Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 5: Difference between revisions

< Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion | Log Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 23:26, 5 January 2007 editDr. Submillimeter (talk \| contribs)13,460 edits →Category:Category name: Vote to speedy delete← Previous edit		Revision as of 23:28, 5 January 2007 edit undoSlimVirgin (talk \| contribs)172,064 edits →[]: stop the personal attacksNext edit →
Line 75:		Line 75:
	::Please don't go about making wild accusations such as those above - your claims are offensive and verge on personal attacks against the people who oppose your idea. We have provided our, valid, reasons multiple times - you just simply disagree with them. That does not make us POV pushers. It does not mean that we are trying to hide information. Can you show us any evidence to support your comments? Can you show where we are trying to push POV titles? -]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)		::Please don't go about making wild accusations such as those above - your claims are offensive and verge on personal attacks against the people who oppose your idea. We have provided our, valid, reasons multiple times - you just simply disagree with them. That does not make us POV pushers. It does not mean that we are trying to hide information. Can you show us any evidence to support your comments? Can you show where we are trying to push POV titles? -]<sup>]</sup> 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
	:::Do yourself a favor and actually ''read'' ]. In reality, you and other members of your project have been engaged in personal attacks from the beginning. Claiming "Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature" may not appear to be a personal attack to those not following the dicussion on multiple talk pages, but in fact it is, and rises to the level of commenting on the contributor not the content, especially because I have repeatedly informed you and others making this claim that I am familiar with the literature - ''but you continue to repeat it again and again as an untrue harmful statement'' - that's covered as a personal attack by the policy. As for your POV pushing, that's been covered on many talk pages, and needs to be maintained in one place, but I have already addressed POV categorization, the elimination of activism, list of activists, and will add that the current naming of "Animal rights movement" as "Animal liberation movement" is totally unsupported. —] \| ] 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)		:::Do yourself a favor and actually ''read'' ]. In reality, you and other members of your project have been engaged in personal attacks from the beginning. Claiming "Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature" may not appear to be a personal attack to those not following the dicussion on multiple talk pages, but in fact it is, and rises to the level of commenting on the contributor not the content, especially because I have repeatedly informed you and others making this claim that I am familiar with the literature - ''but you continue to repeat it again and again as an untrue harmful statement'' - that's covered as a personal attack by the policy. As for your POV pushing, that's been covered on many talk pages, and needs to be maintained in one place, but I have already addressed POV categorization, the elimination of activism, list of activists, and will add that the current naming of "Animal rights movement" as "Animal liberation movement" is totally unsupported. —] \| ] 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
			::::What I see, Viriditas, is that, no matter what anyone says to you, you just repeat the same sentences over and over again. For example, we have provided numerous reasons for the article to be called animal liberation movement and have provided scholarly sources, for example . You don't respond. I have asked you several times what you see as the difference between the terms AR movement and AL movement. You don't respond. Instead, you make personal attacks, sarcastic comments, and keep repeating the same old claims (claims, not arguments). For once, provide some scholarly sources to back up what you say. I have provided a scholarly source showing the distinction between AL and AR movement, and why the former is more inclusive. Now '''you''' must provide a scholarly source that says something different about those terms, or else don't mention it again, please. ] <sup><font color="Purple">]</font></sup> 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

	====]====		====]====

Revision as of 23:28, 5 January 2007

< January 4	January 6 >

January 5

NEW NOMINATIONS

Category:Diabetics by nationality

Come on, now. Random intersection. I don't think there are even enough people famous for being diabetic to make one Category:Diabetics, let alone one cat per country (or, in the case of Category:Scottish diabetics, area of the UK). --Quuxplusone 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Translators of hymns

Delete - The category seems esoteric; I do not think that many people would use it. I also do not really think that many people are notable primarily and specifically for translating hymns. The category only contains one article; it looks like it is trying to promote the accomplishments of an individual rather than group similar articles together. Therefore, I am recommending it for deletion. Dr. Submillimeter 23:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Filipino writers in English

Category:Filipino writers in English into Category:English-language writers

Merge - This is an obscure triple intersection (language, ethnicity, and career), a form of overcategorization. The category should be deleted. Dr. Submillimeter 23:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Computer and video games based on licensed properties

Delete as nom. While discussing another category, it was realized that this one is not up to snuff. The category is overly broad and does not offer a meaningful, defining characteristic as its basis. Inevidently, all video games are based on something. Sometimes, the ideas are original, other times they're pre-existing. This category doesn't seem to make that destinction, and it would still be too broad even if it did. Ace Class Shadow; My talk. 22:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete - Ace Class Shadow beat me to it. Everything is either licensed or unlicensed and often both at the same time. Confusing, unwieldy, and not helpful to base a category on any state as transient and local as the collection of rights included within "licensed". --lquilter 22:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Rat genus

Propose Renaming... Category:Rat genus to Category:Rat genera

Rename, Change to plural. ~ Bigr Tex 22:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep - appropriate name Headphonos 22:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy rename per nom. I don't know what Headphonos is talking about. (Also see Category:Mouse genus nominated below; the two should have been nominated for speedy renaming as a group. Are there any more categories with genus/genera mixups?) --Quuxplusone 22:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

NRC Regions

Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region One to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 1

Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region Two to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 2

Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region Three to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 3

Propose Renaming... Category:NRC Region Four to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States Region 4

Rename, per WP:NCCAT, avoid abbreviations. I'm not necessarily sold on these new names, and could even be talked into an upmerge to Category:Nuclear power stations in the United States. ~ Bigr Tex 21:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Serious games

Propose Renaming... Category:Serious games to Category:Educational computer and video games

This was found in cleaning up from November. That discussion was closed as No Consensus with a proposal that did not suggest a new name. I'm relisting with one of the names that was suggested in the previous discussion to see if there is consensus if a name is suggested. Vegaswikian 20:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Support rename but note that current Category:Educational computer and video games is described as mostly targeting youth, and will need to be re-described to accommodate adult training games (like military training, etc.). --lquilter 20:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- If there is a better target name, please suggest it. The lack of support for a better name appears to be the reason that there was no consensus in the previous discussion. I will gladly update this proposal if a better name is proposed. Vegaswikian 20:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - I think Category:Educational computer and video games is a perfectly valid category name using generic terms, not industry jargon. The article Serious game makes it clear that "serious games" is really "adult educational" -- I just think we should make the current Category:Educational computer and video games clear that it includes both adult and juvenile. At some point maybe EdC&VGs should be split into adult & juvenile, if appropriate. --lquilter 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Oppose as I did in the last discussion. Educational games are a distinct type of game. — Frecklefoot | Talk 20:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep as parallel to main article. ~ Bigr Tex 22:23, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:American religious writers

Upmerge into Category:Religious writers, as a nationality / religion / occupation cross, almost always a bad idea. The parent category currently has a population of only 7 memebers, hardly overpopulated. -- ProveIt 19:32, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Upmerge per nom. Not enough articles to warrant subdividing further. Dugwiki 19:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - I almost think that nationality is irrelevant in some of these religion categories. This is one of them. Dr. Submillimeter 23:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Animal rights activists

Re-Create Category:Animal rights activists

I recommend (re)creation of the Category:Animal rights activists, which would be consistent with other movement activist categories in Category:Activists and with the terminology ("Animal rights...") used in the Category:Animal rights movement category. Former category deleted because Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Animal rights have un-created the previously existing category in favor of in favor of a large generic Category:Animal rights movement. The large Category:Animal rights movement is unwieldy and includes people, groups, and campaigns, and is thus inconsistent with other movements and activists categories. Discussion is at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Animal rights#Animal rights subcats and Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Animal rights#Adding my 2cents has not arrived at consensus. --lquilter 18:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose - This has been discussed a lot really and the reasons why this category would be vague and difficult to use have been outlined at the linked talk pages from above. As has been said, the term 'activist' has many different meanings to many different people. Would Paul McCartney by an activist? What about Peter Singer? The amount of extra work this sort of category would create would be tremendous as different editors start to disagree over whether or not someone is covered by this title. We already have 'Animal Liberation Movement' as a category, which contains people, organisations and campaigns within one cat - it only has 133 entries in it plus a couple of subcats (one being 'PETA supporters', which deals entirely with people). Why does it need subdividing?-Localzuk 18:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
For consistency with other activist and movement categories; e.g., Category:Human rights. --lquilter 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

There's absolutely no need or good reason for them to be the same. We don't have underground human rights activists as a rule. The animal liberation movement is an entirely different kind of movement. SlimVirgin 19:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

AR is not so entirely different. Underground activists in other fields include women's rights activists under the Taliban; underground railroad during US slavery era; some environmental activists; and so on. --lquilter 19:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose. The regular editors of the animal rights pages who have commented object to this proposal on the grounds that it's impossible within the animal rights movement to decide who is an activist and who is not, in part because of the underground nature of much of the activism, which is absent from most other activist movements. There are philosophers, lawyers, scientists, researchers, on the one hand; then there are the activities the "activists" and activist campaigns (such as the Animal Liberation Front, which is just a name some activists use, not a group) engage in, much of which involves underground actors. That is why we call the category Category:Animal rights movement. To split the category up will be time-consuming, inaccurate, will lead to lots of unnecessary back and forth about who counts as an activist, and will make things harder for the reader to find, not easier, which is the point of categories. There are anyway only 133 pages in the category, so there's no need to split it up. The two users who want to split the category into activists v. everyone else, Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature. The editors who are familiar with it have opposed the suggestion. SlimVirgin 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
There are in fact underground aspects to many movements, modern & historical. All movements include philosophers, lawyers, scientists, researchers, and activists. (It's not true that I'm not familiar w/ AR literature, btw.) --lquilter 19:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Lquilter, could you show me an example of a movement similar to the animal liberation movement, where you have academics, scientists etc above ground and some activists too, and others underground? It would be good to compare like with like. Cheers, SlimVirgin 23:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Strong Support - The members of WikiProject Animal rights have been obstructing this category without any valid reason for almost a year in addition to promoting POV naming conventions and blocking any article or list that tries to discuss animal rights activists or activism. This is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. None of the reasons given above by the opposing members of the Animal rights WikiProject address the categorization in any way, or are unique to this routine categorization. The subject term, "Animal rights activists" is a perfectly reasonable index in use by academic research databases, and neutral, reliable sources classify AR activists easily and without difficulty daily. Currently, it is impossible to find AR activists in the activism category, and this should be remedied to reflect the treatment of every other activist sorted by issue. The arguments the opposers offer make it clear that they have no interest in building an encyclopedia, but in preventing information from being found. As a librarian who understands information science, Lquilter's expert judgement on this matter should be heeded. —Viriditas | Talk 20:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Please don't go about making wild accusations such as those above - your claims are offensive and verge on personal attacks against the people who oppose your idea. We have provided our, valid, reasons multiple times - you just simply disagree with them. That does not make us POV pushers. It does not mean that we are trying to hide information. Can you show us any evidence to support your comments? Can you show where we are trying to push POV titles? -Localzuk 21:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Do yourself a favor and actually read WP:NPA. In reality, you and other members of your project have been engaged in personal attacks from the beginning. Claiming "Viriditas and Lquilter, are not familiar with the animal rights literature" may not appear to be a personal attack to those not following the dicussion on multiple talk pages, but in fact it is, and rises to the level of commenting on the contributor not the content, especially because I have repeatedly informed you and others making this claim that I am familiar with the literature - but you continue to repeat it again and again as an untrue harmful statement - that's covered as a personal attack by the policy. As for your POV pushing, that's been covered on many talk pages, and needs to be maintained in one place, but I have already addressed POV categorization, the elimination of activism, list of activists, and will add that the current naming of "Animal rights movement" as "Animal liberation movement" is totally unsupported. —Viriditas | Talk 23:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

What I see, Viriditas, is that, no matter what anyone says to you, you just repeat the same sentences over and over again. For example, we have provided numerous reasons for the article to be called animal liberation movement and have provided scholarly sources, for example here. You don't respond. I have asked you several times what you see as the difference between the terms AR movement and AL movement. You don't respond. Instead, you make personal attacks, sarcastic comments, and keep repeating the same old claims (claims, not arguments). For once, provide some scholarly sources to back up what you say. I have provided a scholarly source showing the distinction between AL and AR movement, and why the former is more inclusive. Now you must provide a scholarly source that says something different about those terms, or else don't mention it again, please. SlimVirgin 23:28, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:American Methodist writers

Upmerge into Category:Methodist writers, as a nationality / religion / occupation cross, almost always a bad idea. The parent category currently has a population of only 22 memebers, hardly overpopulated. -- ProveIt 17:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge into Category:Methodist writers for now - However, note that we need to consider whether Category:Methodist writers may be misinterpreted as meaning "Writers who are methodists" rather than "Methodist clergy who are writers" or "writers who write material related to Methodism". Ultimately, I think Category:Methodist writers may be misunderstood or inappropriately applied. Therefore, I think merging Category:Methodist writers into Category:Writers may be appropriate at some point. Dr. Submillimeter 17:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

An easier merger for Category:Methodist writers itself might be Category:Christian writers. After that it can be discussed whether Christian writers itself should exist.--T. Anthony 18:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

In nearly all cases, I think religion / profession crosses are just irrelevent intersections. But for politicians, writers, judges, religious leaders, and even some artists, it is often relevent. That's why I created Category:Writers by religion. I think that for categories to be useful, you have to strike a balance ... either too narrow or too wide, and it's not useful for browsing. So yes, I think trying to break Methodist writers down by nationality is too narrow. But at the same time, upmerging them into Christian writers is probably too broad. -- ProveIt

Merge per nom Not enough articles to warrant subdividing by nationality Dugwiki 19:46, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:American anti-fascist propaganda films

'Delete' Redundant cat with only two entries--Dudeman5685 15:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Methodist missionaries in Turkey

Category:Methodist missionaries in Turkey into Category:Christian missionaries in Asia

Merge - This category is highly specialized and only contains one person. It should be merged into a broader category. I suggest "Christian missionaries in Asia". Dr. Submillimeter 14:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:01, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom as overcategorisation. Yet another ill-considered category by Pastorwayne :( --BrownHairedGirl 19:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom; for specificity and clarity. --lquilter 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Missionaries in Asia

Category:Missionaries in Asia into Category:Christian missionaries in Asia

Merge - "Missionaries in Asia" is currently a subcategory of "Christian missionaries in Asia", thus implying that all the people in "Missionaries in Asia" are Christians (and, checking some biographies and names, they do appear to all be Christians). Having the extra category layer is therefore nonsensical. The categories should be merged to "Christian missionaries in Asia", since religion is clearly related to the occupation and since categories for other religions do exist (Category:Hindu missionaries) or could conceivably exist. Dr. Submillimeter 14:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom as weird overcategorisation. Yet another ill-considered category by Pastorwayne :( --BrownHairedGirl 19:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom. --lquilter 19:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Missionaries in Africa

Category:Missionaries in Africa into Category:Christian missionaries in Africa

Merge - "Missionaries in Africa" is currently a subcategory of "Christian missionaries in Africa", thus implying that all the people in "Missionaries in Africa" are Christians. Having the extra category layer is therefore nonsensical. The categories should be merged to "Christian missionaries in Africa", since religion is clearly related to the occupation and since categories for other religions do exist (Category:Hindu missionaries) or could conceivably exist. Dr. Submillimeter 14:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom as overcategorisation. --BrownHairedGirl 19:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per nom for specificity and clarity.--lquilter 19:49, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Living supercentenarians

Merge into Category:Supercentenarians, due to upkeep issues and the special and unique attributes of Category:Living people. See October 28th discussion. -- ProveIt 14:36, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

~~Delete~~Merge given precedent and upkeep issues. Dr. Submillimeter 14:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge per nom, but with reluctance. I pretty much reject the whole idea of Category:Living people and this is the kind of situation where a person being alive is notable. Still the article on Oldest people indicates who is a living supercentarian as well or better than this and is easier to work with.--T. Anthony 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- Comment - This is better in a "rapidly-changing article" form. One article is easier to update than 13. Dr. Submillimeter 15:08, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
  - Note that Category:Living people exists partially for legal reasons. See Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Obviously there has to be some way to know if WP:BLP applies or not ... people keep careful watch on members of this category. -- ProveIt 19:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge per above, Living People doesn't have subcats Dugwiki 16:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Merge - no need for this category. List --lquilter 22:43, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Byzantine-Ottoman wars

Empty, depopulated category that does not include even the articles it links to. Skysmith 14:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Category name

Empty self-reference. Skysmith 14:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete - It is an empty nonsense category. Dr. Submillimeter 23:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Notable college football games

Category:Notable college football games to Category:College football games

Rename Notable POV category name.--Nijnx 14:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename If it's not notable, it wouldn't be here. Xiner (talk, email) 15:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Rename per above, the word "notable" isn't needed. Dugwiki 16:52, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename "notable" is either implied by inclusion or is subjective/POV. Whichever way you look at it, the word needs to go! -- Xtifr _tälk 19:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename per nom. — Dale Arnett 22:47, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:African American Skateboarders

Merge into Category:American skateboarders, or at least Rename to Category:African American skateboarders. Is ethinicity really relevent here? -- ProveIt 14:20, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge or support merge or however we're supposed to say it. This might seem a bit inconsistent of me, but my vote on the boxers deal was weak. Further in that case the parent Category:American boxers is more crowded than Category:American skateboarders.--T. Anthony 16:39, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge into parent cat, per nom. --Quuxplusone 22:50, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Animal Cell Culture

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category or categories above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED per C1. Postdlf 16:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Category" newcomer created apparently by mistake; text is identical to the article of the same name. Skysmith 13:57, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Did you ask the creator? Xiner (talk, email) 15:06, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

Category:Annoying people who don't seem to do anything except turn up on TV 'lists' programmes spouting off about shite

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED, obvious nonsense. Postdlf 16:25, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense category apparently created out of spite. Skysmith 13:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete for nonsense category--lquilter 14:13, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:07, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Roman Catholic mobsters

The result of the debate was SPEEDY DELETED, as repost of previously deleted category. Postdlf 16:29, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

New category with just one name. More of a discussion than a deletion. Is this a significant intersection or not? (I could see how it could be so I'm not voting)--T. Anthony 11:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy delete as recreated content -- ProveIt 13:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I hadn't known that, huh.--T. Anthony 13:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete per ProveIt. Budgiekiller 13:45, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Public education in the United States

Merge/delete per nom. Confusing for non-Americans who won't understand what the scope of it is, and most education is public in anycase so it is largely duplicative. Pinoakcourt 13:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep Well, they're really not the same thing, is it? This category is well kept with public education by state. Xiner (talk, email) 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Xiner. Meaningful and useful subcategory. Postdlf 16:35, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep "Education" and "Public education" aren't the same thing. There are a plethora of private educational institutions that don't fall under the Public Education category. Dugwiki 16:54, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete or rename to "Primary education in the United States", which is what that category is about. --lquilter 19:53, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep or Rename to Category:Primary education in the United States. These can not be merged since this category is clearly a large unique sub category of the proposed target. Vegaswikian 20:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Oppose rename to Primary Education Primary (ie elementary) education is not the same as Public (ie government provided) education. There are both Private primary schools and Public primary schools. Dugwiki 22:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Cocktails (expand)

The result of the debate was deleted. the wub "?!" 00:34, 12 January 2007 (UTC)
This is the category created by the above mentioned cocktail-expand template ~ Amalas rawr 17:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

DELETE - Ready for deletion now. Thanks for waiting. --Willscrlt 13:07, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
~~Keep until 08:00 UTC January 7, 2007 so I can create a project to do list, then delete.~~ ~~DENY~~ - As stated above, these are not random templates and categories that were created on a whim. Each one was well thought out, and attempting to do so within the "proper" ways of doing things here.

If there is a better way to meet our goals and fall within established guidelines, please advise me. Then please give me time or help us swap out the currently marked articles to the new method so we can be within compliance.
Thank you for your consideration. --Willscrlt 22:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

There are far better ways to do this sort of thing, Willscrlt. Have a look at the coffee-coloured boxes on Talk:Flying (song), or Talk: Michael Smither, or Talk:Pentane. These are the sort of assessment boxes normally used by WikiProjects that want to rate their articles as to whether they need expansion or not. This standardised system makes far more sense than inventing several new grades of stub for one stand-alone WikiProject. Grutness...wha? 00:26, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the suggestions Grutness. That is actually part of the solution I suggested at User talk:Amalas#Cocktails: Fixes. Unfortunately, that link appears not to have been brought over with this twice-moved nomination. A few questions (since this is my first time through one of these procedures):

How much time do I have to implement a new system that falls within the guidelines? I have not created a parser template yet, and they do look like they have a bit of a learning curve. I'm a fairly experienced PHP and VB programmer, so it should only take a few days to develop something like the Talk:Pentane, maybe a few weeks for something more advanced like Talk:Flying (song). That is something I wanted to do once I saw the other WikiProjects doing that. I just have already made commitments to complete the cleanup project by the end of February in some AfD discussions. I can't afford the time it would take to stop cleanup to fix templates, nor can I afford the time of having the articles that have already been classified either lose their classification or be thrown into the large stubs category. I'm stuck between a rock and a hard place.
If not much time, what happens to the articles that are current marked as "expands"? Would they just be left as regular articles with no indication of their less than acceptable nature? Or would be be listed as stubs, which would add to the confusion when the micro-stubs also get mixed in there? Pretty soon, the stub designation will be practically meaningless, which is the reason I created the two variations in the first place. It has been a lot of hard work to get things organized and useful. It may not have been the right or best solution, but it has become a very effective one for our efforts right now. I really, really would hate to have a generally accepted guideline steer a lot of work off and down a bumpy road just for the sake of enforcing a guideline at this exact point in time, when if we could be given until the end of Feb (the same time the cleanup project is expected to end), or a little extra time (to develop the new templates), we could incorporate elimination of the contentious categories and templates into our cleanup project.
If that is not possible, and if enforcement of guidelines is more important than helping concerned Wikipedians work through a faux pas, then is there anyone willing to help out to (1) develop or clone a template for the WikiProject that we could use to quickly re-tag the offensively tagged articles with proper ratings before we lose the information we have worked hard to organize, and (2) help re-tag the articles. Thanks. --Willscrlt 11:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

The best solution might well be to make a temporary subpage of your user page (or of your WikiProject page) and list the articles ther, with appropriate headings as to their status, while you work on the talk page template. That would still give you an active list of articles to work on. Another option would be to simply make a temporary simple template for the talk pages and add it where necessary without substing, then fix up to a full parser form later and replace the simple form with that. Grutness...wha? 03:01, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Grutness, you are the good idea man, aren't you? :-D Naturally I read this after I just edited the stub discussion, otherwise I would have included this in that discussion. Oh well. The moving it to a personal page or Vegaswikian's suggestion of a Project work list should be fine. Since I have created a proper to-do list for the Project now (we never had one before, imagine that!), and I can add these to that. I should be able to complete that within a day. Then I suppose I will get to try out AWB for the first time (that makes me a little nervous), and remove the templates from each article. That is okay to do while this is under discussion, right? I mean, I don't want to get into trouble for breaking more rules while trying to fix the mess that got us here. :-)

You didn't answer the question of how long one of these deletion discussions usually runs. Just for future reference (not that I hope to ever have to go through one again, ugh). --Willscrlt 10:43, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Usually about a week for CFD and TFD, I think - with SFD, if there'san alternative soluution suggested, things wait at the botom of the page until it's been carried out (within reason, of course). Grutness...wha? 22:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Speedy close/keep Faulty nomination, belongs into CFD. CharonX/talk 01:48, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- I know this is a category, but I was trying to keep it together with the similarly listed {{cocktail-expand}} above. ~ Amalas rawr 02:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
NOTE This was moved from WP:MFD as an improper listing. — xaosflux 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Strong Delete. This is a project work list. As such it should be maintained as a list on the project page. There is no need for a category. Vegaswikian 20:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Vegas, please bear in mind that a strong statement like that is rather harsh thing for someone who acted in good faith and is only trying to help improve Misplaced Pages. Bear in mind that it is difficult for the user who is bearing the brunt of this action to tell if your strong-ness is because you feel strongly about a specific course of action or if you are pissed off at the whole thing happening and you want it dealt with yesterday. Fortunately, I'm a pretty strong person, and I'm going to assume good faith here. It might also be helpful in future situations like this to at least point the person to a way to do what you suggest. Like I said, the WikiProject I'm involved with was never really setup properly in the first place, and a lot of things you assume I should know are things I am only now learning about. I'm sure you read lots of these things, but it it's my first one and was quite a shock to the system. Fortunately most people have been pretty helpful (including Grutness pointing me to those project headers), and that has helped. Be gentle with the newbies only trying to help. Thanks! --Willscrlt 10:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

It is my impression that the phrase Strong Delete is not a personal reproach in the world of Misplaced Pages:Categories for discussion forums. It is just an indication to the person closing the discussion. Vegaswikian even wrote the proper course of action.--- Safemariner 17:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Noted. My point was to bear in mind the human factors involved: namely a well meaning user new to all this, and how a statement like that could be viewed. I'm sure that Misplaced Pages loses several good potential editors each week simply because to those who have been involved in discussions like this, it's a very cut and dry issue. But there is usually a person involved, likely very personally and emotionally, and the clinical discussion can come across as very cold and even mean to those not familiar with protocol. My apologies to Vegaswikian. Safemariner is right, Vegas did nothing wrong. I was probably still a little too emotional when I wrote that. :-) --Willscrlt 23:51, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

No problem. And welcome. Vegaswikian 06:33, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:JAG cast

This is a recreation of Category:JAG actors which was deleted and listified as List of JAG actors per Misplaced Pages:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 December 20. Creator of this category participated in that discussion and should be aware of its outcome.—DomBot ; Chidom , owner/operator. 04:37, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete recreation. Categorizing every actor for every job he or she has ever had gives each article so many categories that any categorization becomes meaningless. Doczilla 06:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep more detailed reasoning here. This category has a narrower scope than JAG actors and is not a repost. The war of attrition against actors by series is becoming sickening. Tim! 07:34, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
- and since when are bots listing CFDs? Tim! 07:42, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Speedy delete - This is a recreation of a recently-deleted category. Dr. Submillimeter 09:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete - oppose "X cast" and "X actors" categories --lquilter 14:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Keep per Tim!. "Cast" is far more narrower than "actors," so prior CFD not binding, and I'm comfortable (for now at least) with categorizing actors by such substantial, ongoing roles, just not every guest spot. Postdlf 16:31, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete, but not speedy Tim is correct that this is not a recreation. The previous debate was for a category that included guest stars, which played a role in the deletion debate. That being said, I don't think the category is necessary as the entire cast list and links to all the associated regjular actor articles can be easily accessed from both List of JAG actors and JAG. Dugwiki 17:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Mouse genus

Oppose - Name is correct Headphonos 03:04, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Genus is singular. Rename to correct plural Category:Mouse genera. Grutness...wha? 04:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename per Grutness. Xiner (talk, email) 15:14, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Rename to plural. ~ Bigr Tex 22:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:History of comic books

Delete, Redundant category using overly broad criteria. J Greb 02:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. It's just being used as a dumping ground for comic book creators, companies, titles, and characters that are reasonably well known, both defunct and currently published, early and recent, without any conceiveable way to limit inclusion. Categories do not substitute for articles. Postdlf 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
In the words of the Cybermen: Delete delete deleeeete! This is a ridiculously broad category that has suddenly become a target for comic-related articles of every kind. It's useless. Doczilla 05:56, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Delete It's hard to see how this category substantially differs from Category:Comic books. Technically just about any article that deals with comic books also is part of comic book history. Dugwiki 17:03, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles with example Euphoria code and others

Obscure programming-language sample code category; please read 1. Category is empty. Quuxplusone 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles with example J code and others

Obscure programming-language sample code category; please read 1. Category has one member. Quuxplusone 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

If anyone can rewrite Tagged union in another functional language, such as Haskell or Scheme — or rewrite the few articles in those languages in ML — please do.

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:15, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Category:Articles with example JavaScript code

Obscure programming-language sample code category; please read 1. Category has two members, but the Quine (computing) sample code could reasonably be deleted, and the other one is AJILE (describing an extension to the language itself). Quuxplusone 00:24, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Delete per nom. Xiner (talk, email) 15:16, 5 January 2007 (UTC)