The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Empty category, created Sept. 2005. MakeRocketGoNow 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Inactive musical groups and Category:Active musical groups
Both of these sets rightly contain thousands of artices. Unless they are to be kept as flat, oversized administrative cats like Category:Living people, they will inevitably be subdivided by genre and nationality, creating complication and potentially doubling the size of hierarchies for musical acts. Membership in the categories is also dated and requires maintenance. There has also been some criticism on each cat's talk page. Delete both. × Meegs 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. Conscious 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
and Category:Million and Category:Billion. Includes numbers which are in that range (n to 1000×n−1) as well as units and adjectives related to that number. Pretty much a worthless category. If I were the type to use "cruft", I'd call it "numbercruft". Created a few minutes ago. Let's kill it before it spreads. Delete all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Only one user (the user that made the category). The acronym is just something the user made up one day and is too specific. Unlike Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, AWWDPTDTNAEWPADNNSMSHCCSFSEMAWFTSHIIAA is non-notable and does not have its own page. SCHZMO ✍ 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - And listify instead. This is a category that should be a list. MakeRocketGoNow 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Always better to expand abbreviations; much clearer. -- Necrothesp 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was tag subcategories and relist. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If WP is not a social club, are these really appropriate? 132.205.93.89 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Your There were two New Orleans classes. The earlier class, Category:New Orleans class cruisers (1896), was already separate, but I believe this one should be renamed Category:New Orleans class cruisers (1931) for clarity. TomTheHand 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There were two Minotaur classes. I have separated the later class out into Category:Minotaur class cruisers (1943) but I believe this one should be renamed Category:Minotaur class cruisers (1906) for clarity. TomTheHand 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This version of the name spells out the state names and also replaces the ampersand with the full word. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a subcat of Category:Collections of the Louvre, which is comprised of articles for sculptures – the Winged Victory of Samothrace, Venus de Milo etc. – which are undisputed works of art, and yet the "works" designation is reserved for paintings. I'm not keen on these "works" categories (the others are Category:Works in Musée d'Orsay, Category:Works in the National Gallery, London, Category:Works in the Uffizi and Category:Works in the Vatican). "Work" is an awfully ambiguous word ("artwork" would be far clearer), and in any case it seems like an unnecessary subdivision after "collections". That's why I'd rather that this didn't just get renamed to "Paintings in the Louvre", and would prefer a merge with its parent category (sur-category?) Collections of the Louvre. For the other four examples, I would advocate changing their names to the more general "Collections of the [Foo museum]" ("collections" categories don't currenty exist for those). HAM 18:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect. Vegaswikian 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This user category is not at all appropriate and can serve little use other than for vanity purposes or to be inflammatory. BigDT 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge all. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the media by countries use the adjectival form, but about one in seven do not.
I have omitted a couple of countries for which there is not a suitable adjectival form.
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was, in my opinion, a rough consensus to delete. Conscious 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There was a previous vote to delete this by the overwhelming majority of fourteen to four. User:Tim! declared this to be "no consensus" on the spurious grounds of the strength of feeling of the keep voters. This is a slippery slope and is not acceptable. It is perfectly normal for people who value cruft to feel strongly about it, but if that was accepted as a reason to keep, why bother with cleanup in Wikipedia at all? Also, Tim's suggestion of just removing Sherlock Holmes is not at appropriate. Any category which exists should be properly populated, but this one should not exist. As Scranchuse put it last time, categorising very well known characters by their relationship to something much less well known is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Bhoeble 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC). reply
Incidentally, I also object to the "perpetual relist syndrome". This is the third time this category has gone up for deletion. Come on. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Also I would like to add this VFD should not be taken seriously because the nominator has other reasons for deleting it, Bhoeble has also been placed on W:PAIN for his statements and comments which continue to support my reason to believe that this entire VFD is under wrongful intent. Piecraft 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List of Wold Newton Universe characters
And for the record, I am in no way affiliated with Philip Jose Farmer, nor have I read the books from which this category was derived. I am just interested in the geneology of the characters according to the only one ever offered for most of these characters.
—
Lady Aleena
talk/
contribs 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Once the rename is completed then a new CfD can discuss the Islam vs Muslim issue. All votes seem to be to change from the present name. Vegaswikian 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There was no consensus for deletion of this category with the majority (approximately 2/3rds of editors) voting for deletion. A common theme on both sides of the debate in that discussion though was for renaming the category. Even the category's creator agreed to the idea of renaming. Netscott 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There were two Arethusa classes. I have separated the later class out into Category:Arethusa class cruisers (1934) but I believe this one should be renamed Category:Arethusa class cruisers (1913) for clarity. TomTheHand 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This category should be renamed. (Reason:Bad english grammar. Sorry for that) Anonymous _anonymous_ Have a Nice Day 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
To add missing "the". (Not a speedy?) David Kernow 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Superfluous categorisation per scope of Category:Russian Revolution. (Cf discussion here.) David Kernow 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A number of prominent rap artists have died prematurely, but this category is POV and unnecessary. Its effect is to perpetuate stereotypes of hip-hop musicians and ethnic minorities. We don't have categories like "Dead rock musicians", "Dead novelists" or "Dead politicians". szyslak ( t, c, e) 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fix plural and capitalization Paul 05:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Expand acronym that isn't self-evident. BoojiBoy 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Expand acronym that isn't self-evident. BoojiBoy 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This category doesn't seem to be named for a specific designation used in Swaziland, so it will be tidy and consistent to rename it to match category:Protected areas by country. CalJW 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - Empty category, created Sept. 2005. MakeRocketGoNow 23:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:23, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Category:Inactive musical groups and Category:Active musical groups
Both of these sets rightly contain thousands of artices. Unless they are to be kept as flat, oversized administrative cats like Category:Living people, they will inevitably be subdivided by genre and nationality, creating complication and potentially doubling the size of hierarchies for musical acts. Membership in the categories is also dated and requires maintenance. There has also been some criticism on each cat's talk page. Delete both. × Meegs 23:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete all. Conscious 08:29, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
and Category:Million and Category:Billion. Includes numbers which are in that range (n to 1000×n−1) as well as units and adjectives related to that number. Pretty much a worthless category. If I were the type to use "cruft", I'd call it "numbercruft". Created a few minutes ago. Let's kill it before it spreads. Delete all. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:42, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Only one user (the user that made the category). The acronym is just something the user made up one day and is too specific. Unlike Category:AWWDMBJAWGCAWAIFDSPBATDMTD, AWWDPTDTNAEWPADNNSMSHCCSFSEMAWFTSHIIAA is non-notable and does not have its own page. SCHZMO ✍ 22:19, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:26, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - And listify instead. This is a category that should be a list. MakeRocketGoNow 22:10, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Always better to expand abbreviations; much clearer. -- Necrothesp 21:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was tag subcategories and relist. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
If WP is not a social club, are these really appropriate? 132.205.93.89 21:54, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Your There were two New Orleans classes. The earlier class, Category:New Orleans class cruisers (1896), was already separate, but I believe this one should be renamed Category:New Orleans class cruisers (1931) for clarity. TomTheHand 20:55, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There were two Minotaur classes. I have separated the later class out into Category:Minotaur class cruisers (1943) but I believe this one should be renamed Category:Minotaur class cruisers (1906) for clarity. TomTheHand 20:46, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to Category:Television stations in the Tri-Cities, Tennessee. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This version of the name spells out the state names and also replaces the ampersand with the full word. SchuminWeb ( Talk) 19:59, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This is a subcat of Category:Collections of the Louvre, which is comprised of articles for sculptures – the Winged Victory of Samothrace, Venus de Milo etc. – which are undisputed works of art, and yet the "works" designation is reserved for paintings. I'm not keen on these "works" categories (the others are Category:Works in Musée d'Orsay, Category:Works in the National Gallery, London, Category:Works in the Uffizi and Category:Works in the Vatican). "Work" is an awfully ambiguous word ("artwork" would be far clearer), and in any case it seems like an unnecessary subdivision after "collections". That's why I'd rather that this didn't just get renamed to "Paintings in the Louvre", and would prefer a merge with its parent category (sur-category?) Collections of the Louvre. For the other four examples, I would advocate changing their names to the more general "Collections of the [Foo museum]" ("collections" categories don't currenty exist for those). HAM 18:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Redirect. Vegaswikian 05:10, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete. Vegaswikian 05:28, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This user category is not at all appropriate and can serve little use other than for vanity purposes or to be inflammatory. BigDT 17:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename/merge all. Conscious 08:47, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Most of the media by countries use the adjectival form, but about one in seven do not.
I have omitted a couple of countries for which there is not a suitable adjectival form.
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was, in my opinion, a rough consensus to delete. Conscious 19:37, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There was a previous vote to delete this by the overwhelming majority of fourteen to four. User:Tim! declared this to be "no consensus" on the spurious grounds of the strength of feeling of the keep voters. This is a slippery slope and is not acceptable. It is perfectly normal for people who value cruft to feel strongly about it, but if that was accepted as a reason to keep, why bother with cleanup in Wikipedia at all? Also, Tim's suggestion of just removing Sherlock Holmes is not at appropriate. Any category which exists should be properly populated, but this one should not exist. As Scranchuse put it last time, categorising very well known characters by their relationship to something much less well known is a case of the tail wagging the dog. Bhoeble 15:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC). reply
Incidentally, I also object to the "perpetual relist syndrome". This is the third time this category has gone up for deletion. Come on. — Simetrical ( talk • contribs) 10:23, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Also I would like to add this VFD should not be taken seriously because the nominator has other reasons for deleting it, Bhoeble has also been placed on W:PAIN for his statements and comments which continue to support my reason to believe that this entire VFD is under wrongful intent. Piecraft 22:29, 1 June 2006 (UTC) reply
List of Wold Newton Universe characters
And for the record, I am in no way affiliated with Philip Jose Farmer, nor have I read the books from which this category was derived. I am just interested in the geneology of the characters according to the only one ever offered for most of these characters.
—
Lady Aleena
talk/
contribs 08:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Once the rename is completed then a new CfD can discuss the Islam vs Muslim issue. All votes seem to be to change from the present name. Vegaswikian 06:23, 11 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There was no consensus for deletion of this category with the majority (approximately 2/3rds of editors) voting for deletion. A common theme on both sides of the debate in that discussion though was for renaming the category. Even the category's creator agreed to the idea of renaming. Netscott 15:22, 31 May 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
There were two Arethusa classes. I have separated the later class out into Category:Arethusa class cruisers (1934) but I believe this one should be renamed Category:Arethusa class cruisers (1913) for clarity. TomTheHand 14:05, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This category should be renamed. (Reason:Bad english grammar. Sorry for that) Anonymous _anonymous_ Have a Nice Day 13:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:17, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
To add missing "the". (Not a speedy?) David Kernow 11:24, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Superfluous categorisation per scope of Category:Russian Revolution. (Cf discussion here.) David Kernow 11:16, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was delete. Conscious 15:57, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A number of prominent rap artists have died prematurely, but this category is POV and unnecessary. Its effect is to perpetuate stereotypes of hip-hop musicians and ethnic minorities. We don't have categories like "Dead rock musicians", "Dead novelists" or "Dead politicians". szyslak ( t, c, e) 06:25, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:15, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Fix plural and capitalization Paul 05:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Expand acronym that isn't self-evident. BoojiBoy 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:13, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Expand acronym that isn't self-evident. BoojiBoy 02:44, 31 May 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Rename. Vegaswikian 05:12, 8 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This category doesn't seem to be named for a specific designation used in Swaziland, so it will be tidy and consistent to rename it to match category:Protected areas by country. CalJW 00:41, 31 May 2006 (UTC). reply