malicious users and do not feel the need to dignify their actions with a category. --] 10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | '''Delete'''. Usernames that were in this category, ], ] have been blocked due to being inappropriate (and vandalism); there is no proof that they intended to "impersonate" me, and it is only speculation that they intended to attack me. I do not believe in building shrines to malicious users and do not feel the need to dignify their actions with a category. --] 10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
*'''Delete''' per nom. There's a "deny recognition" policy I think, or maybe it was only a proposal. Anyway, it was a good idea. ] 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | *'''Delete''' per nom. There's a "deny recognition" policy I think, or maybe it was only a proposal. Anyway, it was a good idea. ] 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC) | ||
*'''Inquiry''' why the sudden change in heart, Moby? You reported the two users on ]. You yourself said ''It would appear that someone created these accounts based on my username''... --<small>] ]</small> 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC) | |||
====]==== | ====]==== |
Revision as of 17:10, 2 June 2006
< May 31 | June 2 > |
---|
June 1
Category:Hot Jewish women
While the contents may be fun to skim, this is entirely too subjective. Dismas| 22:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Speedy delete as re-creation of previously deleted category.--Calton | Talk 23:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- couldn't find previous deletion --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Please speedy.--Dakota ~ 16:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:History of Polish cities
There is already the more correct Category:Histories of Polish cities. Appleseed (Talk) 21:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, obvious, empty, delist. Pavel Vozenilek 01:19, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename/merge both to Category:Histories of cities in Poland to match previous CfD decisions. Appleseed created both Category:History of Polish cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) and Category:Histories of Polish cities (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs), and has already moved the articles to the new name. --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who enjoy incest
Only one user, inappropriate, and unlikely to grow. SCHZMO ✍ 20:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete - non verifiable Dismas| 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete -- and refer 15-year-old self-categorizer for criminal prosecution, admission against interest. --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- speedy delete please, i made the category and i do not want it now. Jamie 09:03, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 12:51, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who can autofellate
Only one user, inappropriate, and unlikely to grow. SCHZMO ✍ 20:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete - nonverifiable. Dismas| 23:27, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete -- unless autogrphed pictures supplied in Commons --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- obvious joke. - Longhair 08:14, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 12:56, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Bearded people
Potentially infinite and unmaintainable and of dubious usefulness. Gamaliel 19:49, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- What? I made the category because it was more practical than the list on the wikipedia article on beards. Besides, most of the categories I've seen have had the same use, and are still intact! Dark Prime 20:51, 1 June 2006 (GMT)
- Not really. We just deleted a bunch of categories on fictional characters' hair color, for example. This deserves a similar delete, I'm afraid.--Mike Selinker 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, what I had in mind was categories such as "Entertainers who died in theirs 20s" etc. 23:23, 1 June 2006 (GMT)
- In those categories' defense, at least the subject is unlikely to change his mind.--Mike Selinker 23:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Actually, what I had in mind was categories such as "Entertainers who died in theirs 20s" etc. 23:23, 1 June 2006 (GMT)
- Not really. We just deleted a bunch of categories on fictional characters' hair color, for example. This deserves a similar delete, I'm afraid.--Mike Selinker 22:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. People can, and do, shave. This is a ridiculous category, IMHO. I can't see this as being useful either; unmaintainable. K1Bond007 20:34, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. Reminds me of "Category:Bow-tie wearers". -Will Beback 22:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - does anyone actually research bearded people, and need a category? Unmaintainable category. There are only 17 people in it anyway! --Tim 22:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- delete People shave... Dismas| 23:28, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - too transient a variable to be verifiable at any given time; might as well have Category:People currently awake. A category for famous beards might be marginally better. --Calair 08:18, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Just not useful. Chicheley 10:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:World superlatives
Useless; only a handful of inclusions, and certain topics may be cited as "superlatives" for a number of reasons, making it unclear. Adambiswanger1 19:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, undefined. There are few articles and lists on similar topic that are kept in rather good order. Pavel Vozenilek 01:21, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete Too hard to define. Chicheley 10:45, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Comoros
According to List of adjectival forms of place names the correct form for Comoros is Comorian
- category:Comoros music --> category:Comorian music
- category:Comoros culture --> category:Comorian culture
- category:Comoros society --> category:Comorian society
Rename all CalJW 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename as requested by nominator. Athenaeum 14:50, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Famous fast-food burger restaurants to Category:Fast-food burger restaurants
Merge Although the former is a subcat of the latter, the word "Famous" is POV and not explained in either the cat page or the talk page. Zzyzx11 (Talk) 18:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. CalJW 18:54, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom --Zoz (t) 19:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge per nom. David Kernow 03:26, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Anti-Arabism
There is only 1 - the main - article in this category. I'm not sure if any other articles could be placed under this category. It would seem quite POV to categorize anything as Anti-Arabism imo. --Zoz (t) 18:41, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - it isn't any more POV that the widely used and accepted Category:Anti-Catholicism and Category:Anti-Semitism categories. Also, I have added a few more pages to the category. I do not think it is useful to rush this through CfD. --Ben Houston 20:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - if there is an Category:Anti-Semitism category, then there is nothing wrong with Category:Anti-Arabism. More articles can be added as it develops.--الأهواز 21:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep - per Ben and Ahwaz
- Keep -- unless a better name is proposed --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Ahwaz Adambiswanger1 02:07, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Ron Sorensen albums
Not notable; see Someday, Somehow and Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Ron Sorensen
- User:Reaverdrop May 31,2006
- I transferred this from PROD, as PROD does not and should not do categories. 132.205.45.148 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- And categories like this should not be nominated unless their contents finish going through AfD.--Mike Selinker 21:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is only one Ron Sorensen album in existence. Even if his album is somehow found notable, and despite the fact that his own entry was speedy deleted, I don't think there should be a category with only one possible entry. Otherwise we would have to put up with a George Washington category for George Washington, and Albert Einstein category for Albert Einstein ad nauseam. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- category:Albums by artist works under the principle "each album has an artist," not "each artist has multiple albums."-- Mike Selinker 23:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is only one Ron Sorensen album in existence. Even if his album is somehow found notable, and despite the fact that his own entry was speedy deleted, I don't think there should be a category with only one possible entry. Otherwise we would have to put up with a George Washington category for George Washington, and Albert Einstein category for Albert Einstein ad nauseam. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 22:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- And categories like this should not be nominated unless their contents finish going through AfD.--Mike Selinker 21:58, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I transferred this from PROD, as PROD does not and should not do categories. 132.205.45.148 18:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:2000s Movies in India to Category:2000s movies in India
- Moved from speedy. Vegaswikian 18:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
caps -- Lbbzman 16:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:2000s films in India. Since this is specifically about film we should use film as the prefered term. Parent cats are Category:Indian films and Category:2000s films. Vegaswikian 18:00, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:2000s films in India per Vegaswikian. Lbbzman 19:45, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Would any of these describe this (and similar) category/ies more accurately?:
- Films made in India during the 2000s
- Films made by India during/in the 2000s
- Indian films made during/in the 2000s
- Unsure, David Kernow 03:31, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Agriculture Department images
Duplicate of Category:Department of Agriculture images. It is currently unpopulated while the DOA images cat is populated. Epolk 17:13, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Kempo to Category:Kenpo
Kempo redirects to Kenpo. Conscious 17:04, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
- Merge then convert former to redirect. David Kernow 03:32, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Misplaced Pages Users to Category:Wikipedians
Misplaced Pages users are called "Wikipedians". Conscious 16:50, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
- Some prefer "Wikipedists" by analogy with "encyclopedists". "Misplaced Pages Users" is a neutral generic term. - Reaverdrop (talk/nl/wp:space) 20:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Merge -- new category contrary to recent CfD decision. Also delete the user subcategories with prejudice. --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedian bibliophiles to Category:Wikipedians interested in books
While I see there's a subtle difference between bibliophiles and people interested in books, is there a need to have two different categories? Conscious 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
- Keep Category:Wikipedian bibliophiles and merge contents of the latter, which just isn't as elegant or passionate. <g> ♥ Her Pegship♥ 19:56, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- If what you're proposing is a reverse merge, it also looks fine to me. Conscious 19:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Reverse merge --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedian chemist to Category:Chemist Wikipedians
Same scope. Conscious 16:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
- MERGE TO Category:Wikipedian chemists, I think is a better name 132.205.45.148 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I think it's a reasonable option. Conscious 19:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename/Merge both to Category:Wikipedian chemists --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Disappeared people to Category:People who disappeared
Slightly clearer title - the category talk page also mentions that "disappeared people" can imply that they were disappeared by someone or something, for example, the secret police, so this rename might help avoid those connotations. It might be an idea to subdivide or split the category into those presumed dead at the time of vanishing, and those who simply dropped off the radar of public attention. That might also help clear up the slight confusion in Category:People by status. Carcharoth 15:05, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename as per nom. "Disappeared people" has a too-restrictive connotation. There are several comments on the category's talk page supporting this idea. The proprosed title is better than the "Category:Missing people" alternative mentioned there. -R. S. Shaw 17:57, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. The first thing "Disappeared people" makes me think of is Argentina's Dirty War. Twittenham 18:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename – the cat is not limited to forced disappearances. ×Meegs 18:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom and above. David Kernow 03:33, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Companies of Mumbai to Category:Companies based in Mumbai
The form "based in" is used for a couple of other Indian categories and all the U.S. categories. It is clearer and avoids the risk of companies being added to every city/state/province etc where they have a plant. . Nathcer 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC).
- Rename per nom. Twittenham 18:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. Choalbaton 12:52, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Possibly living people to Category:People who may still be alive
I hope other folk find "Possibly living people" too ungainly a name for a category; perhaps even an "unencyclopedic" name. Proposed name also puts the subject of the category – people – as first word read or for sorting. David Kernow 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename as nom. David Kernow 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - Similar categories are Category:Cause of death disputed, Category:Disappeared people, Category:Year of death missing, Category:Year of birth missing. There seems to be a lot of overlap between these categories, either because people genuinely appear in more than one of them, or because editors categorise the articles wrongly or are unaware of the other categories. Carcharoth 14:47, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Category:Disappeared people strikes me as ambiguous, but I see it's already been put forward for renaming above. Perhaps there needs to be "See also" sections across these five related categories (plus "Year of death/birth unknown"?)...? David Kernow 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment: this exact proposal was made on March 19 and the result was keep. - EurekaLott 14:48, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Same nominator as well, though I agree that the name is not perfect, so another discussion would seem to be in order. Carcharoth 15:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yikes... my memory must be worse than I thought. I knew I'd seen this category name before, but didn't think I'd acted on it. Apologies in advance to anyone who also recalls the earlier nomination but thinks this return visit too soon thereafter. David Kernow 03:42, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename - for what it is worth, I support the rename. Though I do see the point of the arguments (in the previous debate) for a shorter, simpler name for maintenance categories, I think this has the potential to be more than just a maintenance category. In some cases it is noteworthy that someone disappeared from public view and returns to anonymity after a period of celebrity. I would suspect that most of the entries in this category could also be in Category:Disappeared people, which could itself be divided into Category:People who disappeared and are presumed dead (eg. Earhart and Amundsen) and Category:People who dropped out of public view, with the people where the reasons for the disappearance are not known, staying in the main category. I also think that this could all be handled much better with subcategories of Category:Year of death missing and Category:Year of birth missing. The subcategories would deal with the reasons for the years of birth and death being missing: (a) year of birth missing because birth date not known and probably will never be known Category:Year of birth unknown - subcategory of Category:Year of birth missing; (b) birth date probably known but year of birth missing because it hasn't been put in the article yet Category:Year of birth missing; (c) year of death missing because death date not known and probably will never be known Category:Year of death unknown - subcategory of Category:Year of death missing; (d) death date probably known but year of death missing because it hasn't been put in the article yet Category:Year of death missing; (e) no year of death because they are still alive (verifiable) Category:Living people; (f) year of supposed death for people presumed dead Category:People presumed dead; (g) people presumed dead but year of death not known, Category:People who disappeared and are presumed to have died of old age, subcategory of both Category:People presumed dead and Category:Year of death unknown; there are a few more possibilites as well, mainly centred on those who may still be alive, but I think that is enough for now! Carcharoth 10:05, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename The new name is clearer. Choalbaton 12:54, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Boarding schools in Sweden
This category had only one member, Sigtunaskolan Humanistiska Läroverket, which I moved to Category:Schools in Sweden a while ago. There aren't that many boarding schools in Sweden, and there are still relatively few schools in the general category, so at least for now I don't see the need for this category. Tupsharru 13:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and restore the article. If there aren't many boarding schools in Sweden, that makes those that there are more interesting. Nathcer 14:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep and populate. There is absolutely no prejudice against small categories (see Category:English popes and Category:Polish popes as classic examples of small cats that will probably never grow - both survived recent CFD noms easily). I really do not know why people keep using "its small" as an excuse to delete cats: quite the opposite - it is huge cats that are truly tedious (talking of which, have a look at Category:Men by nationality). --Mais oui! 16:44, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:0s BC births and Category:0s BC deaths
This category should be deleted. The name suggests that it lists people born in the year "O BC". However, this year doesn't exist: 1 BC is immediately followed 1 AD. The sole item in this category was Jesus but I deleted this for the same reasons (apart from the historical debate about the actual date of his birth). The category also somehow serves as a parent category to the subcategories from Category:1 BC births to Category:9 BC births. While these are legitimate categories I can't see how they can be categorized into "0 BC births". There also exists a template (Template:BirthyrBC) linked to from each subcategory which bears the problematic title (and hence should be renamed).
The same issue also pops up with the "death" equivalents. Str1977 11:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:00s BC births and Category:00s BC deaths. These categories are trying to cover the first decade BC. Have a look at Category:1st century BC births and Category:1st century BC deaths to see the other 'decade' categories. Carcharoth 11:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I would also support a renaming to 1st decade BC and 1st decade AD, for both births and deaths. Unless someone points out the naming convention. Carcharoth 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - there is a similar problem with Category:0s, Category:0s births and Category:0s deaths. The categories Category:1, Category:2, Category:3, Category:4, Category:5, Category:6, Category:7, Category:8 and Category:9 also seem remarkably poorly named. I wonder if we have Category:10, Category:54, Category:673, Category:1000, Category:1000000, Category:947369?? Carcharoth 11:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's just as good as Category:2005 and Category:2006 ... -- ProveIt 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it does seem strange for the low numbers. Carcharoth 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree, but if Category:1980s is a decade, then so should Category:0s -- ProveIt 14:13, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Yes, but it does seem strange for the low numbers. Carcharoth 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- It's just as good as Category:2005 and Category:2006 ... -- ProveIt 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment - the nominator seems to have confused "0 BC births" with "0s BC births" - note the 's' that changes the meaning of the phrase... Carcharoth 11:32, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename or delete. "0s BC" seems too prone to misunderstanding/puzzlement. David Kernow 14:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep. Seems simple enough to me, considering the articles and categories 0s and 0s BC. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- There is the point that there are probably a lot of templates and pages pointing at "0s" type pages. People renaming categories do use the "What links here" tool to fix that sort of thing, don't they...? Carcharoth 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep per Arthur_Rubin. Lbbzman 20:10, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep Fits into the standard naming strategy for decade of birth/death categories. - TexasAndroid 20:15, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Where was this standard discussed? Carcharoth 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Keep fits the established naming convention. -- ProveIt 22:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment (and switch to Rename) If it is supposed to mean decades than it needs to be renamed to "1st decade BC births/deaths" (and the same goes for the 1st decade AD). Forget about naming conventions - people say "in the sixities" or "in the 60s" but no one say in the "zero-ties" or "o-ties" or the "naught-ties" (no pun intended) hence WP shouldn't use such abbreviations. They confused me and they will confuse others. Str1977 22:12, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- If you want to rename this decade, you might want to look around for other decades in the "naughties" that might have similar problems. Carcharoth 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename or delete per David Kernow. There was only Jesus in the 0s BC births category, anyway. Yes, I've looked at Category:1st century BC births, where it has 0s BC births, 10s BC births, 20s BC births, etc., but as Str1977 says, we talk about the seventies, but not about the zeroties. Ambiguous, misleading, and confusing. If renaming, rename to 1st decade BC births. AnnH ♫ 22:31, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Regarding "There was only Jesus in the 0s BC births category" - this is true of a lot of other "year" and "decade" categories. Many have only one or two entries. I think the idea is that this will grow over time. The year articles seem to do the same job better, IMO, as you can use "What links here" (providing people link dates properly and don't overlink) to update the year articles. See for example 2005. Carcharoth 10:15, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:United States Congressional district maps to Category:Maps of United States congressional districts
Rename - Like to similar categories; also grammatically clearer.—Markles 10:59, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Flops to Category:Commercial failures
Either rename and improve the category, or even just delete, as this is a POV title. Note that not all articles in this category will refer to commercial failures, but many do. Carcharoth 10:37, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. I think it is reasonably easy to judge whether something was a commercial failure - there are plenty of things that can be included without resorting to marginal cases. Osomec 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 14:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Imposters of Moby Dick
Delete. Usernames that were in this category, User:PenisMoby, User:PenisMoby have been blocked due to being inappropriate (and vandalism); there is no proof that they intended to "impersonate" me, and it is only speculation that they intended to attack me. I do not believe in building shrines to malicious users and do not feel the need to dignify their actions with a category. --User:Moby Dick 10:35, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom. There's a "deny recognition" policy I think, or maybe it was only a proposal. Anyway, it was a good idea. Sumahoy 14:55, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Inquiry why the sudden change in heart, Moby? You reported the two users on ANB/I. You yourself said It would appear that someone created these accounts based on my username... --Cat out 17:10, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Dead people rumoured to be living
Delete - rumours are not a solid basis for encyclopaedic categorisation: "A rumor or rumour (see spelling differences) is a piece of purportedly true information that circulates without substantiating evidence". (Which indicates to me that the Misplaced Pages Rumor article is a dicdef.) Mais oui! 06:06, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete -- overlap with Category:Possibly living people - Longhair 06:09, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete - unencyclopedic.--Peta 06:19, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete It doesn't really overlap with Category:Possibly living people as it is mainly being used for people who are dead, period, regardless any nonsense that may appear in the tabloids. Choalbaton 12:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete per nom and above. David Kernow 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete. If someone were to write a quality article about this phenomenon, that would be another story. ×Meegs 18:26, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Pro-life Activists to Category:Pro-life activists
- moved from speedy after discusion. Vegaswikian 05:42, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- caps - ProveIt 14:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- It would be better if this were Category:Anti-abortion activists, otherwise you could legitimately categorize anti-death penalty activists under it. 132.205.93.89 21:07, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
- Neither, name is ambiguous. Does this refer to anti-euthanasia, abortion, death penalty, war, starvation, or what? Right now, it's so general as to be effectively meaningless, since groups with those interests and many more could rightly be called pro-life activists. Oh, I see anon above makes the same point. Well, then, obviously I agree with that. Derex 05:46, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. The name is clear, and this is not the place for abortion debates. - EurekaLott 14:18, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Anti-abortion activists as this identifies topic; "Pro-life activists" might mean anything from those supporting (say) more physical exercise, those against contraception, those for life sentences rather than death penalties, etc, etc. Regards, David Kernow 14:36, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename without the capital for now. I would prefer to see category:Pro-abortion activists and category:Anti-abortion activists as Misplaced Pages should call a spade a spade and avoid media-friendly labels, but they would have to be renamed at the same time or not at all. Sumahoy 14:53, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- COMMENT "Anti-abortion activist" is a very common term. So it's not like we're choosing to rename it to something weird. 132.205.45.148 19:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Comment See also: Category:Pro-life organizations, Category:Pro-life politicians, and Pro-life. Change all or none, but please do keep them consistant. -- ProveIt 19:38, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- I agree with the above. Rename all three from "Pro-life X" to "Anti-abortion X", and, similarly, also rename any "Pro-choice X" categories to "Pro-abortion X". Blunt, but descriptive, and no euphemisms on either side. -- Karada 20:03, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom to fix capitalization. Between the names of the other "Pro-Life" categories, and the fact that "Pro-Choice" categories are still Pro-choice, not Pro-Abortion, I think that this one should stay as it is. A fuller debate to rename all the Pro-Life and Pro-Choice categories at once might deserve a different outcome, but for now, moving just one out of the set is not the right way to handle it. Fix the capitalization, and leave the rest for a more comprehensive debate. - TexasAndroid 20:21, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Seems this is as relevant a moment and place to have said debate...? Regards, David Kernow 03:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom -- Activists get to decide what to call themselves; the fact that they are pro-death penalty, pro-theocracy, and anti-science is irrelevant to their Orwellian word play. Misplaced Pages policy is NOR. --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Passing thought: Do all terrorists (as in "extreme activists") call themselves terrorists? Regards, David Kernow 03:46, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Greater Syracuse to Category:Syracuse, New York
{{{text}}} More precise, and in line with other city categories Paul 04:25, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose This is a metropolitan area category and is in category:Metropolitan areas of the United States. Osomec 13:16, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Osomec. It may be a good idea to create Category:Syracuse, New York as a subcategory of Category:Greater Syracuse, though. - EurekaLott 14:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Oppose per Osomec, supporting EurekaLott's suggestion -newkai | talk | contribs 18:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- RENAME to Category:Greater Syracuse, New York, because there are other Syracuse in the world, and they have regions surrounding them. Syracuse, New York isn't even the most prominent Syracuse in the world. 132.205.45.148 19:30, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Greater Syracuse, New York --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename to Category:Greater Syracuse, New York Adambiswanger1 02:09, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Wikipedians who play mainly as Marth in Super Smash Bros. Melee
You have GOT to be kidding. Part of Category:Wikipedians who play Nintendo GameCube, a category that seems pretty ripe for deletion to begin with. Calton | Talk 02:08, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, useless.--Peta 06:20, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Delete, useless. CalJW 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
Category:Famous Muhajir to Category:Muhajir
- We don't need to say famous ... if they weren't notable in some way they wouldn't be here -- ProveIt 01:02, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. Osomec 13:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. David Kernow 14:39, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. CalJW 19:14, 1 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. --William Allen Simpson 01:47, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- Rename per nom. --Siddiqui 12:38, 2 June 2006 (UTC)
- The objection "if they weren't notable in some way they wouldn't be here" does not appear logical. Obviously the category is established to categorize Famous/Renowned/Notable Muhajirs not other Muhajir releted matters.
- Well, I've no objection on changing the category Category: Famous Muhajir to Category Muhajir if the intention is not denying Muhajir itself. But I am afraid that few people (like Siddiqui) will not stop here and will again put the tag that this category is not necessary, not suitable and bla bla bla because the name itself against their political views. When there exist Afghani, Punjabi, Kashmiri, Bengali people categories then WHY NOT A SINGLE CATEGORY FOR MUHAJIR.
- I named the category Famous Muhajir in order to distinguish Urdu speaking celebrities of Pakistan from other Muhajir related issues.