Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 February 25

< February 24	February 26 >

February 25[edit]

Category:Rescued articles advanced to Good Article status[edit]

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. As below, appropriate for a list in project space, not for a category. Kbdank71 15:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete To me this looks very much like a category created in order to make some sort of point. Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless. Articles are nominated for deletion. Good. Articles get deleted. Good. Articles get created. Good. Articles get improved. Good. This category is imperfectly conceived and applied. It is designed for an article talk page when its real purpose is to act as some sort of self congratulatory badge for an editor. Wrong space and wrong purpose. Give the editor a barnstar and move on Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Tagishsimon (talk) 23:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The category performs the useful purpose of illustrating how poor articles may be improved. This assists the project by educating editors who lack facility in this regard and so improves our prospects of gaining good articles. Also, the nomination fails to AGF and so is uncivil. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per above. I also agree that the tone is a bit uncivil. This category helps show the growth of the articles in it from AFD status to GA status.Smallman12q (talk) 23:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Perhaps this might be better presented as a list? If not, keep, as illustrative of an important point worth stressing. Skomorokh 23:42, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The category itself illustrates nothing. Most articles that reach GA status come from humble beginnings, and one can simply look at the article history to see their development. There is no explicit connection between an article being flagged for rescue at AfD and going on to reach GA status. And why GA status? Why not FA? PC78 (talk) 23:57, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. better as a list somewhere. --Cameron Scott (talk) 00:10, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as an administrative category on talk pages. This is analogous to the category on deleted articles recreated (see CFD below). The outcomes should be the same. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:41, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this does violate WP:POINT and serves no useful purpose. Otto4711 (talk) 01:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, useless category that does nothing to improve the encyclopedia. —An gr 07:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom, and as per discussion below. If there is a category encouraging people to not delete dodgy articles because another article with the same name may later became a GA, what are we going to do for balance by pointing how much time is wasted wondering if a duck really is a duck (i.e. wondering whether a bad article should be deleted). --Johnuniq (talk) 08:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Skomorokh; this is indeed "illustrative of an important point worth stressing". Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:50, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Thsi argument is devoid of policy. Thus far, this is a disruptive WP:IDONTLIKE argument. Where does it state that: Why didn't you ask me to move this item to another page first, as per WP:BEFORE and WP:PRESERVE? The full title of WP:POINT is, "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" how is this item disrupting wikipedia?Isn't this nomination, ignoring possible other venues which could be tried before, much more disruptive than the item you are attempting to delete in the first place? On one of the other four AfDs you created targeting my contributions:

Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion/Log/2009_February_25#Template:Brink

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Category:Rescued_articles_advanced_to_Good_Article_status

Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_February_25#Category:Deleted_article_recreated_and_advanced_to_Good_Articles_Class

...you call other editors contributions "trash",[1] are the four good article status articles in this category still "trash"? Isn't calling other editors contributions "trash" disruptive and uncivil, as you have accused other editors of being? Thus far you have stated that "Not a WP:POINT sort of point" which admits this does not fall within WP:POINT, what part of WP:POINT does this violate? Ikip (talk) 08:57, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You are showing an interesting grasp of logic. You ask "Thus far you have stated that "Not a WP:POINT sort of point" which admits this does not fall within WP:POINT, what part of WP:POINT does this violate?" That question is a non sequitur. Also, do note, not for the first time, that I have admitted nothing at all. I have stated something clearly, though your words do seem to point to the fact that you have missed the point. The category and the other category, and the two templates are all part of some campaign of yours to make some sort of point, of course. And really they do need to be considered as one lump of stuff. But there seems little point in using logic in talking to you of you don't get the point. Or is your point in these arguments to make sure that no-one sees the point? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:12, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General question Can anyone provide any policy or guidelines to support the deletion of this item? Thus far I have heard a lot of "shoulds", and "i think", but this entire debate has been devoid of any policy or guidelines. I have asked the nominator repeatedly to provide any policy or guidelines to back up this WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, and I have not gotten a response. The only policy mentioned is WP:POINT, which the nominator says "Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless." Not a Point? Editors parrot WP:POINT, but the title of Point, is don't "disrupt wikipedia to make a point". How is this item disruptive? Ikip (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Replied below to the identical comment copy-pasted into the older debate. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:POINT no business in mainspace. We're running an encyclopedia, not a meta-encyclopedia. If someone or some group wants to keep their own personal list in userspace or projectspace, that's their business. THF (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND issue, by an editor in retaliation for a content dispute at Business Plot. Ikip (talk) 16:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not sure this category does much harm in Article Talk namespace (as long as the template is not used to imply credit to certain WikiProjects for work of all the article's editors), and I can imagine a benefit. Might be better as a list in Project space. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I asked that Ikip create this category when I saw the deleted→GA cat, because I was thinking of WP:HEY, a favorite essay of mine. When I initially saw the first cat, I had a similar reaction as most of you above--it seemed unacceptable for mainspace and seemed written to have something that deletionists noses could be rubbed in. But it isn't in mainspace, it's a talk page category. Arguably is it a little slanted, and it would be hard to maintain (or even search for...I guess you could search w/ a bot). But it is relatively harmless. I do want to say that Ikip should heed the comments here, even those of the nominator. The nom has something of a point that these appear to have been creating in order to prove a point in the notability/deletion debates rather than to help editors sort and navigate articles. Protonk (talk) 17:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Meaningless category. The category is meaningless because far from all articles at AfD are {{rescue}} tagged and ARS explicitly states that their task with an article stops when the article is kept. A category such as Category:Good articles formerly up for deletion would make more sense. Taemyr (talk) 19:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not defining of the subject of the article or even of the article. Shall we have all deleted articles appended with a category Category:Deleted crap that someone thought was worthy of inclusion. C'mon. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a category created with a point, and also because the organization of the article doesn't help out the encyclopedia at all. The past status of an article has no bearing on its present state. Themfromspace (talk) 23:26, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify to project-space per my reasoning in the "Deleted articles recreated" discussion. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Regardless of what motivations might or might not be behind creation of this category, I fail to see how categorizing articles by this fact helps Wikipedia. There would be no encyclopedic reason to specifically look for articles rescued and later brought to GA status, so the category grouping is pointless. VegaDark (talk) 18:20, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sister categories of this category would be Category:Rescued articles not advanced to Good Article status and Category:Articles advanced to Good Article status without being rescued - their only point would be being pointless or being WP:POINTy, neither of which wikipedia needs. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:47, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (listify if the project wants it). I understand wanting to illustrate project successes. But a category is probably not the best way to do it in this case. I tried to think of reasons to keep this category. For example, every project has a category of articles covered by the project. However, technically, the ARS covers every article. So all things being equal, this has the potential of becoming an all-inclusive category. Or at least one that, presuming the ARS continues a long healthy postive life as a project, one which will grow and grow unendingly... If kept, this should at least be a hidden category. - jc37 11:45, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – aside from being pointy, this doesn't help our readers at all; make a list at the ARS if you wish, but a cat isn't appropriate. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 03:30, 3 March 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:Evolutionists[edit]

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) 01:35, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete The term is not in common usage and Category:Evolutionary biologists already exists. Novangelis (talk) 22:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Evolutionism is a much misused term, already better covered under the longstanding and more accurate category:Evolutionary biologists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dave souza (talk • contribs)
Delete. Useless category that potentially goes far beyond evolutionary biologists to include any notable person who acknowledges evolution. Today the list is virtually endless and essentially meaningless. ... Kenosis (talk) 22:21, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thank you for common sense. This category is likely to be used for trivial pursuits. Dave souza points out above that we already have the correct category. Charles Darwin was a biologist who specialized in evolution, not an "evolutionist". --Johnuniq (talk) 23:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:OCAT, categorization by opinion. Johnbod (talk) 01:00, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Evolutionist" is a pejorative term used by the Creationist crowd to equate the science of Evolution to religious belief. It is not a term used by anyone but Creationists these days. it is a meaningless, useless list. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 01:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Maybe should be split off into multiple categories? Some of the people listed aren't biologists but ascribe to some sort of "evolutionary" view. See for example Sorokim, and Thoreau and Eric Hobsbawm all of whom are in the category. The category as it stands isn't very useful. It is a bit of a grab bag. So many different beliefs have an evolutionary element that a single broad category for all of them isn't helpful. I'm not convinced that the term "evolutionist" is actually really a perjorative but many people seem to think so so we might as well avoid its use if we have unambiguously neutral synonyms. JoshuaZ (talk)
Comment: The category's creator doesn't seem to be a Creationist or anything like that. Not clear what he had in mind, but I notified him of the CFD, so maybe we'll hear from him. Cgingold (talk) 04:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
DeleteThe only use I can think of is as a pejorative term (or Trivial Pursuits maybe), we have a category for evolutionary biologists. dougweller (talk) 08:24, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
We also have Category:Evolutionary psychologists which seems to have no links with with Category:Evolutionists or Category:Evolutionary biologists. Maybe the former of these two should be a parent category for other categories of different kinds of evolutionists. This seems more complex than it looks on the surface, but I am not in position to do more. --Bduke (Discussion) 11:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm no expert, and I recognize that Psychology is not a sub-set of Biology, but wouldn't Category:Evolutionary psychologists be a sub-category of Category:Evolutionary biologists? / edg ☺ ☭ 18:41, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Usage of this term is not uniform. If it is intended to indicate "active in the development of evolutionary theory", then the existing Category:Evolutionary biologists is more appropriate; if it indicates "believer in (some form of) evolutionary theory", then it is unuseful, since it embraces a huge number of people, and will often be unverifiable for individuals who are not evolutionary biologists; if it indicates (as I suspect) a partisan label proposed by creationists (and other like-minded groups) to label their (assumed) opponents, then it should be rejected – just as we would reject a partisan category such as "warmongers".FredV (talk) 13:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As noted by many above, "evolutionism" is a straw man, not a scientific term.-choster (talk) 18:42, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete doesn't serve any purpose, not useful, and hard to verify. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it being highly unclear. 76.66.193.90 (talk) 06:20, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It violates NPOV, uses an awfully broad and vague term, and a similiar but more precise category exists which captures the intent of this one but without the bias. Themfromspace (talk) 06:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm pretty sure you mean it's POV.-choster (talk) 07:14, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

:0 Changed it. Themfromspace (talk) 07:16, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Broad (apparently, just Evolutionists named Steve number over 1000), vague (just everyone who agrees evolution occurs?), and redundant with Category:Evolutionary biologists. / edg ☺ ☭ 18:31, 27 February 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:Tribes officially recognized by the United States[edit]

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: relisted on mar 4. Kbdank71 15:18, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States to Category:US Federally recognized tribes

Nominator's rationale: Exact same concept. MBisanz ^talk 20:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support, though I prefer Category:Tribes officially recognized by the United States as the category name, partly because "Tribes" happens to be capitalized. Worth noting, also, that the US sense of "tribe" is inclusive/simultaneously a reference to a government as well as a people, and this isn't always apt or even ethnographically viable. There's supposed to be a distinct between ethnographic and tribal-organization articles, but this hasn't been applied across the board, and again part of the issue is that Category:Native American tribes is inherently vague, as it includes both peoples and also governments comprising groups of those peoples; Colville and Grand Ronde come to mind (in Washington and Oregon respectively). It would be better, for the sake of clarity, if Category:Tribal organizations recognized by the United States or Category:Tribal governments recognized by the United States were subcats of Category:Native American tribes, and even that, really, should be subcatted to Category:Native American peoples except there's already Category:Indigenous peoples of North America (I think....) which is inclusive of the Canadian First Nations/peoples cats and also, for waht there are of them, the Mexican indigenous peoples.....whatever's decided of this merge, the vaguenss of the term "tribe" in the American usage is misleading in non-American contexts and also, I submit, potentially confusing form within the Amerian perspective as well.Skookum1 (talk) 20:56, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. The problem with the name "Tribes officially recognized by the United States" is that the term does not clearly distinguish between tribes recognized by the federal government or state governments. There is a wide gulf of legal rights between federally recognized and state recognized tribes. Also, there are even stranger legal situations such as with the Lumbee, where the US has officially acknowledged them as being "Indians" but won't recognize them as a tribe. "US" needs to be included since some tribes within the US are recognized by other governments, such as Cuba. "Tribal governments" does not quite work because articles about the federally recognized tribes also include information about the tribal communities, such as famous members or grassroots events such as powwows, that might not be part of the tribal government. "Tribes," although not following the strict anthropological definition of the term, is the mostly commonly used term for Native American entities today. Terms such as "Nation" or "Band" carry their own baggage and are less frequently used. I agree that making this category a sub-cat of "Category:Native American tribes" makes sense. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
Reverse Merge -- The target is an unsatisfactory name (1) US is an abbreviation (2) Federally is wrongly capitalised. Alternatively Merge both to Category:Tribes officially recognized federally by the United States or soemthing like that. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Tribes where? How about Category:Native American tribes with United States federal recognition? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Luckily all the tribes that the United States recognizes are Native American/Native Alaskan so no need spell that out. Perhaps the best would be: Category:Tribes federally recognized by the United States. -Uyvsdi (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]
rename to Category:Native American communities federally recognized by the United States or remove "federally" and append "government" instead. Not all of these are "tribes" many are "bands" or "communities" by title, what they are generically are "associations" or "communities" or even "governments" for I believe that the recognition is to the tribe by and through its representatives which is responsible for defining who is in or not in the tribe based on its own inclusion criteria. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:07, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Support rename to something with Native American in the title. The reader has no way to know that the currently named category should not include e.g. Australian Aboriginal tribes. Arnoutf (talk) 10:43, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The phrase "United States" should be the tip-off. The US federal government doesn't recognize tribes residing in other countries, since they would be out of their jurisdiction. Conversely "Native American" most often means indigenous peoples of the Americas, North and South. -Uyvsdi (talk) 21:35, 2 March 2009 (UTC)Uyvsdi[reply]

How about Category:Federally recognized tribes in the United States? Postdlf (talk) 04:23, 3 March 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:Television shows by language[edit]

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: relisted on mar 4. Kbdank71 15:17, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Television shows by language to Category:Television programs by language

Nominator's rationale: Rename to make it uniform with Category:Television programs by location, Category:Television programs by source, and Category:Television programs by type (see parent category). ~EdGl (talk) 19:59, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the sub-cats then? Johnbod (talk) 01:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, true, and the "...by location" category has the same problem. What should be done, then? ~EdGl (talk)

Comment prefer series to program to avoid UK/US spelling differences. Tim! (talk) 18:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment which is why I used show in the first place. I thought it was neutral sounding. --Kevlar (talk • contribs) 01:11, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Presuming that this doesn't include a "one-shot" stand-alone program/programme, how about "television series", per WP:NC-TV? - jc37 09:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As a Brit I would prefer "television series". At present there do not seem to be any program(me)s in these categories which do not fit "series". Is it likely that foreign-language programmes which are not series will ne notable enough to have their own Wikipedia articles, e.g. television news? - Fayenatic (talk) 09:12, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, the "nightly news" is a "series" as well. - jc37 11:47, 2 March 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:Usage-Based Linguistics[edit]

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. Kbdank71 15:15, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete This category doesn't correspond to any article in particular, and there are only two articles in it, one of which is already in the higher-order Category:Linguistics and the other of which could easily be put there. AFAIK, "usage-based linguistics" is not a commonly known or well defined subarea of linguistics. —An gr 18:58, 25 February 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.

Economies[edit]

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. Kbdank71 15:14, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Economy of Baltimore to Category:Economy of Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Economy of Louisville to Category:Economy of Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Economy of Omaha to Category:Economy of Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Economy of Philadelphia to Category:Economy of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Companies based in Oklahoma City to Category:Companies based in Oklahoma City, Oklahoma

Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of Category:Economies of cities in the United States and Category:Companies by city in the United States.--Mike Selinker (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases. Hmains (talk) 04:52, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match articles - if the articles are at City rather than City, State do not rename. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom to match parent categories (i.e. Category:Baltimore, Maryland, Category:Louisville, Kentucky, and so on). For cities and towns, I think categories should have more disambiguation than articles, which can contain highly-visible hatnotes to disambiguation pages. If, however, consensus was to rename the parent categories to remove the state disambiguator, I'd support having the subcategories without the state disambiguator as well. Note: Per Carlossuarez46's suggestion, only the Lousiville and Omaha categories would be renamed. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:13, 3 March 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:2000s black and white films[edit]

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 for now. Consensus is to implement a by-decade set of subcats to Category:Black and white films, thereby keeping this category as is, however, nobody has stepped up to state they will implement the plan, and without that, the plan fails. If someone states they want to take this on, I'll get the list of 2000s articles and recreate this category. Kbdank71 15:24, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete/Rename? Not sure about this. This is a stand alone category, it is not part of a "black and white films by decade" category scheme, and I don't know if other such categories would be desirable. Perhaps rename to Category:Post-1960s black and white films as per List of post-1960s films in black-and-white, but the year 2000 is a very arbitrary cut off point. PC78 (talk) 16:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With over 8500 articles in Category:Black and white films, implementation of a by-decade subdivision seems like a good idea to me, in which case this category could be kept. Of course, someone would have to do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:33, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
keep and implement a by-decade set of sub-cats. This work should not be too bad, using AWB to look for '199', for example, should obtain a working list of 1990s films to examine. Hmains (talk) 04:25, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- If people are willing to do this then I'm happy to keep the category and withdraw this nomination. However, there needs to be some consistancy in the inclusion criteria for these categories; this category is for films that are "largely" in black and white, whereas the parent Category:Black and white films is for films that are "entirely" black and white. Also, should "black and white" be hyphenated in these category names as per the article black-and-white? PC78 (talk) 17:09, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yes, how about both saying 'largely black and white'. I don't know what to say about the 'not colorized'. The classic films were not colorized when created; if another company came along later and colorized a copy, how does that film count? Hmains (talk) 21:59, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If kept, I think we also need a commitment from someone to actually implement this. I'm not volunteering myself to do it, but it would be fine if someone else wanted to do it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:22, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm sure a bot can be setup for this sort of thing. No-one is going to go through 8,500+ articles to sub-sort them! Lugnuts (talk) 14:48, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're "sure" a bot can do this? I'm not at all sure of that. How can a bot identify the year of the specific decade of a film in each of the 8500 cases, especially if they are not all already categorized by decade in some other way? I think it probably will require someone going through all the articles to sort them. Since no one seems keen to do this, I'm leaning towards delete. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It seems like a good thing to have a category specifying b+w, especially when it comes to the cross-over years of the late 1940s, 1950s when colour began to predominate. FWIW Bzuk (talk) 14:30, 28 February 2009 (UTC).[reply]
- I'm a little confused by your comment: we already do have a category for black and white films, Category:Black and white films which is not the subject of this discussion. If you support futher subcategorisation by decade then great, but as Good Ol’factory says above I think we need commitment from someone to actually do it (and I shall take this opportunity to rule myself out, as on balance I would rather delete this category and upmerge to the parent). PC78 (talk) 14:36, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. With hundreds of film articles in desperate need of expansion or cleanup, isn't it better to spend time on them instead of a not-so-necessary new category? Is sorting by decade that important? How many B&W films were made between 1970 and now? 209.247.22.164 (talk) 15:20, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per above discussion. No one seems anxious to volunteer to do this, and I'm not convinced a bot could do it. My mind could be changed if someone volunteered to sub-sort, but otherwise, we may as well delete this one decade category. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 08:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment regarding categorization by a bot – A lot of the articles in Category:Black and white films are also categorized in a [Year] films category (e.g. Category:1928 films). If a bot could read the year, then it could possibly add the appropriate 'black and white films' decade category. However, I think we need to be realistic about the fact that virtually all articles in the category will go into a pre-1960s subcategory. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:21, 3 March 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:Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class[edit]

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. A recreated article has either gone through DRV and was overturned, or is a completely rewritten new article which has nothing to do with the original save the name. Neither of which are good reasons for a category. This does not preclude the project listing the articles in project space. Kbdank71 15:07, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete To me this looks very much like a category created in order to make some sort of point. Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless. Articles get deleted. Good. Articles get created. Good. The relationship between a deleted article and one created later is tenuous in the extreme. Often the only connection is the name. So this category is not in the slightest way notable, and articles gathered within it are in it by coincidence. Let us consign this category to oblivion. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete whatever his original purpose was, the user who created this seem intend in whipping up drama - I just see this as another example of that. The category itself is meaningless because many of the recreated articles will have nothing to do with the deleted originals - completely misleading. --Cameron Scott (talk) 17:39, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

How is the title "Deleted article recreated and advanced to Good Articles Class" misleading? I am glad you can read my intermost thoughts, and know what I intended in creating this article. This entire baseless WP:IDONTLIKE nomination is more disruptive and causes more wikidrama than a harmless category on a talk page ever will be.Ikip (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It's misleading "because many of the recreated articles will have nothing to do with the deleted originals", in case you missed it. Pretty clear to me. Rehevkor ✉ 15:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with all above; additionaly this is meta/editing type of information that should not be displayed in mainspace (not even in the categories list at the bottom of an article). Arnoutf (talk) 17:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is on talkspace, not mainspace. Please strike. Can you cite any policy which forbids a category like this on a talkspace. Ikip (talk) 12:35, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This category was, without my knowledge, created for me. I have saved/recreated several articles (for detail, see my user page). I think this category would be a subcategory of articles formerly nominated for deletion. If such a parent category has been determined not to be useful then this category might not be useful either. I am honored to have had an attempt made to create a category related to my own hard work.--TonyTheTiger (t/c/bio/WP:CHICAGO/WP:LOTM) 18:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Acdixon ^{(talk • contribs • count)} 18:36, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is it not a good thing to let editors know that even "bad" articles can be improved to the point of being GA? If it was a category created only to make a point.. it seems to be a very good point and well worth making. I have myself improved many articles that might otherwise have been deleted. I feel good about being able to improve the project. It seems to me that anything that encourages the creation of decent encyclopedic content to improve wiki should be itself encouraged. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 18:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Of course you have improved articles. So has any conscientious editor. That is what we do. This is not about improving articles that woudl have otherwise have been deleted, though. This is about an article on (eg) Green left handed gross widgets that was created by the Green Gross Widget Corporation and was pure spam, that was deleted, rightly. Then was it recreated by an editor such as yourself, who probably had no idea that it had been deleted and who researched reliable sources and created an article that doesn't even refer to the GGWC because it is, itself, not notable. There is no relationship between the two articles, except the article title. Shoving the article into that category is a ludicrous and unencyclopaedic act. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you then yourself suggest some suitable category tag that might then act as a notification that an article was dead and it was properly brought back? I wanted to write about Margo Sappington. Then found there had been an article about her that was speedied as a copyvio. I have no doubt that the speedy was correct. From the deleting Admin I was given clues as to what had been there, though naturally he could not userfy a copyvio. I spent a few days, got input from other editors, created a fine and well sourced little article, and even had a DYK about her on mainpage yesterday. For myself, a do not need such a tag of "encouragement" as my motivation is the improvement of the project. But to use your example, if someone were to bring that widget article back to life in such a manner as to make it completely worthy of wiki... might it not encourage others to point out that it is possible to do? If something as simple as a category tag can be created that encourages the continued improvement of wiki, let's do it. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 19:22, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think you make the entire point when you say "For myself, a do not need such a tag of "encouragement" as my motivation is the improvement of the project." Categories, even in the talk space of articles, that pat people on the back run counter to all that is here. Award them a barnstar and move on. The set of "yet to be created" articles is large. I include 'deleted trash' as part of that set. Why on earth would such a category encourage someone to seek out deleted trash and recreate it? How does a newbie find out what was deleted? Why would they care? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps because by showing that even "deleted trash" can be made into a gleaming gem for wiki, we encourage editors to consider what improves wiki... that even the lowliest blip of dust might one day be a shining star for the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

keep I am the creator of this category, I was attempting to recognize editors who save articles. The nominator admits that this template does not fall under WP:POINT there is no other policy reason that is mentioned in any subsequent discussion. This is simply an WP:IDONTLIKE noimation. Fiddle Faddle why do you consider other editors contributions "trash", that seems rather deeming, don't you think? Also the full title of WP:POINT is, "Don't disrupt Wikipedia to make a point" how is this item disrupting wikipedia? the only disruption of Wikipedia I see is this deletion nomination? Ikip (talk) 20:32, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If the intention behind this category is to recognise editors, then it should be a user category, not an article category. PC78 (talk) 20:49, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikip, Really I see your response as twisting my words. I shall, of course, continue to assume good faith cheerfully. I can tell you that your choice of the word "admit" is bizarre, and your rather weird pseudo-attack over my terming deleted articles as trash, while amusing, is ill founded. We delete it, we "trash" it. It is gone. This category is ill judged, and ill placed. If you want to recognise a user, give them a barnstar. You are quite putting me off flagging articles for rescue with this loud drum you are beating. I'm far more tempted to let them take their chance. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:28, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

@Ikip. I would not strongly protest against a template for the talk page (although I definitely would not favour it either; as I think it is editor self-praise). However this category shows up in the mainspace article; which is reader space not editor space. What value to a non-editor reader has the mentioning of this specific category. If it has none, it should not be used. Arnoutf (talk) 22:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Timrent has put the current template up for deletion. See Wikipedia:Templates_for_deletion#Template:Rescued.Smallman12q (talk) 23:45, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, nominator says he will "assume good faith" in one sentence, then in the next calls my comments, a "bizarre" "pseudo-attack", while defending calling other editors contributions "trash". Does "trash" include the 4 articles which were recreated and are now good articles? I am only asking for any policy to back up your nomination, thus far you cannot provide a single one, out of the hundreds of essays, policies and guidelines wikipedia has. That is why this is a WP:IDONTLIKE nomination. Ikip (talk) 12:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've decided to stay patient, despite your ever present apparent hostility. The thing you fail to acknowledge is that the articles that were deleted were deleted for valid reasons, or reasons that were, or appeared to be, at the time. There were, by definition, trash. They were thus trashed. And that is good. Trash does not enhance an encyclopaedia. In their place, in place of the trash, there are now good articles. And that is good, but the two events are not linked. Not is a weird attempt to link them in any way useful.

If in my opinion an editor produces trash I am entitled to say so, provided I am civil. I will tell you now, clearly, that I perceive the two templates and the two categories that you have created as trash. That is my opinion. It is expressed with civility and I am entitled to it. I believe that they do nothing to enhance Wikipedia, and, as this is my opinion, I have nominated them all for deletion. That is good, because it allows a consensus to be reached. And that consensus will either keep or delete them. Please understand that I don't care about the outcome, I simply care that there is an outcome. If the outcome is to retain the items then I will have made a very good case in your favour simply by nominating what I perceive of as trash for deletion. I may not "like" that, but it will, because it will have been judged by consensus, be good for the encyclopaedia.

You may categorise the nomination in any way that you see fit. Others will judge that. I could also say that creating them was WP:ILIKEIT and that all your arguments are because you like them. It is a two edged sword you are wielding here. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 08:38, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Categories are to aid readers, not praise editors. If you want to recognize editors who revive deleted article to GA status, give them a barnstar. —An gr 21:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Barnstars are polite 'atta-boys' given by one editor to another. What the category is intended to do is tag an article as having come back from the dead and having itself been improved by one editor or dozens to GA status. Its not about glorifying an individual, but to aid readers in understanding a process that improves wiki. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 00:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
There is no way in which this "category" aids readers or improves the encyclopedia. It is itself just an "atta-boy" given by one editor to another, and does so in the wrong way and the wrong namespace. —An gr 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this category shows the growth of an article and makes readers aware that it was once contested and up for deletion. A template would be nice.Smallman12q (talk) 23:40, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Humans love noticing patterns and unusual behavior, but WP should not encourage this with categories that have no purpose other than trivia. WP should have categories of good articles because they are good, not categories of good articles created on February 29, or other interesting but essentially unhelpful collections. Editors should create good articles because they are worthwhile, not because they were encouraged by adding another notch to a category. --Johnuniq (talk) 23:47, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

... certainly... in a perfect world and on a perfect wikipedia. But Wiki recignizes that it is itself imperfect, and we can recognize that alturism is not a world standard. So by being able to simply show by a cat that something could be made better to improve the project even after it had already died a quick death, would perhaps encourage just a little more of alturism that acts to improve the project. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Recognition of such articles is directly helpful to the project by providing examples of where our processes have failed in preserving and improving articles in accordance with our editing policy so that these defective processes may be improved. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:58, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but only as an administrative category on talk pages (if not there already). Peterkingiron (talk) 00:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - both pointless and WP:POINT-y. Otto4711 (talk) 01:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Difficult to see anything that acts to improve wikipedia as being pointless. Schmidt, ^{MICHAEL Q.} 02:20, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Quite right, but this doesn't act to improve Wikipedia. —An gr 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what part of WP:POINT this violates, instead of parotting nominator. This nomination just shows that anything can be deleted, devoid of any policy reasons. Ikip (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the other keep rationales, but I think Peterkingiron's was the best idea.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
eh, I don't know Categories that keep track of internal issues are fine as long as they aren't in mainspace. This is one of the most fascinating internal categories I've ever seen. I do agree that it isn't that useful. Maybe keep as a list in someone's user space? I wouldn't mind it in my userspace. JoshuaZ (talk) 03:05, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I never knew this existed, but it's a wonderful way to categorize articles for which some editors believed there could never be an acceptable claim of notability, while others turned it around and brought it back as a good article. I guess deletionists won't like this one, but then again they want everything they don't like deleted. Alansohn (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify. One project's purview, often in need of commentary, allows for discussion of context. (This was restored because the situation changed, that was restored because older info was uncovered, etc.) - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 06:08, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
A list is okay, provided it's not in article space. —An gr 07:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'm fairly sure he's aware of that tidbit. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As a subpage of WP:ARS, of course. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire - past ops) 11:16, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Listify per AMiB. Fine for projectspace concerns; if the ARS wants to keep a running tally of this, then be my guest, but not as a cat. — sephiroth bcr ^(converse) 08:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Some of the examples give above are mind-boggling. Why would we want to highlight that once upon a time a current GA-class article was deleted as a blatant copyright violation, or because the subject at the time was of no importance? This category was conceived to make a point about deletion; we do not clutter categoryspace with new cats to make a point any more than we do anything to make a point. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 09:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what part of WP:POINT this violates.Ikip (talk) 12:30, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

General question Can anyone provide any policy or guidelines to support the deletion of this item? Thus far I have heard a lot of "shoulds", and "i think", but this entire debate has been devoid of any policy or guidelines. I have asked the nominator repeatedly to provide any policy or guidelines to back up this WP:IDONTLIKE nomination, and I have not gotten a response. The only policy mentioned is WP:POINT, which the nominator says "Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless." Not a Point? Ikip (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The question is "why do we need this category"? It performs no function listed under WP:CAT#What categories should be created; nor does it perform any function listed under WP:CAT#Project categories. Rather, it appears to be little more than a way of using WP's category system to be able to gather evidence as part of an agenda concerning the deletion of items. You don't need to reply to everybody, by the way. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 12:40, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The category is well within the scope of the project category concept. Since articles of this sort would be hard to find otherwise, it serves a useful navigation purpose. And articles of this sort may need special protection since it sadly seems to be the case that some editors harbour grudges against articles which they have failed to delete and will return again and again to attack them. By assisting projects such as ARS in defending such articles, the category serves to improve the encyclopedia in the same way as other project categories. Colonel Warden (talk) 12:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When did this turn into a war with attack and defence? This is an encyclopaedia. We create articles, we edit them, we propose them for deletion, we enhance them to avoid deletion. Sometimes deletion improves the overall quality of the encyclopaedia. Think of spam removal, as a small example. Add hoax articles to the list. There is no mentality of attack and defend. It's a piece of web territory. No-one will die. Nothing is lost for ever because it's GFDL and Mediawiki software. Lazarus lives here. If ARS wants a list, let it create one. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 13:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what part of WP:POINT this violates Fiddle Faddle and Chris Cunningham. I have asked before, and been ignored.Ikip (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No-one is ignoring you. People are discussing the templates and categories you created. And the community will decide by consensus what happens to them. Please don't feel ignored. You have achieved getting this discussed, which surely shows that there was some point in creating them. What I hope is that the point contained within them will be lost by deleting them. All of these four walk, look and quack like the duck of making a point, and your main argument in favour seems to be WP:ILIKEIT. Or rather WP:IWANTITSOTHERE! which really ought to exist! Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Listify within ARS per AMiB, if it's considered desirable by the group then there's no reason a running tally shouldn't be kept, but that doesn't need to spill out into mainspace. Someone another 13:28, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The WP:POINT no business in mainspace. We're running an encyclopedia, not a meta-encyclopedia. If someone or some group wants to keep their own personal list in userspace or projectspace, that's their business. THF (talk) 14:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:HOUND issue, by an editor in retaliation for a content dispute at Business Plot. Ikip (talk) 16:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of creator's intent, delete per Cameron Scott: recreated articles may be unrelated to the deleted originals. Would be okay as a WikiProject sub-page list. / edg ☺ ☭ 15:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Cameron Scott. Doctorfluffy (robe and wizard hat) 15:39, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per my comments on the rescued cat. I'm less warm to this prospect than the rescued one. Protonk (talk) 17:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Provided the category is restricted to recreated articles. That is, no articles that just happen to have the same name. Taemyr (talk) 19:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok, I'm lost. How can that happen? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Recreation is an admin tool. Articles can be created in the place of an former deleted article, and the only known thing about the relation between the two articles is that they share a name. Taemyr (talk) 19:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think we are speaking about any old article that was deleted and re-created. I bow to your opinion about admin tools, but I am sure this is more generic than that. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 19:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the provided part of my keep. Taemyr (talk) 20:15, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And perhaps you should not be so quick to agree with my statements about admin tools; in the above I mean undelete rather than recreate. Taemyr (talk) 20:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I bow you your opinion about that too. I'm not an admin, so what do I know? Alice in Wonderland has relevance here I think. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. One article of vandalism created at 2048 Summer Olympics will be in this category eventually so what is the similarity? Oh, it's the WP:POINT of it all. Now I see. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:12, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And if we rename to Category:undeleted articles advanced to GA? Taemyr (talk) 20:26, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also great scope for nominating that for deletion for the self same reason. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 21:34, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong KEEP Lets stay on point. The article was put up for deletion because of WP:POINT altho the nominator admits that his claim falls a little short. My read of the situation is that the article is NOT designed or intended merely for praise. It records a fact. An article was deleted...it was brought back to life...and it achieved some relative success in WikiWorld. Also, the Nominator states that Often the only connection is the name. I would like to see that verified since "Often" may be constued to mean "most of the time". Which I doubt is the case. I am in agreement w/ Editors Colonel Wardman, Schmidt, Peterkinion and Ikips reasons to support this article.--75.2.243.138 (talk) 22:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- — 75.2.243.138 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Comment The nominator admits no such thing. The nominator was precise about the fact that this is not a WP:POINT point. Do not twist my words. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:01, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Not a WP:POINT sort of point, but a point nonetheless. Your words, not mine!--75.2.243.138 (talk) 23:11, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

As I said, I used precision. They do not seem particularly hard to understand, nor easy to twist, but you made the attempt to twist, and, it would appear, out twisted yourself. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 23:38, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am confused by what you said also, and have yet to get any explaination from anyone how this is a WP:POINT violation. Ikip (talk) 21:12, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please see duck test, and note that I have also said very clearly that I did not believe when making the nomination that thsi broke WP:POINT. However I am fast thinking Methinks he doth protest too much at this point. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 09:55, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This pointy category that only serves to intensify the battleground atmosphere we have here. This heated debate itself is proof of that. Wikipedia is about working together and any page used in an "I told you so" style of passive-aggression is a detriment to the project as a whole. Themfromspace (talk) 06:07, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please quote what part of WP:POINT this violates.Ikip (talk) 21:17, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would say this category goes against the whole idea of "State your point; don't prove it experimentally"; as this whole category appears to be nothing but an experiment in gathering evidence against deletionism (which I think is also a bad thing). As repeatedly discussed above, the empirical data of the experiment in this case is flawed as originally deleted articles may have indeed been ba articles with no relation except the name to the current good article. (If you want a reference to an example in WP:POINT, please note that a list of examples does not include all relevant cases; so asking for that is irrelevant). Arnoutf (talk) 16:18, 28 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or listify to project-space. As a category, this grouping is arbitrary (why not "article redirected" or "article merged" and "B-Class", "FA-Class" and so on?), POINTy, and of no organizational value.
I don't think anyone disputes that too many AfD nominations are made without sufficient effort to improve the nominated article, but this category is not a constructive way to respond to the issue. A lot of people have picked up on the implication that the articles in this category should not have been deleted, which makes this category a case of WP:POINT—"state your point; don't prove it experimentally"—and (perhaps unintentionally) a criticism against the AfD nominators, participants, and/or closers.
Perhaps most importantly, the category serves no organizational purpose. "Deleted article recreated and advanced to GA-Class". Kudos to the editor(s) who brought the article to GA class, but what significance does the deletion and recreation of the article have for the article itself or for its talk page? If the goal is to conduct research on "defective processes", then maintain a list in project-space. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 06:35, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The only purpose I see of this category is to slap non-inclusionists on the wrist, which is definately battleground territory. And that's what wikipedia is not (WP:NOT#BATTLEGROUND). Disclosure: I have merged articles for cleanup reasons and have recreated and improved them to GA at a more appropriate time. If this category remains, I foresee my own improvements drives being blanket-used against my future improvement drives. – sgeureka ^t•c 22:37, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or listify to project space Far too WP:POINTy to be in article space. Raven1977 ^{Talk to me}_{My edits} 04:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (listify if the project wants it). - Even giving this and its members the benefit of the doubt, this would essentially be: articles which passed a WP:DRV. (And if not: articles which should have been G4 re-deleted, but weren't, or some such...) Ignoring the WP:POINT questions for a moment, I'm honestly wondering at the inclusion criteria. Did they have to be deleted as a result of a deletion discussion? a speedy deletion? This is important particularly since G4 differentiates between the two. But all of this is skirting the fact that this is obviously an attempt to "point out" the successes of ARS. While that may be a laudable goal, a category is probably not the way to do it. - jc37 11:54, 2 March 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.

Schools[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Elementary schools in Omaha to Category:Elementary schools in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Middle schools in Omaha to Category:Middle schools in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Middle schools in Pittsburgh to Category:Middle schools in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Middle schools in Seattle to Category:Middle schools in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:High schools in Minneapolis to Category:High schools in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:High schools in Omaha to Category:High schools in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:High schools in Philadelphia to Category:High schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:High schools in Pittsburgh to Category:High schools in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:High schools in San Francisco to Category:High schools in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia to Category:Roman Catholic secondary schools in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Schools in North Omaha to Category:Schools in North Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Education in North Omaha to Category:Education in North Omaha, Nebraska

Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of their categories.--Mike Selinker (talk) 16:03, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases. Hmains (talk) 04:53, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match articles - if the articles are at City (like San Francisco) rather than City, State do not rename. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename all per nom to match parent categories (i.e. Category:Omaha, Nebraska, Category:Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and so on). For cities and towns, I think categories should have more disambiguation than articles, which can contain highly-visible hatnotes to disambiguation pages. If, however, consensus was to rename the parent categories to remove the state disambiguator, I'd support having the subcategories without the state disambiguator as well. –Black Falcon ^(Talk) 17:26, 3 March 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.

Universities and colleges in Zhengzhou[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Colleges and universities in Zhengzhou to Category:Universities and colleges in Zhengzhou

Nominator's rationale: Other than the Memphis one in the nomination below, this is the only category with "colleges" before "universities".--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:37, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 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.

Universities and colleges[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:52, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Baltimore to Category:Universities and colleges in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Baton Rouge to Category:Universities and colleges in Baton Rouge, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Chicago to Category:Universities and colleges in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Cincinnati to Category:Universities and colleges in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Cleveland to Category:Universities and colleges in Cleveland, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Dallas to Category:Universities and colleges in Dallas, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Fort Worth to Category:Universities and colleges in Fort Worth, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Louisville to Category:Universities and colleges in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Milwaukee to Category:Universities and colleges in Milwaukee, Wisconsin

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Nashville to Category:Universities and colleges in Nashville, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in New Orleans to Category:Universities and colleges in New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Philadelphia to Category:Universities and colleges in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh to Category:Universities and colleges in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Raleigh-Durham to Category:Universities and colleges in Raleigh-Durham, North Carolina

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in San Francisco to Category:Universities and colleges in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Universities and colleges in Seattle to Category:Universities and colleges in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Los Angeles area universities and colleges to Category:Universities and colleges in the Greater Los Angeles Area

Propose renaming Category:Colleges and universities in the Memphis Metro Area to Category:Universities and colleges in the Memphis Metro Area

Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of Category:Universities and colleges in the United States by city. The last two are a little unclear to me; I've mostly got them in here to address the ordering, but I can see other ways to do this such as by county.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:35, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases. Hmains (talk) 04:54, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Any reason why this logic was not applied to the Devon nomination? Given the size of the dab page there, clearly that proposed rename lacks clarity by not being a complete name. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:18, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - Well, my reason is that there doesn't seem to be any precedent for adding counties like there is with states. I would certainly support that, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:19, 27 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match articles - if the articles are at City rather than City, State do not rename. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:17, 26 February 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:People of Côte d'Ivoire descent[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:51, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:People of Côte d'Ivoire descent to Category:People of Ivorian descent

Nominator's rationale: 'Ivorian' is the accepted standard adjective form for 'Côte d'Ivoire' on wikip Mayumashu (talk) 15:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Ivorian descent" is meaningless; either you are a citizen of Côte d'Ivoire or formerly were; what matter is it that some ancestor of yours was or wasn't. And note that the nationality is relatively recently, so people of "descent" pre-dating the establishment of Côte d'Ivoire is just miscategorized. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:46, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per nom for intra-WP naming/consistency purposes, though I agree that Carlos does have some valid points on the merit of such a categorization, which in most cases is tenuous at best. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:06, 2 March 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.

Categories:Swiss people of Booian descent[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Nominator's rationale: as per naming pattern convention, for this kind of category page, of 'Fooian people of Booian descent' Mayumashu (talk) 15:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and convention elsewhere. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per long precedent. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:32, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unnecessary race/ethnic categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 20:18, 26 February 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:Organisations in Devon[edit]

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) 03:42, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Organisations in Devon to Category:Organisations based in Devon

Nominator's rationale: For consistency with other "Organisations based in ..." categories. DuncanHill (talk) 14:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Comment see Category:Organisations based in England by county for comparison. DuncanHill (talk) 14:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support nom. Mayumashu (talk) 16:30, 25 February 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:American Touring Car Championship[edit]

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 (has remained empty). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 03:46, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Article was created as a category then copied to American Touring Car Championship by the user who created it. No articles are in the category. —Snigbrook 13:27, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as empty category (CSD C1). VegaDark (talk) 20:08, 28 February 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.

Omaha[edit]

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 (incidentally, the article is at Omaha, Nebraska since that was relevant to at least one user). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Apartments in Omaha to Category:Apartments in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Defunct schools in Omaha to Category:Defunct schools in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Libraries in Omaha to Category:Libraries in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Office buildings in Omaha to Category:Office buildings in Omaha, Nebraska

These are four Omaha categories which are outliers in their own categories, with other U.S. cities having the state name included.--Mike Selinker (talk) 07:05, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support. I created these cats before there was general consensus on naming conventions. • Freechild'sup? 14:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per nom and precedent. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases. Hmains (talk) 04:55, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to match articles - if the articles are at City rather than City, State do not rename. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:40, 26 February 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.

Museums[edit]

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 except for las vegas and louisville. Kbdank71 14:50, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Baltimore to Category:Museums in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Chicago to Category:Museums in Chicago, Illinois

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Cincinnati to Category:Museums in Cincinnati, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Cleveland to Category:Museums in Cleveland, Ohio

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Fort Worth to Category:Museums in Fort Worth, Texas

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Las Vegas to Category:Museums in Las Vegas, Nevada

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Louisville to Category:Museums in Louisville, Kentucky

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Minneapolis to Category:Museums in Minneapolis, Minnesota

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Nashville to Category:Museums in Nashville, Tennessee

Propose renaming Category:Museums in New Orleans to Category:Museums in New Orleans, Louisiana

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Omaha to Category:Museums in Omaha, Nebraska

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Philadelphia to Category:Museums in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Pittsburgh to Category:Museums in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Santa Fe to Category:Museums in Santa Fe, New Mexico

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Seattle to Category:Museums in Seattle, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Museums in Tacoma to Category:Museums in Tacoma, Washington

Propose renaming Category:Museum ships in Baltimore to Category:Museum ships in Baltimore, Maryland

Propose renaming Category:Museum ships in Philadelphia to Category:Museum ships in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania

Propose renaming Category:Museum ships in San Diego to Category:Museum ships in San Diego, California

Propose renaming Category:Museum ships in San Francisco to Category:Museum ships in San Francisco, California

Propose renaming Category:Danbury museums to Category:Museums in Danbury, Connecticut

Propose renaming Category:San Diego area museums to Category:Museums in San Diego, California

Nominator's rationale: Appending state as per many nominations of this type, and in conformity with other members of Category:Museums in the United States by city. A note about the last entry: Only two museums in this category are not in San Diego or its neighborhoods of La Jolla and Balboa Park, so my suggestion is to rename this category to the narrower "San Diego" category, then make that category a subcategory of Category:Museums in San Diego County, California, and moving the two outliers to that category.--Mike Selinker (talk) 15:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Needlessly add text to categories, and many of them are already agreed in other categories not to need state names attached. That said, Danbury probably should be changed.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 07:20, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per many recent precedents to add state in category names, for clarity. (I am not aware of any recent decisions to omit states in category names.) Ditto nom above. Occuli (talk) 09:50, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Rename per nom except for Category:Museums in Las Vegas to Category:Museums in the Las Vegas metropolitan area. Only a few of these are in the city and the metro area category covers the broader area. No objection to including a city category as a subcategory or to leaving as is. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:31, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
- Same for Louisville.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 00:19, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  - So are you suggesting Category:Museums in Louisville to Category:Museums in the Louisville metropolitan area? Vegaswikian (talk) 00:59, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'd rather it remain as it is now, but Category:Museums in the Louisville metropolitan area is much better than Category:Museums in Louisville, Kentucky, especially since the area includes 4-5 counties in Indiana.--King Bedford I ^{Seek his grace} 02:23, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      - I should say here that this category is a subcategory of Category:Museums in Kentucky. So if it's Category:Museums in the Louisville metropolitan area, and it includes museums in Indiana, then it should be removed from that category. I'd rather see the Indiana ones in an Indiana category, though.--Mike Selinker (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]
rename It is the job of an encyclopedia to inform people, not let them guess and not assume they have knowledge that we have. Proper and complete names help in all such cases. Hmains (talk) 04:55, 26 February 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.

Categories:Swiss people of Booian descent[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming/merging

(will list the rest soon in a separate nomination - no time now)

Nominator's rationale: as per naming pattern convention, for this kind of category page, of 'Fooian people of Booian descent' Mayumashu (talk) 04:08, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support per nom and convention. Occuli (talk) 16:09, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Support per long precedent: keep up the good work! Peterkingiron (talk) 00:31, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unnecessary race/ethnicity categories. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:47, 26 February 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:Buddhist Peace Fellowship[edit]

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. I'm not an expert on navbox creation, whoever wants to do that can, if they need the article list from the category, I can provide. Kbdank71 14:45, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and convert to navbox template - Except for the main article about the organization, all of the articles are about people who are closely associated with it. While the BPF is certainly highly notable within its domain, I'm not sure we want to have membership-type categories for every organization regardless of size or prominence in the larger scheme of things. I think this topic/group, and many others of similar size and societal heft, are better served by creation of a navbox template, which will appear at the bottom of the main article as well as on the "member-articles", linking them all to one another. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 03:48, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- if kept -- It should be renamed to Category:Buddhist Peace Fellowship members or something like that, with Buddhist Peace Fellowship as the main article. The category is perhaps just about well enough populated to keep. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:29, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as nominated, though I think a navbox here would be appropriate. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:00, 2 March 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:Shambhala Buddhism[edit]

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 to Category:Non-traditional Buddhism. Kbdank71 14:43, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This a tiny category with just 2 articles for a very new stream of Buddhism known as Shambhala Buddhism. Although one of the parent cats implies that this is an organization, according to the main article it appears to be more of a "community" or movement (hard to say exactly). In any event, a category simply isn't called for at this time. The other parent cat, Category:Non-traditional Buddhism does look appropriate, so both articles should be upmerged there. Notified creator with {{subst:cfd-notify}} Cgingold (talk) 02:59, 25 February 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:FPMT[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:40, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:FPMT to Category:Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Expand abbreviations to match main article Foundation for the Preservation of the Mahayana Tradition. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:13, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Rename per nom. My first thought upon seeing this was to question whether there should even be such a category. But after checking out its contents I'm persuaded that the category is warranted, so it should be renamed to match the name of the article. Cgingold (talk) 03:52, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Expand abbreviation per nom. Peterkingiron (talk) 00:25, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Exp-and per nom. This is so obviously necessary surely this discussion should be speedily closed and actioned? Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:21, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's no rush. This doesn't meet any of the criteria for Speedy Renaming. Cgingold (talk) 00:22, 27 February 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:Professional wrestling music[edit]

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. Kbdank71 14:39, 4 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator's rationale: Delete Arbitrary vague and overcategorization (WP:OCAT#Performers_by_performance_venue seems to fit specifically). Seems to presume the fact a song has appeared in wrestling is notable in itself. Rehevkor ✉ 01:18, 25 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 21:48, 26 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Professional wrestling music? Well I suppose it is all choreographed, but this is a category too far. Per nom. Fiddle Faddle (talk) 22:19, 26 February 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.