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. — ξ^xplicit 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Transcendental Meditation to Category:Transcendental Meditation movement

Nominator's rationale: Rename. The category covers all aspects of the Transcendental Meditation movement, not just TM itself. Categorized articles include a university, a school system, health care products, etc. The proposed name is widely used to refer to the movement, and is broad enough to cover all of the articles currently contained in the category.   Will Beback  talk  23:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Fladrif (talk) 15:44, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:49, 10 December 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: rename all. — ξ^xplicit 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:LGBT organizations in the United Kingdom to Category:LGBT organisations in the United Kingdom

Propose renaming Category:LGBT organizations in Scotland to Category:LGBT organisations in Scotland

Propose renaming Category:Defunct LGBT organizations in the United Kingdom to Category:Defunct LGBT organisations in the United Kingdom

Nominator's rationale: Rename all the general UK spelling is ~isation. Timrollpickering (talk) 20:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename – per nom and everything else in Category:Organisations based in the United Kingdom. Occuli (talk) 21:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Rename to match parent and per WP:ENGVAR. Alansohn (talk) 22:58, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator, and because this is the way English should be spelled! Debresser (talk) 18:48, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Debresser. What my country has done to this language is beyond explanation. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:29, 14 December 2009 (UTC) (An American who uses "too many" U's according to a professor he had ages ago.)[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.

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 at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2009 December 21#Category:RSS aggregators. — ξ^xplicit 05:07, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:RSS aggregators to Category:News aggregators

Nominator's rationale: "RSS aggregator" is usually the same as "news aggregator". The term "RSS aggregators" can also refer to only those news aggregators that support RSS format, but in this case these categories are mostly-overlapping because most of news readers (nearly all) support RSS. Note also that most feed readers support Atom format too, but there is no Category:Atom aggregators. Filemon (talk) 18:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• There seems to be some overlap between aggregator, web feed, and web syndication; aggregator might be remade into a dab. The categories themselves are a mishmash of news aggregation websites (Drudge Report), services (blo.gs), and software (Internet Explorer 7). I agree that support of a given technology standard (e.g. RSS) is an unsustainable way of categorization. By my thinking, we should rename Category:RSS aggregators to Category:Feed aggregation clients and create Category:Feed aggregation websites separately as part of a thorough cleanup. I would remove the tag altogether from software where aggregation is a secondary and non-defining feature. After all, we don't list Microsoft Word in Category:HTML editors or Adobe Flash in Category:Presentation software, even though they're probably used more often for those purposes than Winamp is used for aggregation.- choster 20:10, 9 December 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Iranian Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Imperial Iranian Navy

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Better description of the category's contents since all U.S. ship transfers to Iran were all accomplished pre-Iranian Revolution; better fits in with naming of Category:Ships of the Imperial Iranian Navy. — Bellhalla (talk) 18:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator for clarity. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom as the US has not transfered any ships since the proclimation of the Islamic Republic- and is unlikely to ever do so. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 08:31, 14 December 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:50, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Active vessels of the Iranian navy to Category:Active naval ships of Iran

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Active naval ships, by consensus, are categorized only by country and not by navy. (See Category:Active naval ships and Category:Active naval ships by country.) — Bellhalla (talk) 18:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename per nominator. Debresser (talk) 18:37, 10 December 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.

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. — ξ^xplicit 23:09, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:List of beauty queens from the Middle East to Category:Beauty queens from the Middle East

Nominator's rationale: Rename or delete. Clearly inappropriate name. In addition I am not sure whether this is a proper categorization. The category page itself (if kept) must be cleaned and categorized properly. Mukadderat (talk) 16:38, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The term "beauty queens" was dropped in favor of "beauty pageant winners" (as a subset of Category:Beauty pageant contestants), which is primarily subdivided by competitition, and in two cases by nationality. Neither Category:Award winners nor Category:People by occupation, however, are subdivided by region, except for cats with a large number of historical subcats, and I do not think an argument can be made to make Category:Middle Eastern beauty pageant contestants an exception. It would be better to recat by nationality; even though the resulting subcategories will be small, they will at least slot well into the standardized system.- choster 20:21, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete in favour of categorisation by nationality and/or pageant. In addition to the valid points raised by choster, categorising pageant winners from the Middle East is problematic for at least one other reason. These individuals did not participate in a Middle East-specific beauty pageant, so grouping them by region hints at some form of original research (or at least original presentation of information). –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 21:13, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator and BLACK FALCON. Debresser (talk) 18:35, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. See also List of beauty queens from Scandinavia which I nominated today for renaming. •••Life of Riley (T–C) 02:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – these people have existing categories in which they can be placed; eg Aliza Gur is already in 2 appropriate categories. Occuli (talk) 09:42, 11 December 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.

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: no consensus. — ξ^xplicit 05:11, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming

Category:Venezuelan Navy to Category:Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Ships of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Ships of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Patrol vessels of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Patrol vessels of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Venezuelan Navy to Category:United States Navy ships transferred to the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Allen M. Sumner class destroyers of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Balao class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Balao class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Category:Tench class submarines of the Venezuelan Navy to Category:Tench class submarines of the Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela

Nominator's rationale: Rename for consistency with the main article on the navy of Venezuela, Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela. — Bellhalla (talk) 14:10, 29 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom (although this might also be a case for renaming the main article, if 'Venezuelan Navy' is the WP:COMMONNAME. Either way, the article and the categories should be consistent.) Robofish (talk) 01:59, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the more intuitive and shorter name. I don't care what they decide to call their navy, it is still just their navy. Debresser (talk) 02:44, 1 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think the point is what we are calling their navy. (After all, they call it "Armada Bolivariana de Venezuela" since they speak Spanish and all.) Personally, I'm agnostic on what the name of the navy is—call it Hugo Chavez's collection of ships for all I care. I'm just hoping for consistency — Bellhalla (talk) 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Week keep the status quo. Maybe I'm dead wrong- heck, it's likely I am- but the categories use a common convention, while the article uses the formal name. There's no unified standard on this- All articles about the Italian Navy are filed under Marina Militare a term unlikely to be familiar to non-Italian speakers. On the other hand, everything uses the French Navy not Marine nationale. These categories are under the common, logical name, and I'd leave them as is. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 07:24, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Italian Navy can also refer to the pre-1946 Regia Marina which is why the distinction there. — 18:28, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
• rename per nom. I would be inclined to match to the main article in these cases. If we want the way these are named to change, maybe we should try changing the article name first. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 21:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 14:54, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Abstain. I abstain. Keep. I agree with Debresser that "Venezuelan Navy" is the shorter and more intuitive name – and is certainly the commonly used one. The official name belongs in the articles, and I'm not completely certain whether it should be used in the category names. By way of comparison or reference (not that WP:OTHERSTUFF should be applied systematically or rigidly), on Wikipedia we don't refer to the Soviet Army or the Soviet military as the Workers' and Peasants' Red Army, which would be the official name. The categorization scheme presently in place also uses Category:Military of Cuba instead of the Cuban Revolutionary Armed Forces. I believe that this merits a more general discussion. I'm not sure where this might be, but I think that some kind of guiding Wiki principle for consistency for categorization questions like this should be settled on. For now, let's keep for consistency. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 21:59, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Renames to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 22:56, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• How about we Withdraw the nomination and request a move of the navy's article to Venezuelan Navy? — Bellhalla (talk) 12:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The withdrawal is your part, isn't it? Debresser (talk) 18:34, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The article was moved from Navy of Venezuela to Bolivarian Armada of Venezuela on July 31, 2007 by user:Mesoso2 without any discussion on the article talk page. I'd suggest moving it back and keeping the categories where they are. The formal name is obscure and I doubt anyone uses that name in English. The official name of the country is "Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela", but I doubt anyone outside of diplomatic communications uses that either. The Wikipedia article is at Venezuela.   Will Beback  talk  04:14, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There's a proposal I can get behind. WP:COMMONNAME would absolutely put the article at Venezuelan Navy. Bradjamesbrown (talk) 00:27, 18 December 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.

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: Keep both. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football manager history templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates

Suggest merging Category:Hong Kong football squad templates to Category:Hong Kong football templates

Nominator's rationale: There are currently two categories for football squads and managers; this seems excessive to me. —Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 08:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:47, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as is, given the very well-populated parent categories Category:Football squad templates and Category:Football manager history templates. This is only excessive-looking if viewed in a vacuum (i.e., seen as out-of-the-blue and unusual Hong Kong editor overactivity), but it makes perfect sense given its entirely usual and predictable place in the systematized categorization of such templates, world-wide. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 19:44, 2 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion so consensus may be reached.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 10:06, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep both, per the long-standing convention that small categories are acceptable if part of a wider series. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep both – part of wider schemes. Occuli (talk) 14:54, 9 December 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.

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: Closed. Nothing left to discuss. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:39, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Discoveries by Lenka Šarounová

Category:Discoveries by Lenka Kotková refer to the same person. I created the latter without being aware of the former. One needs to be deleted (probably mine, since it's the latter one) and the articles transferred over.

T@nn (talk) 03:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, are you saying move the articles from Category:Discoveries by Lenka Kotková to Category:Discoveries by Lenka Šarounová and then deleted Kotková? If so, I can do move the articles and so you are the only one for the category, it's a speedy deletion. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:20, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Forget it. I just went and deleted Sarounova rather than move all of them for no reason. If you wish to rename Category:Discoveries by Lenka Kotková, we can do that as a separate issue. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment – the article is at Lenka Kotková so it should be Category:Discoveries by Lenka Kotková. Occuli (talk) 13:53, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Close as Moot As the category now populated matches the parent article and the other is empty, there appears to be no further action required here. Alansohn (talk) 21:07, 9 December 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.

The following is an archived discussion concerning one or more categories. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on an appropriate discussion page (such as the category's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the discussion was: Delete. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:46, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Players of American football involved in career ending injuries (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. Too vauge of a category, what does "career ending injury" means, many NFL players will qualify. Secret ^account 01:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Player could stub his toe at home and that's a career-ending injury. Too vague to be useful. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Ricky81682. And because anything connected with football is utterly unnotable. :) Debresser (talk) 18:31, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: "Career-ending" is hard enough to piece together (besides the most obvious), but "involved in"? Hah, well, I understand where the heart is behind this, but it's too far off the normal line of statistics as a fork where inclusion is a challenging matter. Could always be "specialty" injury categories but notability would be brutal to demonstrate for one type of injury. Ooh, an article for American football players retiring from unusual injuries ...? That could be amusing and informative! ((Sorry, trying to stay positive about this because in theory this isn't a bad category)). ♪ daTheisen(talk) 03:34, 12 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment from some one who knowns nothing of the sport in question. The category seems to me to have a non-subjective scope. It obviously concerns players who (1) have retired (2) did so due to a severe injury that rendered them unfit to play. How about something like Category:Players of American football whose career was ended by injury. If two players crash together and one breaks his leg so seriously they have to retire, it could be argued that both are "involved" in the injury, but for the uninjured player, the incident would NN, so that he should not be categorised on account of it. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:26, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Injuries is what most players retire from, won't meet the concerns of broadness. Secret ^account 15:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Obviously. I brought this up here and two more agreed on the deletion. Enigma^msg 22:08, 14 December 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.

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. עוד מישהו Od Mishehu 08:42, 17 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Frisbee to Category:Flying disc

Nominator's rationale: This is a borderline speedy (#4), since all relevant articles and subcats in this category use this spam-free terminology, not "Frisbee" which is simply one trademark (and not even the brand used by most serious players). It's a lot like having all inline skating articles be in a Category:Rollerblades. There's a catredir at Category:Flying disc right now; needs to be the inverse relationship. — SMcCandlish [talk] [cont] ‹(-¿-)› 01:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support Rename to match title of parent article. Alansohn (talk) 21:05, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• oppose. Frisbee is not simply one trademark but is an accepted word used generically to describe all flying discs, and I am sure I have never heard anyone in real life make reference to a "flying disk". Ignore the pedantry over someones trademark issues. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 09:54, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom to match the parent article. Just as we make a distinction between Band-Aid and adhesive bandages, between Kleenex and tissue paper, and between googling and internet searching, so should we make a distinction here. –BLACK FALCON ^(TALK) 17:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. But I admit that I always call the thing a "frisbee". Debresser (talk) 18:30, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per all above and cursed trademark laws! *Sniffles* ...something so directly culturally relevant. I'll assume there are already mentions of the common misuse scattered about, but put something on the top that says "See Frisbee for the common brand disc" or the like just... to be sure. Modern example is calling all digital music players "mp3 players", though realistically everyone says "iPod" no matter what, but the company with the near-monopoly is never ever going to correct people using it wrong. I blame my phys ed in the early grades :) ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:01, 12 December 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.

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: withdrawn (nominator self-close). Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Anti-racist organizations to Category:Anti-racism organizations

Propose renaming Category:Anti-racist organizations in the United States to Category:Anti-racism organizations in the United States

Nominator's rationale: Rename. I'm proposing just a subtle word change here from "anti-racist" to "anti-racism". Generally, organizations are "anti-" a noun or verb, not an adjective. "Racism" is a noun. "Racist" is sometimes an adjective; it can also be a noun—a person can be a racist. Assuming the word "racist" is being used as a noun here, these categories would need to be named "anti-racists organizations", since the organizations would be opposed to all racists, not just one racist. But these organizations are not against the people who are racists so much as they are against the idea of racism itself. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 01:19, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support per nom. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:00, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• On second thought, Oppose. In spite of the noun-adjective argument advanced by nom, there's really no major distinction between "anti-racist" and "anti-racism" as descriptions of these categories – after all these are organizations for people who are opposed to racism and composed of anti-racists. "Anti-racist" seems more natural English than "anti-racism" to describe this idea, too. One of the articles in this category, the group Anti-Racist Action doesn't call itself Anti-Racism Action, and would sound clumsy if they did. By extension, Category:Anti-communist organizations would be called Category:Anti-communism organizations and Category:Anti-fascist organizations would be Category:Anti-fascism organizations. If we had a category for anti-capitalist groups, for example, they'd be called Category:Anti-capitalist organizations, not Category:Anti-capitalism organizations. The same is essentially the case here, and these organizations do generally describe as "anti-racist." Hence, I really don't think that the subtle nuance described by Good Ol'Factory overcomes this more prevalent way of describing these organizations. Anti-Nationalist (talk) 22:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think those are compelling examples and they make me re-think this. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:50, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support, per nom, and per my comments at speedy (where this was before). Grutness...wha? 22:11, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mmmm. Good points. I note that the article Anti-racism contains a subsection "Anti-racist organizations", which this category should probably agree with at one title or the other - probably the current one. It probably is being used in the adjectival sense in that the organisation is itself (or through the collective will of its members, at least) ant-racist. Grutness...wha? 00:00, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I will withdraw this and re-think. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:11, 10 December 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.

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: This category doesn't figure into the approved version of Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXI, and it's been almost completely depopulated at this point, so I'm closing this with delete without prejudice to recreating under another name if having a category with this function is deemed useful (which it appears there's support for). Fran Rogers (talk) 06:51, 18 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Articles lacking sources (Erik9bot) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: I don't really see the purpose of this. As noted on the page, User:Erik9bot was blocked here for being the sockpuppet of a banned user. But nevertheless, this category seems to fall outside the normal Category:Articles lacking sources structure and while it is mentioned at Wikipedia:CiterSquad, that project doesn't seem particularly active. Suggest deletion and then figuring out a new way to fill up the articles lacking sources, but within the current structure (I don't know, limited amount per day or as of the date the article was created instead?). Ricky81682 (talk) 00:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It's funny that this was nominated today since I was wondering about this very category today while I was doing some project cleanup. We already have {{unreferenced}} for the same purpose. The project cleanup lists have two sections, one for the template and one for the bot. And both require the same type of cleanup. The template has the advantage of being more viable to editors which could encourage editors to add some references. My problem is how do we make sure the category is removed when references are added? It is way too easy to not see the category. With the template it is easy for any reader to see that the tag is there when the article has references and to remove it. There is suppose to be a manual review, but how does that work for 105,000 articles? I guess that some people object to the text box from the template, but I'm not sure that the hidden category has done anything to actually get references added to articles that are missing them. BTW, I leaning to a delete here based on the cleanup I have been doing. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:28, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, this was done on the basis of some very strict criteria, but the fact that this category has 105,000 articles while the more organized Category:Articles lacking sources has over 182,000 (plus a lot of overlap I assume) tells me this is not useful anymore. On a principle matter, we shouldn't have categories of random individuals (even bots) doing their own guesswork at cleanup projects. We should just use one project. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 02:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with BHG in that there is probably minimal overlap so we have at least 287,000 unreferenced articles. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:36, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the overlap was (effectively) zero a week or so back. But if you add in BLP unref it is a whole load more :( Rich Farmbrough, 18:47, 10 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Strong keep, possibly rename. In principle, I think that this category is a brilliant idea. Far too many editors remove {{unreferenced}} because they find it intrusive, and sadly those removals are not usually treated as blockable vandalism (which is what I think they amount to).
  So the idea of a bot adding a hidden category is a brilliant solution, which is unobtrusive and helps in identifying unreferenced articles which have not been tagged (or where the tag has been removed). The fact that the bot identified 105,00 wholly unreferenced articles which were not already tagged as {{unreferenced}} is brilliant: that's a horrendously high number, and it's great to have the articles identified. However, since Erik9bot has been banned as a sock, the category is not been maintained or updated, and it should probably be renamed to a more neutral title such as Category:bot-identified unreferenced articles, paving the way for other bots to maintain it. But it would be folly to simply discard this list of unreferenced articles. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 02:57, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Why not change unreferenced to make it hidden then? People can still remove this category if they really want. Why have a bot-identified version along with the regular one? Why not have bots regularly review articles instead and add them to the regular pile? Isn't that what happens with things like unsourced images, orphaned articles? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:26, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Which begs the question of why not simply keep it as a maintenance list? I know that would need to check all of the listed articles again, but does this need a category? If the issue really is editors removing the tags, then treat them as vandals and allow the bot to re add the template. Let's fix what is broken rather the walking around the problem. Vegaswikian (talk) 03:34, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Replies. Several points raised here, and I'll try to respond to them all.

1. Vegaswikian asks why not simply keep it as a maintenance list? and does this need a category?
   Two reasons it needs a category:
   • A category allows the use of catscan to identify unreferenced articles in a particular subject area. For example, I have on my desk a pile of reference books on elections to the UK Parliament, and am currently working on the subset in Category:Members of the United Kingdom Parliament for Irish constituencies (1801-1922). I have just used catscan to generate a cleanup list: here (or this is a list for those in English constituencies, for which I use a different set of reference books). I couldn't do that if this category was listified.

     (And presumably this query? Rich Farmbrough, 19:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC). )[reply]

   • The category is self-maintaining. An editor adding a ref can remove the category at the same time, whereas the list requires a separate edit (a I know that I simply wouldn't bother editing the huge list). The list will therefore become out-of-date as soon as editors start adding references, which means that others working on adding refs in the same subject area will waste time looking at articles which have already been fixed.
2. Ricky asks why not change unreferenced to make it hidden then? People can still remove this category if they really want to.
   Two answers:
   • Yes, people can remove the category, but because it's invisible to most readers and editors, it is much less likely to be removed. It's therefore a useful fallback to allow some mechanism whereby unref articles are identified.
   • Changing unreferenced to make it hidden would be a seriously retrograde step. The prominent warning that an article is unref is a red-alert to readers that an article fails wikipedia's most basic quality standards, and it's an important health-warning to have on an unreferenced article. Hiding {{unreferenced}} would deprive readers of ever being given that warning.
3. Ricky asks Why not have bots regularly review articles instead and add them to the regular pile?
   Because sadly there doesn't seem to be any consensus to do so. When I did some raid-fire tagging of a few hundred under-referenced Tolkein articles about two yeras, it caused a shitstorm: an admin used rollback to revert all my edits, and I was denounced by the Tolkein-fans at ANI for "drive-by tagging" and "attacking" their project. If someone wants to set up a bot which tags articles with {{unreferenced}}, and that bot-owner survives the howls of protests from the hordes of self-indulgent editors who take it as a personal insult to be reminded that an article they had a hand in fails basic quality standards ... well, in that case, problem solved. But that hasn't happened yet, and the bot-owner would need the hide of an asbestos rhinoceros to survive the wall flame. Come back here when the bot is working and stable, and I'll support removing the separate hidden category. But not until then.

Those advocating deletion of this category do not appear to have identified any harm done by it, and I think I have demonstrated that it has some very positive uses. So why the urge to delete it? --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 11:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The harm is miscategorization in maintenance categories. Like I said, I have been doing some cleanup and even being aware of this, the problem with the category only method is I left several erikbot categories behind. This also happens with the template, but with the template you get the nice banner warning so you notice the problem and can fix it with a second edit. The argument that that the category is self maintaining is specious. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:03, 9 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Vegaswikian, if you genuinely believe it's "specious" to claim that the category is self-maintaining, please can you explain how it is possible to remove an article from a list of unreferenced articles in the same edit as the references are added to the article?
I'm all ears, because I appeared to have missed some magical bit of wikimedia functionality. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 22:39, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• comment so unreferenced articles need both a template and an unreferenced category (of some name) and hopefully the category will be automatic once the template is added to the article. This should solve all problems and desires. Hmains (talk) 03:36, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply The template {{unreferenbced}} automatically applies a category. As discussed above, this category is for unreferenced articles to which the template has not been applied. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs)
• Comment removing this "unreferenced" is vandalism??? I have noticed that many articles tagged with the template have references, they're just not in the cite.php / ref-tag formats, or only have a few, and the tag is incorrect as it should be {{refstyle}} or {{no footnotes}} or {{refimprove}} or {{primary sources}} instead. 76.66.192.35 (talk) 05:03, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Obviously, when I spoke of vandalism I was referring to the removal of an {{unreferenced}} template from wholly unrefenced articles, not from those to which it no longer applies — although in that case, an article which stil has deficient referencing should be tagged with one of the other templates you rightly list. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 05:23, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment the problem with calling it vandalism is that many people who see an abuse filter tag go up saying "unreferened removed" will automatically just dump a vandal warning on whomever removed it and rollback the change and every change in close correlation with it. And unrefenced will appear to be "removed" if it is combined into the article problems template. 05:28, 11 December 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.66.192.35 (talk)
• Strong keep Rich Farmbrough is working on this category, and has reduced the number of its members from 140,000 to 104,000 already. It is usefull because it allows tagging with {{Unreferenced}} etc. Debresser (talk) 18:28, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The question of what to do with this cat has exercised my mind somewhat. The natural thing to do is to tag the articles unreferenced. There are several problems with this;

1. Some have a reference - though actually the number is vanishingly small, I think by the experience of myself and other editors, and some have been manually tagged - but I have done a scan for these relatively recently and removed the cat.
2. There are a lot of articles - not a problem for a bot
3. There are people who hate tags.
4. It is not clear (well it is to me) how to date the tags - do we really want 100,000 more articles in one months category? I think that would create a demoralising effect.
5. Possibly we should have a separate mechanism for stubs. And even some clevernesses for species articles.
6. The BRFA is stalled. Wikipedia:Bots/Requests for approval/SmackBot XXI Even though I have offered small tags, invisible tags, taxon specific sorting.

Unless the BRFA gets unsstalled this cat will just have been waste of time as the articles have the cat removed (even while they remain unreferenced), have references or tags added while the cat remains, and so forth.

In short I support merging the category to mianstream unref cats, and/or unref stub cats. Rich Farmbrough, 18:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

• Keep in some form -- possibly renamed or merged. I have had this category turn up on article that I watch. It prompted me to provide references. It accordingly seems to me that the bot was doing a useful job. I take no view on the owner, but will say that those who have been blocked will sometimes re-emerge after a time to do useful edits. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:33, 13 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and then Delete. I think there is agreement that the articles need to remain tagged and that simply tagging them with {{unreferenced}} is not acceptable since this will dump a large number of articles into the work queue for one month. I think that if some editor or editors agree to tag these with dated {{unreferenced}} when the date is some date, say the date the article was first created, then we can keep the category until it is emptied out and then it can be deleted as G6. If we go with an approach linke this, I would suggest not using a date before October 2006 since the earlier backlog has been cleared out. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:22, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Commment Any discussions regarding renaming or further use I think could be more productively done at Category_talk:Articles_lacking_sources#Bot-created_category so that it stays within their archives not at CFD. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 08:40, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I think this ammounts to a withdrawal of the deletion request. Debresser (talk) 13:31, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I still think this isn't productive, but I'd rather not see discussions here about renaming or changes to its parameter. I just want to make sure that the closing admin doesn't close with some suggestion that further causes drama. I'd rather see it deleted, but if consensus is against that, the next best thing is proper use. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 03:42, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It will be deleted once it it empty. That was always the plan, it will just be empty rather sooner than people may have previously thought. Rich Farmbrough, 05:37, 16 December 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Looks like SmackBot is moving these to {{unreferenced}}. Here is one edit. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:29, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There are only 6,000 left since SmackBot has been busy. So this probably can be closed as deleted in a day or so once everything is changed to use {{unreferenced}}. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:18, 17 December 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.