The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ungrammatical and hopelessly confused category. It needs at least to be renamed; but many of the contents are unsupported by their articles, and some are flat wrong. Apollonius of Tyana? For that matter, what does Apollonius of Rhodes, the epic poet, have to do with anybody's history? Better to scrap this and start over. Septentrionalis 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge Tim! 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Same topic. Category:History of film uses the correct category label, as seen in Category:History by topic Clubmarx 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete all, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). (The one that does had no significant support and is empty.) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
These categories are either in jest, are overly-obscure pop culture references, or are completely opaque. None of them provide any useful information. - EurekaLott 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jntg4 does not have sock puppets. They are brothers.
The result of the debate was Delete, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), occupations are categorized by nationality, not ethnicity. -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong delete. Seems to be an obvious Jew-baiting cat. Irresponsible. -- TJive 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This entire category seems to be a smear on Jewish Americans. Here's some reasons to delete:
1) First, the singling out of "Jewish American" spies fore a category. Is there a "Protestant American" spies category? The religious background is already mentioned in some spy articles (usually it's pointed out if someone is a Jew), but not in others. It's prejudicial to create this whole category when most of the spies were motivated by communism, not Judaism.
2) Spies are, rightly, identified by who they work for. So Americans who spied for the Soviets are called Soviet spies - NOT American spies (or "Jewish American" spies). British spies spy for Great Britain. Or, you could speak of Nazi spies, or communist spies. If the Americans have a Russian person spying on Russia, he's called an American spy, not a Russian spy. So the "Jewish American" spies in this article are not "American spies" at all. This alone should show why this biased category should be deleted.
3) There are already categories that are more appropriate, which do, in fact include the spies listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_spies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_spies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Israeli_spies
If you look at the categories at the bottom of each spy article, you'll see that they are already sufficiently categorized.
4) Some of the "spies" listed in this article were never even indicted as a spy, such as Allen Rosenberg. That's why there is another more appropriate category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accused_Soviet_spies
5) The original article included the link to "Schmuck" which is a well known (at least to American Jews) derogatory term in Yiddish. It means penis, and is used like "dick". Ex. He's a schmuck (He's a dick.) That link to a non-existant spy named "Schmuck" was included by the author of the category. It is clear sign of *bad intentions* and meant as an insult. There's no other way it can be justified. The catagory was started with an anti-semitic intent, and should be deleted. 24.44.45.54 10:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Update-The creator of the category, Hmains, has said that someone else put the "Schmuck" entry on the page. So I withdraw objection #5. Still support Deleting based on the other objections. 24.44.45.54 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per amended nominations Tim! 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Should be moved to be consistent with all the articles in the categories and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which states "Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words." Also, the capitalization in the third category is incorrect. -- Musicpvm 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The former only has one article and the primary meaning of "mason" is something totally different from what is intended. Merge. Chicheley 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was No consensus -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted on 21st June - see [1] AndrewRT 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless. -- TJive 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was discussion continued as User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion. Conscious 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge all. Overcategorization, especially for a video game. I'd include Category:The Legend of Zelda Nintendo 64 games in this merge, but it is still under vote for a different merge. I don't understand how the last category of the group is different from the main category. -- Vossanova o< 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - I'd suggest a merge, but the category is empty anyway. Vossanova o< 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Revised proposal:
Category:Novel sequences to
Category:Novel series
Revised proposal, part deux. Withdraw proposal to upmerge
Category:Novel sequences; instead create a separate sub-cat of
Category:Series of books :
Category:Novel series or
Category:Series of novels. ♥
Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Original comment: Redundant; defining the sequence in which books should be read would work better in list format. Plus, sorters cannot seem to agree on what should go in this category. Some discussion on the
talk page, but no consensus. ♥
Her Pegship♥ 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Strong Suggest: Keep Original Name, but Her Pegship still has my proxy. Just found several more examples using the technical term on two entirely different and respected 'vetted' encyclopedia's using the term "Novel sequence" ... re talk page: do consider 1, and 2 as well as Mr Darcy's 0. This becomes in that light, a matter of definitions and purpose statements, plus moving things from the category that don't fit. Cheers! // Fra nkB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Company with one product in wikipedia, for which the notability isn't that clear either. S.K. 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
All 14 national subcatgories already include the word "computer", which provides more clarity. Chicheley 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per here. David Kernow 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was relist Tim! 09:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Although an empty Category:Dance/Club music artists has recently been created (musicians is better than music artists). There are also a number of sub-categories that will require renaming. There is potential for confusion with dancing related performers. Paul foord 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Musicpvm 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Wrong discussion page -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
We need to recategorise all of the articles in the current category-some of them do not pertain exclusively to planning law. Planning law in the United Kindom will then be a sub category of the main category. There has been a small discussion regarding this change on the categories talk page Category talk:United Kingdom planning law-- Mcginnly 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Mostly Deleted (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Those categories will only encourage people to think they're notable enough to be added to Wikipedia. Delete. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to People killed by order of Muhammad (no consensus to completely delete) Tim! 09:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This categories NPOV is questionable, and claiming that Muhammed asked someone to kill these people or someone killed them on behalf of Muhammed is Original Research and it is against wikipedia policies and guidelines «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T) 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Contrib) 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
And just to remind you, people still continue to kill on behalf of Jesus, Muhammed, Governments, Terrorists, so on and so forth could we create categories for all this? this is very meaningless. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T) 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was relist Tim! 09:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A better name for inclusion in Category:Mayors by country which is what they really are. The proposed name is shorter and clearer about the contents. If there are notable city managers they can be placed in a category for that title. But city leaders are generally know as Mayor. If this really is mostly about mayors, then why not use mayor in the name? If results of this nomination are positive, then the subcategories would need to also be renamed. Vegaswikian 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Category redirect. Vegaswikian 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty and utterly pointless duplicate (and sub-category of!) Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, created two days ago solely as a holder for Category:People from Juneau, Alaska, which I've moved to Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, where it belongs. — Zero Gravi t as 05:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty duplicate of category:NHS hospitals. Delete CalJW 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Give me a break. This would be like "artists who haven't recorded with Carlos Santana." I could see an argument for performers who have appeared with DJ Clue, but this is nuts. JDoorj a m Talk 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (was not tagged). -- William Allen Simpson 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason: The section has numerous entries that were altered to better qualify for the category, these alterations mean that whoever altered them lacked the necessary neutrality required by Wikipedia and are tantamount to vandalism. I feel that merger with the larger category means more eyes, more oversight and hopefully more applied neutrality. All the pages in the category still need to be reviewed, and at least 1/6 need to be corrected as the LGBT comic book characters category was spammed into quite a few pages. Basique 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Ungrammatical and hopelessly confused category. It needs at least to be renamed; but many of the contents are unsupported by their articles, and some are flat wrong. Apollonius of Tyana? For that matter, what does Apollonius of Rhodes, the epic poet, have to do with anybody's history? Better to scrap this and start over. Septentrionalis 22:55, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was merge Tim! 08:39, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Same topic. Category:History of film uses the correct category label, as seen in Category:History by topic Clubmarx 22:21, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete all, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories). (The one that does had no significant support and is empty.) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
These categories are either in jest, are overly-obscure pop culture references, or are completely opaque. None of them provide any useful information. - EurekaLott 21:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Jntg4 does not have sock puppets. They are brothers.
The result of the debate was Delete, failure to conform to policy Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories), occupations are categorized by nationality, not ethnicity. -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong delete. Seems to be an obvious Jew-baiting cat. Irresponsible. -- TJive 21:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This entire category seems to be a smear on Jewish Americans. Here's some reasons to delete:
1) First, the singling out of "Jewish American" spies fore a category. Is there a "Protestant American" spies category? The religious background is already mentioned in some spy articles (usually it's pointed out if someone is a Jew), but not in others. It's prejudicial to create this whole category when most of the spies were motivated by communism, not Judaism.
2) Spies are, rightly, identified by who they work for. So Americans who spied for the Soviets are called Soviet spies - NOT American spies (or "Jewish American" spies). British spies spy for Great Britain. Or, you could speak of Nazi spies, or communist spies. If the Americans have a Russian person spying on Russia, he's called an American spy, not a Russian spy. So the "Jewish American" spies in this article are not "American spies" at all. This alone should show why this biased category should be deleted.
3) There are already categories that are more appropriate, which do, in fact include the spies listed here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Soviet_spies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Cold_War_spies http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Israeli_spies
If you look at the categories at the bottom of each spy article, you'll see that they are already sufficiently categorized.
4) Some of the "spies" listed in this article were never even indicted as a spy, such as Allen Rosenberg. That's why there is another more appropriate category:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Accused_Soviet_spies
5) The original article included the link to "Schmuck" which is a well known (at least to American Jews) derogatory term in Yiddish. It means penis, and is used like "dick". Ex. He's a schmuck (He's a dick.) That link to a non-existant spy named "Schmuck" was included by the author of the category. It is clear sign of *bad intentions* and meant as an insult. There's no other way it can be justified. The catagory was started with an anti-semitic intent, and should be deleted. 24.44.45.54 10:58, 17 June 2006 (UTC) Update-The creator of the category, Hmains, has said that someone else put the "Schmuck" entry on the page. So I withdraw objection #5. Still support Deleting based on the other objections. 24.44.45.54 02:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename per amended nominations Tim! 08:46, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Should be moved to be consistent with all the articles in the categories and according to Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates and numbers) which states "Whole numbers from zero to ten are spelled out as words." Also, the capitalization in the third category is incorrect. -- Musicpvm 21:11, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The former only has one article and the primary meaning of "mason" is something totally different from what is intended. Merge. Chicheley 21:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was No consensus -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Note: Category:Terrorist organizations was deleted on 21st June - see [1] AndrewRT 23:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Strong Delete. Intrinsically violates WP:NPOV. The title is declaratory and the value of accusations or opinions as categories is worthless. -- TJive 19:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was discussion continued as User talk:Road Wizard/Legend of Zelda CfD discussion. Conscious 06:51, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Merge all. Overcategorization, especially for a video game. I'd include Category:The Legend of Zelda Nintendo 64 games in this merge, but it is still under vote for a different merge. I don't understand how the last category of the group is different from the main category. -- Vossanova o< 18:49, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Delete - I'd suggest a merge, but the category is empty anyway. Vossanova o< 18:36, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was keep. Conscious 06:58, 30 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Revised proposal:
Category:Novel sequences to
Category:Novel series
Revised proposal, part deux. Withdraw proposal to upmerge
Category:Novel sequences; instead create a separate sub-cat of
Category:Series of books :
Category:Novel series or
Category:Series of novels. ♥
Her Pegship♥ 00:08, 23 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Original comment: Redundant; defining the sequence in which books should be read would work better in list format. Plus, sorters cannot seem to agree on what should go in this category. Some discussion on the
talk page, but no consensus. ♥
Her Pegship♥ 17:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC)
reply
Strong Suggest: Keep Original Name, but Her Pegship still has my proxy. Just found several more examples using the technical term on two entirely different and respected 'vetted' encyclopedia's using the term "Novel sequence" ... re talk page: do consider 1, and 2 as well as Mr Darcy's 0. This becomes in that light, a matter of definitions and purpose statements, plus moving things from the category that don't fit. Cheers! // Fra nkB 06:33, 22 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Company with one product in wikipedia, for which the notability isn't that clear either. S.K. 17:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:52, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
All 14 national subcatgories already include the word "computer", which provides more clarity. Chicheley 16:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC). reply
The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:54, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Per here. David Kernow 15:03, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was relist Tim! 09:10, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Although an empty Category:Dance/Club music artists has recently been created (musicians is better than music artists). There are also a number of sub-categories that will require renaming. There is potential for confusion with dancing related performers. Paul foord 15:00, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
-- Musicpvm 03:10, 20 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Wrong discussion page -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename Tim! 08:58, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
We need to recategorise all of the articles in the current category-some of them do not pertain exclusively to planning law. Planning law in the United Kindom will then be a sub category of the main category. There has been a small discussion regarding this change on the categories talk page Category talk:United Kingdom planning law-- Mcginnly 10:56, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Mostly Deleted (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 06:08, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Those categories will only encourage people to think they're notable enough to be added to Wikipedia. Delete. ' ( Feeling chatty? ) ( Edits!) 10:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was rename to People killed by order of Muhammad (no consensus to completely delete) Tim! 09:02, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
This categories NPOV is questionable, and claiming that Muhammed asked someone to kill these people or someone killed them on behalf of Muhammed is Original Research and it is against wikipedia policies and guidelines «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T) 09:30, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
(Contrib) 13:54, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
And just to remind you, people still continue to kill on behalf of Jesus, Muhammed, Governments, Terrorists, so on and so forth could we create categories for all this? this is very meaningless. «₪Mÿš†íc₪» (T) 19:07, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was relist Tim! 09:07, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
A better name for inclusion in Category:Mayors by country which is what they really are. The proposed name is shorter and clearer about the contents. If there are notable city managers they can be placed in a category for that title. But city leaders are generally know as Mayor. If this really is mostly about mayors, then why not use mayor in the name? If results of this nomination are positive, then the subcategories would need to also be renamed. Vegaswikian 06:40, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Category redirect. Vegaswikian 20:09, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty and utterly pointless duplicate (and sub-category of!) Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, created two days ago solely as a holder for Category:People from Juneau, Alaska, which I've moved to Category:Juneau City and Borough, Alaska, where it belongs. — Zero Gravi t as 05:41, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete (empty) -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Empty duplicate of category:NHS hospitals. Delete CalJW 03:17, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Delete -- William Allen Simpson 05:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Give me a break. This would be like "artists who haven't recorded with Carlos Santana." I could see an argument for performers who have appeared with DJ Clue, but this is nuts. JDoorj a m Talk 01:34, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply
The result of the debate was Keep (was not tagged). -- William Allen Simpson 05:59, 24 June 2006 (UTC) reply
Reason: The section has numerous entries that were altered to better qualify for the category, these alterations mean that whoever altered them lacked the necessary neutrality required by Wikipedia and are tantamount to vandalism. I feel that merger with the larger category means more eyes, more oversight and hopefully more applied neutrality. All the pages in the category still need to be reviewed, and at least 1/6 need to be corrected as the LGBT comic book characters category was spammed into quite a few pages. Basique 00:39, 16 June 2006 (UTC) reply