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) 09:22, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Buildings and structures of Chechnya to Category:Buildings and structures in Chechnya

Nominator's rationale: To match standard naming of such categories Russavia ^Dialogue 23:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dialogue English Speach International language 115.135.35.62 (talk) 21:28, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

• Support rename and note this was probably speedy-able under criterion #4. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:22, 7 April 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 to Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas, Nevada. First off, having a LV address indeed means nothing. A few years back, I lived on the edge of my town, and the nearest PO was in the next town. So my mailing address had the next town's name and zip code. That said, I checked the four items in this category. Category:Hospitals in Las Vegas, Nevada- not much to argue about there. Endoscopy Center of Southern Nevada and Lou Ruvo Center for Brain Health both state that they are in or are being built in Las Vegas, Nevada. And finally, Nevada Cancer Institute states it is "in the Summerlin area in Las Vegas". So all articles/categories explicitly state they are in LV, not outside it in the metro area. There is no problem with creating another category called Category:Healthcare in the Las Vegas metropolitan area if articles/categories are found/written that are not in the city but the metro area (to go along with the LV, NV category). Kbdank71 16:36, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas to Category:Healthcare in the Las Vegas metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Found doing cleaning up from March as a withdrawn nomination to a different name. Renominating for a rename to match the metropolitan area category. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment shouldn't the category have "Nevada" somewhere in there to prevent potential ambiguity from other potential Las Vegas'? Tavix |  Talk  01:25, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I don't believe that the other one is a metropolitan area. If you want to propose renaming all of the US metropolitan area categories, be my guest. However I suspect you will not find much support. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:53, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Healthcare in Las Vegas, Nevada. The three articles and the subcategory's hospitals all have addresses in Las Vegas.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again I'll point out that having a Las Vegas address means nothing! This is simply a designation by the USPS to deliver mail. Most addresses in the valley are LV ones. In fact my 'local' post office is actually in the city. But that zip code covers much more then then city. One of my previous post offices was listed as LV but it was not in the city and serviced both city and county locations. If you want to use facts for decisions, use the county assessors database. If you do that, you will find out that some of the institutions listed are not in the city. That is why the renamed was suggested since the material covers both city and non-city institutions. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:05, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • I hear your point, and I simply disagree with it. There are five arguments that favor putting the Strip casinos, McCarran, and other such places into "Las Vegas, Nevada" categories: (1) they have Las Vegas addresses; (2) they are served by the same municipal services as those inside the city limits; (3) many of them are on something called "the Las Vegas Strip," on Las Vegas Boulevard; (4) they are not in any other city, since the areas are unincorporated; (5) even if all of that wasn't true, everyone in the world thinks of them as being part of Las Vegas. There's only one counterargument to that, and it's a doozy: that the city limits are narrowly defined. I get that. I think in this case, with so much of what defines Las Vegas being considered in these categories, it's worth a different approach here. I don't mean anything personal by this, but for the vast majority of readers of Wikipedia who don't live in the area, I believe this definition of Las Vegas is the one we should go with. I understand that you don't agree with that. Either way, I expect that a closer will make a determination and we can rename the rest of the categories appropriately.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
      • (1) As stated the USPS is not a reliable source for locations. (2) False. Services are provide by the county. One service provided is jointly funded by the city and the county. And if they give you a ticket your payment goes to the county and you, I believe, appear in the Las Vegas Township court which is another thing entirely. (3) Do we rename this to Category:Healthcare in Henderson, Nevada or Category:Healthcare in North Las Vegas, Nevada since the boulevard runs through those cities? Also while the strip does not have a formal definition, either it is entirely outside of the city or only a tiny portion is within the the City of Las Vegas. (4) So? Combined statistical areas don't count? (5) Everyone in the world thinks that they ARE Las Vegas! Given that, and the fact that Las Vegas is a dab page with the metro area as one of the main meanings it is not appropriate to mis classify these places. I should also point out that if we wanted to follow WP:COMMONNAME, these probably should be left alone. But CfD consensus has not supported that. Vegaswikian (talk) 23:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
        • When I said "municipal services," I meant those governed by the Clark County Commission, in most cases. The schools are Clark County, the police are a combination of the Clark County Sheriff and the Las Vegas Metro police, and so on. As I said, I get that it's complicated. I don't feel there's anything to be gained by you and I batting it back and forth any more. Let's have someone else figure out the right way to go.--Mike Selinker (talk) 00:10, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is only one police department involved, not two as you are stating. The Clark County Sheriff runs (is?) the Las Vegas Metropolitan Police Department. Vegaswikian (talk) 20:47, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
            • I know, that's what I meant. I've made my point, and I really don't want to be arguing minutiae any more.--Mike Selinker (talk) 21:41, 9 April 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. Kbdank71 16:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Fraudsters to Category:People convicted of fraud

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Let's have another try at this renaming; it seemed to have some momentum when last discussed about 11 months ago. Now that we have a better understanding of BLP - calling people fraudsters without a conviction for fraud is beyond what is done at WP for any other crime; we don't categorize people as murderers because we suspect that they did it; or that suspicions swirl about them; or even if they are found liable in a civil court (e.g., O.J. Simpson). It's time that this entire tree be renamed and pruned to those who have been convicted of the crime of fraud. If this is successfully renamed, I will nominate the subcats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. -- IRP ☎ 23:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unless better solution found The problem is not BLP, but past fraudsters who successfully disappeared, were killed, or, like Lord Gordon-Gordon, committed suicide (upon losing his extradition case, before trial). Note that for him & many others here, this is really their primary category. Can we have a link to the last debate, where I recall this and other points were made. Johnbod (talk) 00:41, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Requested link. Most recent discussion here. See also a 2005 discussion here. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:45, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Johnbod (talk) 02:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. New one has some thought behind it. npov categorization should not be about permanently labeling someone with a pejorative, but rather, assigning them to a valid category.Student7 (talk) 12:09, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! And where would this leave Lord Gordon-Gordon who, like most people in this category, is only notable for fraud? The "thought" is just the same as has been rejected twice before. Johnbod (talk) 14:30, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per reasons explained by Johnbod. The central "problem" with the rename is that not all people who are defined by being "fraudsters" were convicted of fraud, because of intervening death by suicide, police shoot-out, other death, etc. Some just kind of "disappeared" without having been convicted. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 22:11, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • But that is true will all crimes categories, but we've left it to convictions to make a clear demarkation; it's a slippery POV slope to say who "got away with it" that's why we have Category:People convicted of murder. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:33, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Exactly. According to editor, Wikipedia is labeling as "fraudsters" people not convicted of anything. Suicide may prove to some people that the accused was guilty, but this is hardly proof positive. Perhaps these other people can be labeled in some other, more accurate, encyclopedic fashion.
• Keep - There surely is a better term than "fraudsters" (a name I don't like), but until that better name is found, "fraudsters" is better than any alternative identified. More so than most types of criminals, fraudsters have a way of evading conviction. And does Kenneth Lay count as "convicted?" (He was convicted, then he died suddenly, and the conviction was "vacated" after his death.) --Orlady (talk) 23:29, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Would it be sufficient to provide a headnote to the article to the effect that it is (1) people convicted of fraud (2) people who died but whose guilt was apparent (3) people whose guilt was apparent but had long disappeared. This should be followed by the comment that other living persons should not be included, because it would be libellous. Peterkingiron (talk) 20:50, 11 April 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:20, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Amusement parks in New Orleans to Category:Amusement parks in New Orleans, Louisiana

Nominator's rationale: Technical nomination. Found as an incomplete nomination doing cleanup. I believe that was intended to be part of a mass NO nomination that was approved with one exception. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename and note probably speediable by criterion #6. --Stepheng3 (talk) 19:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Whoops, my fault. Should be speedied given that the cfr tag pointed to the nomination.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:21, 8 April 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. Kbdank71 16:51, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wexion Templates (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This category is dedicated to a single user and serves no purpose in the encyclopedia as whole. Stepheng3 (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete – inappropriate use of category space. Occuli (talk) 17:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete – I was wanting to put the category in my user namespace; I never discovered how (impossible?) so I've no argument against its deletion. -- Wex 20:24, 11 April 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. Kbdank71 16:52, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Dominican musical instruments to Category:Dominican Republic musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "Dominican" to "Domincan Republic" per all other categories for things from the DR. "Dominican" is ambiguous so we use "Dominican Republic" or "Dominica" as adjectives for the two countries. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• What are the inclusion criteria for these categories? If the emphasis is on the country in which each instrument was invented rather than the culture with which it is associated, perhaps the category titles should reflect that. — CharlotteWebb 13:30, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • That's a good point; one that I have not considered at all prior to your mentioning it. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 00:48, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename noting precedent for changing Dominican to Dominican Republic to reduce confusion with the Christian order. Nationality comes first to conform with other Category:Musical instruments by nationality categories. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:03, 6 April 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. Kbdank71 16:53, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose merging Category:United States musical instruments to Category:American musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Merge. Duplicate categories. The adjective in use in all other categories is "American". Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• REverse merge -- American refers to the inhabitants of two continents, not merely USA. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perhaps technically true in a quaint 18th-century sense, but as a Canadian at least I wouldn't call myself an "American", or even a "North American". I think by far most people understand "American" to mean United Statesian. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 23:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Since in WP lingo "American"="United States"ian, for better or for worse, but for consistency. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:00, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• REverse merge -- In Latinamerica we also speak English, and many use the sustantive "United States" instead of the adjective "american", to not confuse something or someone from America and something or someone from United States. Opus88888 (talk) 19:18, 11 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't think English is the primary language in any countries of Latin America, is it? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:19, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge - per nom, leaving "American" as the final category in line with the hundreds of other similar categories that use "American". Otto4711 (talk) 14:12, 12 April 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. Kbdank71 16:55, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Trinidadian and Tobagonian musical instruments to Category:Trinidad and Tobago musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "Trinidadian and Tobagonian" to "Trinidad and Tobago" per every other category name for things from Trinidad and Tobago that uses an adjective. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 06:06, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. --Stepheng3 (talk) 20:04, 6 April 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. Kbdank71 16:56, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Argentinian musical instruments to Category:Argentine musical instruments

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Change "Argentinian" to "Argentine" per every other category name for things from Argentina. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 05:59, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename Per nom. Lugnuts (talk) 17:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Per nom. Opus88888 (talk) 19:23, 11 April 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: relist to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_15#Category:Production_shows_in_Las_Vegas.--Aervanath (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Production shows in Las Vegas to Category:Production shows in the Las Vegas metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. Rename as nom or to Category:Production shows on the Las Vegas Strip. None of these are in the city and should not be placed in the city category. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• I'm less-than-convinced that "production shows" is the correct naming configuration. It strikes me as redundant (shows are productions and productions, shows). Otto4711 (talk) 00:37, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, there are many google hits on this, but for many types of things. 'Ulalena is described here as a production show. Another example is on board cruise ships. There are others. It is the only term used for major productions in Vegas that I can recall being used for these shows. If there is a better alternative, I'm open to suggestions. However, this may well be a case of local usage driving the common name for these productions. Vegaswikian (talk) 02:08, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Production shows in Las Vegas, Nevada. These articles all are located in places with addresses in Las Vegas. No opinion on whether "Production shows" is the right term; "stage shows" might be an alternative.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another example of using the USPS for location information. I believe that if you check, you will find that none of these are in the city! The USPS is not a source for correct location information. I have spent about 60% of my life with a mailing address from the USPS that was not where I actually lived. This is common across the US. If anything, the USPS designation is proof that keeping an unqualified Las Vegas category covering a broad area is the wiser choice. But that is not going to happen. Again if there are questions, use the county assessors database. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted, but I disagree, as mentioned above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:22, 8 April 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: relist to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_15#Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas,--Aervanath (talk) 17:11, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas to Category:Convention centers in the Las Vegas metropolitan area

Nominator's rationale: Rename. These rightly cover the metropolitan area. Only one is in the city. Either this should remain as is, or be renamed to reflect the fact that most of these are not in the city. A city specific category is an inappropriate option when there is an appropriate category structure available. Vegaswikian (talk) 05:38, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'll note that today's paper uses Las Vegas as the short name for the Las Vegas Metropolitan area. Clearly supporting the blending of those two terms. It also uses Kansas City in the same way.^[1] Vegaswikian (talk) 22:41, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Convention centers in Las Vegas, Nevada. These articles all have addresses in Las Vegas. This is going to be my standard for whether or not I recommend something gets put into a "Las Vegas, Nevada" category. (I'm aware there are unincorporated areas that give out Las Vegas addresses. This is true in my town too. My address is in unincorporated Renton, and everyone thinks I'm a Rentonian. Or Rentonite. Or whatever.) There will be some Las Vegas metro area categories I'll support, but this isn't one of them. Please note that despite my polite disagreement with the nomination, I do want some resolution to this and the other Las Vegas categories, even if it's not the way I would do it; I definitely don't want a no-consensus result.--Mike Selinker (talk) 20:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Again the USPS is not a reliable source for locations. Vegaswikian (talk) 21:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
    • Noted, but I disagree, as mentioned above.--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:22, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Given the large difference between a city, a post office, and a metro area, we should carefully maintain those distinction. --Stepheng3 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 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 per performer by performance and strength of below arguments. If a list is desired I can provide the articles. . Kbdank71 16:59, 13 April 2009 (UTC) relisted on April 17 due to not being tagged for deletion. --Kbdank71 12:52, 17 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Knuckleball pitchers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Delete. This is the only category that adresses those who are known to throw a particular baseball pitch. I am of the opinion that knuckleball pitchers can be notable, but does it need a category? I say that a collection of famous knuckleball pitchers can be listed. Or... categories for all the other pitches would need to be created for consistency.Neonblak ^talk - 05:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - It's certainly true that knuckleballers are a rare breed, but I'm not sure a category makes good sense. I think probably a navbox template is the right way to go for this. Cgingold (talk) 05:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Mr Accountable (talk) 16:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - The information about pitchers known to throw the knuckleball is of encyclopedic interest, but it can be (and apparently already is) included in Knuckleball. No additional value is derived from also having a category for these pitchers. --Orlady (talk) 17:04, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete pitcher by pitch? no...OCAT. Little different that Category:Clay court tennis players or Category:Filly jockeys or some other division of a sportsperson by type of sports preference or technique. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that's a false analog, since neither clay courts nor fillies are rare. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and also build a list, knuckeball is a rather rare and hard to use pitch. 70.29.213.241 (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - variant of performer by performance overcategorization. Similar to the deleted left-handed athletes, actors who played particular roles and the like. Otto4711 (talk) 22:52, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Possibly keep not my field, but I though particular pitchers were particularly and perhaps primarily known for this? DGG (talk) 03:31, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A variation of performer by performance. We don't categorize actors by films, so why in the world would be categorize baseball pitchers by pitch? Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 02:40, 11 April 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. Kbdank71 17:01, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Former WIkiProject category, now a task force of WP:VG.

• Depopulate and delete this category and all subcategories. –xeno (talk) 04:09, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat participants & Category:WikiProject Mortal Kombat articles should probably be listified to the task force page. –xeno (talk) 04:11, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  Have listified the contents of both categories see [1] / [2]. –xeno (talk) 14:35, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Fair enough rationale; I was an active member back in the day, but it's been dead for a while. EVula // talk // ☯ // 04:47, 6 April 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: relist to Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2009_April_15#Category:WikiProject Sega.--Aervanath (talk) 17:13, 15 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:WikiProject Sega (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Former WIkiProject category, now a task force of WP:VG.

• Depopulate and delete this category and all subcategories. –xeno (talk) 04:03, 6 April 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 by nominator. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:15, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Trashlight Vision albums (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

:Nominator's rationale: Delete per WP:OC#SMALL. The Trashlight Vision main article states that this disbanded group released just one album -- the one categorized here -- as well as two EPs. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 03:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC) WITHDRAWN per below and Category:Albums by artist. Shawn in Montreal (talk) 14:08, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – part of Category:Albums by artist. Occuli (talk) 10:02, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong keep - WP:OC#SMALL states that if "such categories are part of a large overall accepted sub-categorization scheme", they should not be deleted. Furthermore, Category:Albums by artist says "that all single-artist album articles should have subcategories here, even if it's the only album the artist has recorded". Nikkimaria (talk) 12:53, 6 April 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. Kbdank71 17:04, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My Name Rotche Capuyan

Gender Female

Born June 8, 1980

Nationlity Pilipino

Occupation Domestic Helper

Experiences

Independent and self-supporting own idea's how to live develop myself with my own tactic and knowledge how to survive

Since how to read and understand to communicate become more interesting challenge myself.

Now all is done to answer all the question by myself

develop everything what is good to improve, how to connect people all over the world through my own making own knowledge and methods

improving the technology easy to work and connect any workplaces and offices field with own control collaborate the system connection programming through computer and mobile

improvement any model type categories name of company industries corporate enterprise and more any organization.  code legal act all under the law government businesses commitment all access link company and banks immigration border international and domestic security human rights and passport legal detection process scanner identity citizenship security. 115.135.35.62 (talk) 21:26, 13 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Terrorism to Category:Political violence

Nominator's rationale: This is a Word to Avoid and has been recently validated as such via RfC. Category:Political violence Would be much better and descriptive, and even articles who directly address the term "terrorism" can belong in it with ease.

Since this is a parent category of sub-categories and even lower level categories, I suggest the rename be done all the way down the chain, with "terrorism" exchanged with "political violence" and "terrorist(s)" with "militant(s)". Exception would be "Terrorism laws", "books about/Terrorism in fiction" and "Designated/Formerly designated".

I think we should be careful not to make the exceptions (ie those categories that truly have a rationale for "terrorism" in the encyclopedic voice) with the norm, which is that we should avoid the term. Cerejota (talk) 03:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Please see Category talk:Terrorists and the deletion discussions linked at the top of the page. Here are some searches of Wikipedia:Categories for discussion for terrorism and terrorist: [3] and [4]. They pull up many discussions of various terrorism and terrorist categories. --Timeshifter (talk) 03:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If you want to see the previous difficulties reaching consensus on these categories and which ones have been kept or deleted, take a look at these apples. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 04:42, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - Regardless of their views on the subject, pretty much every serious editor is mindful of the issues surrounding the use of this term. The question generally boils down to, "So what could we agree on as a substitute that would be a real improvement?" For my part, I think both of the terms suggested as replacements are unsatisfactory. Starting with "Political violence", that is a much broader term that would cover a wide range of acts, most of which do not involve terrorism. As for "militants", again it's a pretty broad term -- really a misconceived euphemism that is often used in the news media so as to avoid the word "terrorist". But those terms should not be equated, as only a small minority of militants ever actually engage in acts of terrorism. Cgingold (talk) 05:18, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - I don't think the fact that "political violence" and "militant" are broader is a problem. Why do we need to narrow a category with what every serious editor acknowledges is a biased value-laden term? As the rationale states, we would keep categories of "designated/formerly designated" which are NPOV. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 05:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that all of the lesser forms of violence would then be lumped in with the more extreme forms that are termed "acts of terrorism", with all people categorized as "militants" tarred by implication as de facto terrorists. And btw, the definition of "militant" is pretty fuzzy to begin with, so what would the inclusion criteria be? Cgingold (talk) 05:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Support, this is a clear improvement, in terms of POV issues. But there are still complexities. Should Category:Wars and Category:Capital punishment be included under "political violence"? They're clearly "political" and "violence". If not, we're pretty much using "political violence" as a euphemism for terrorism, but still meaning "terrorism". – Quadell ^(talk) 11:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose renaming of Category:Terrorism, but strongly support renaming and/or reparenting most sub-cats. It's unsurprising that this category has returned to CFD for the umpteenth time; the only surprise is that it doesn't get here more often. The reason, of course, is that the term is widely used both in politics and in the media, but there is no stable NPOV definition of "terrorism". The United States, for example, has repeatedly shied away from adopting a formal definition, because it has been unable to come with a definition which both includes its enemies and doesn't include either itself or its allies such as the Contras. George W. Bush once offered an off-the-cuff definition of terrorism as taking up arms against a lawful govt, but the idea was hastily dropped as others realised that this would George Washington and the other founding fathers of the USA in with Abu Nidal and Osama bin Laden.
  These definitional problems are the reason why the respected news agency Reuters does not use the words "terrorism" or "terrorist", but instead uses neutral terms such as "gunman", "bomber", "guerilla".

I think that this approach is the only stable way of categorising this field, and that wikipedia should drop the heavily-loaded and highly contested use of the words "terrorism" or "terrorist" for categorising particular acts or people. Those terms should of course be used in articles where they report the attributable comments of observers, but not as generic labels. So, for example, an article should not say "Jones was a terrorist", but may say "Jones was described by X as a terrorist" or "the bombing was condemned by Y and Z as an 'outrageous act of terrorism'".
The reason I don't support removing Category:Terrorism is that the hotly-disputed concept of "terrorism" has been a very important idea for about 150 years; the word is, AFAICR, a 20th-century invention, but the concept can be traced back to Bakunin and possibly earlier. There are plenty of wikipedia articles which address the theoretical concept of terrorism and/or its applicability in particular situations: e.g. Terrorism, State terrorism, Definition of terrorism, History of terrorism, Council of Europe Convention on the Prevention of Terrorism, Terrorist Identities Datamart Environment, etc ... and all of those topics on the concept of belong under a Category:Terrorism.

However, most of the other articles should be recategorised and most of the sub-cats should be either renamed. For example Category:Terrorists should either be renamed to Category:People described as terrorists. These sub-categories cannot be renamed en masse, because each case may require a slightly different approach, but I think that the nominator's proposal of casting most of them under a new Category:Political violence is a good starting point. I suggest that Category:Terrorism should itself be a sub-cat of Category:Political violence. --BrownHairedGirl (talk) • (contribs) 12:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's some brilliant analysis there, BrownHairedGirl. I support this plan. (By the way, the word "terrorisme" first occurred during the French Revolution to describe a governmental action of preventing insurgency through inspiring terror in the citizenry. Back then, when there was a strong government fighting insurrectionists, it was the government that was called "terrorist". Once the word became pejorative, the roles got reversed.) – Quadell ^(talk) 19:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Hitler's rise was marked by thuggery and violence (politcal violence), but he was not a terrorist. I would suggest that terrorism is seeking to achieve political change nor merely by violence but by terrorising people. The two things are distinct. I appreciate that one man's terrorist is another's guerilla freedom fighter, but I do not think the present nom fits the bill. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:55, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly disagree with this POV, and it clearly illustrate why we need a broader parent category than the WTA "terrorism/terrorist": One man's thug is another's terrorist.

Hitler's rise was indeed marked by what I consider terrorism, the SA and the SS being guilty of kidnappings, bombings, torture of political opponents, crushing of internal dissent, blackmail, riots, book burnings, arsons (in particular of union halls and Jewish businesses), extortion, etc etc etc. What you call "thuggery" I call "terrorism", plain and simple. And it was effective terror too, won him the Chancellorship without even having the majority of the votes: such was the level of terror that shadowed over Germans by the time this happened. Also, I hate the Nazis as antisemite, xenophobic, fascist scum of the earth, and terrorism is one more label I can throw at the assholes.

So yes, the Nazis would be included in a category under some of the subcats of "Political violence", and I would not included under "terrorism" only because I oppose this categorization in principle. What happens is that we have a category whose members are mostly inherently POV driven, except the more narrow ones, like "designated/formerly designated as terrorist" (which is factual) or "books about terrorism" (which is a non-controversial self-description). For example, we do not have a similar POV category, like Category:Freedom fighters (which I am sure you might fdind editors arguings the nazis belong in), not that doing it would solve anything, but it seems to me there is clearly some editors who feel that "terrorism" is a well defined term worthy of a category, while general community consensus clearly says the term has no formal definition, and is clearly pejorative.

And this is not censorship: We do have an article for Nigger (as we do for Terrorism) but we do not have a Category:Niggers. Why? Articles are supposed to be factual representations of notable topics worthy of encyclopedic coverage, while Categories are supposed to be ways to help people find related information - not to label such information with a pejorative term, as is the case of Category:Terrorism.

Yes, by necessity, this means broadening the articles included in this category and related subcategory, but that is precisely the point: right now we have a narrow POV category named after a term not even people who make a living studying the meaning of words can come up with a good definition for. We need to be NPOV, and a good way to do this is to change this category's name. Otherwise, NPOV is worthless. --Cerejota (talk) 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep when words to avoid butts up against censorship, the former must yield. Why political violence? when much terrorism is religious violence? If renamed, call it Category:Violence purposely targeting civilians Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: Actually, this category itself isn't so much of a concern to me. It's a) the articles that are mis-placed here (I've just removed some, but there are plenty more), and b) the sub-categories for groups/people etc, ie Category:French terrorists and so forth. - TheMightyQuill (talk) 02:12, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• oppose This is the word being used around the world for these activities.

There is no reason to alter or censor it and make WP look silly. 'Political violence' brings to mind fights and other activities involving partisans in elections, not randomly kiling people to induce terror into the population. Hmains (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose, at a minimum for its exclusion of religiously-motivated violence as Carlossuarez notes; it just isn't a complete substitute or synonym for what the current category captures. Postdlf (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Carlos, Bhg, etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:40, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose rename -- while I fully agree that "terrorism" is a very loaded/POV term, there really is no other suitable substitute at present. As others have stated here, not all of what is considered "terrorism" is strictly "political violence" as you propose to rename this category to, but could also be considered other 'terroristic' forms of violence like "religious violence," "ethnic violence," "economic violence," "sectarian violence," and so on. However, I agree with BrownHairedGirl that many of the subcategories should possibly be renamed and made more neutral and specific - distinguishing between the political, religious, ethnic, economic, etc...also agree that Category:Terrorists should be made more neutral by being renamed to Category:People described or designated as terrorists or something similar. --Wassermann (talk) 17:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose. If this nomination doesn't pass, can we have a six month moratorium on this category being nominated again, please?--Mike Selinker (talk) 22:35, 8 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep All political violence is not terrorism--whether the category is to be used in a particular case is a question for the editing of the article. The use of the term is discouraged here , but not prohibited. DGG (talk) 03:44, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Support - This is a really good initiative Cerejota and a definite improvement. It's not ideal but it's a step in the right direction, broader and other mixed metaphors that I can't think of right now and I guess nothing will be ideal on this issue. It'll open a can of worms....which is good too. Sean.hoyland - talk 14:57, 12 April 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 to Category:People in the video game industry. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:24, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Propose renaming Category:Video game people to Category:People involved in the video game industry

Nominator's rationale: Somewhat self explanatory. Willing to budge on the rename target if someone comes up with something better. –xeno (talk) 02:48, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• rename - I do not get a good vibe from the suggestion (TL;DR), what about Category:People in the video game industry as per Category:People in the automobile industry and Category:People in the chemical industry? My only thing is that this category includes professional game players, are they considered part of the industry? If yes, well OK my initial suggestion holds, if not, can we consider Category:People in video game occupations as per Category:People in food and agriculture occupations?--Cerejota (talk) 03:19, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:People in the video game industry, as last contributor. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:49, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  ^ "People in..." seems fine to me per other examples. –xeno (talk) 12:40, 7 April 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. Good Ol’factory ^(talk) 09:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Ongamenet (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: Far too narrow a category (2 members). –xeno (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. –xeno (talk) 02:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• DElete unless some one can demonstrate that substiantial expansion is likely. Peterkingiron (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Peterkingiron. -- IRP ☎ 23:02, 6 April 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. Kbdank71 17:05, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Blocked Wikipedia users (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: unnecessary category, previously deleted as a misnamed article Categories: Blocked Wikipedia users RadioFan (talk) 16:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Impossible category to maintain, no real benefit to grouping these users. Possibly speedyable as I seem to recall a similar category being deleted previously, although I can't find the discussion. Note to closer: Please close this with Template:Ucfd top. VegaDark (talk) 16:31, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Serves little useful purpose and is contrary to the deny recognition principle. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 19:07, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I suppose this category is useful to Wikipedia administrators. --Mr Accountable (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete admins have access to a blocklog search tool under special pages, so this doesn't seem to help out for admins. For non-admins, it will probably not be overly useful since it will be impossible to maintain (as people get blocked, unblocked, etc. - some with alarming frequency). Carlossuarez46 (talk) 22:59, 6 April 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. Kbdank71 17:08, 13 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of 5dsddddd (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Nominator's rationale: User in question has not returned to socking and category does seem to have that much administrative value. NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:03, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So? — Rlevse • Talk • 02:05, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The user already knows about the block for misbehavior, and keeping this category seems to just antagonize him/her. We have too many of these types of pages, that seem to only exist to either feed the trolls, or be used to "kick the user in the face". NanohaA'sYuri^{Talk, My master} 02:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry? This is a perfectly valid administrative page. In no way does it 'feed the trolls' or 'kick the user in the face'. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• keep as out of scope for CfD Doesn't the {{sockpuppet}} automatically generate a link to a sockuppet category? Even if you delete the category page, you can't empty it without removing the whole sockpuppet template from the user page (which is probably not a valid solution to this problem). Also, I suppose that there are hundreds of categories exactly like this one, one for every sock master that only used one sock, this is out of scope for CfD and should discussed at WT:SOCK or at Template_talk:Sockpuppet --Enric Naval (talk) 02:23, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - No good reason to discard this information. --Orlady (talk) 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I don't understand the nominatory statement, and do not see any reason to delete this administrative category. — neuro^{(talk)(review)} 02:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• keep and close But this is why we need an "Administrative Category" name space... Creep or no creep.--Cerejota (talk) 03:10, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - I do believe that this is within the scope of CfD (now that UCFD has merged here, that is), but I don't think the nominator's reasons are compelling enough to treat this any differently than the hundreds of other sockpuppet categories. One can make a case to delete them all as a group due to WP:DENY, but that argument probably would need to be taken somewhere outside of CfD. Note to closer: Please close this with Template:Ucfd top. VegaDark (talk) 03:51, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and close per above. -- IRP ☎ 22:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep the editors who have to deal with this dude in the future, may have to rely on the institutional memory reposited in these sorts of cats. Carlossuarez46 (talk) 23:09, 6 April 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.