Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 February 14

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete all -- TexasAndroid 15:48, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged a number of tropical cyclone categories, mostly "XXXX Southern Hemisphere tropical cyclone season" categories. Category:Categories_for_deletion lists them all (they all begin with '1'). Each of these categories is now empty and can be deleted. — jdorje (talk) 23:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename -- TexasAndroid 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename category to match existing TV subcategories- series, not shows. MakeRocketGoNow 23:05, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename The title should mention television for the sake of clarity. Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. FloNight ^talk 00:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was rename -- TexasAndroid 14:36, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category name should be plural, not singular, and also shoudl be series, not shows, to match all other TV subcategories. MakeRocketGoNow 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 14:04, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See

• keep because if this was put up 2 years from now no one would question it being a reasonable entry. With it being a fresh topic a lot of people will write it off as "silly," however the internet is a repository of interesting, but esoteric information. I would certainly rather have Wikipedia cover it accurately, now, and for the future, than have every jackass looking to make a joke interpret and report it inaccurately wherever they like. Even for a topic that seems silly to some, Wikipedia should continue to set a standard. Shoebox
• And keep because it's factual, useful, and informative.
• And delete as below. Postdlf 22:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per below. Savidan 22:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• change name to "Sitting" VP 132.241.245.49 22:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've always heard it as "standing". As in, "standing senator" etc. Savidan 05:15, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. BJAODN though. David | Talk 22:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep These sorta things happen in 3's, so we need to be ready to slap this category on someone elses bio in the future. Dr U 22:41, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Silliness.
  T
  22:50, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODNize. Her Pegship 23:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Stupid category delete! Dwain 18:30, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was thinking of not voting but this nom and Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people changed my mind. Vegaswikian 23:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category represents newsworthy history. - Reaverdrop 23:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. How can two entries possible constitute a "category"? --Asbl 00:00, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Dbiv. Tomer^talk 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unneeded cat--Kalsermar 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as below. I don't expect it to grow beyond two anytime soon. ×Meegs 02:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - we have categories with fewer people, and it could expand. I mean, you never know, right? And if it does, we sure will be glad we kept it. Um. But yeah. Seriously. It's factual, verifiable, NPOV, notable, and encyclopedic! Adrian~enwiki (talk) 05:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, weakly. I was about to vote delete, but I think Adrian is right, this is something that a researcher might want to know someday (or even right now). Sure, the category was probably created simply out of silliness, but, c'mon, it IS interesting to know the company that Mr. Whittington is in. While there are other ways for researchers to find such information, it's nice to have it in simple category format. - Jersyko·talk 05:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• It was not created out of siliness and I resent the accusation and thanks for voting keep. Savidan 05:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- not category worthy. This would lead to categories like
  Samuel Wantman 07:18, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Comment be careful what you ask for, someone has added Aaron Burr to your proposed Category:Vice Presidents that like Jimmy Buffet. Carlossuarez46 19:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I certainly did NOT ask for this! --

Samuel Wantman 00:38, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I also use examples to show why things ought to be deleted, thank goodness no-one has decided to create one. Just shows how silly this category is, IMHO :-) Carlossuarez46 15:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and BJAODN Aaronw 16:54, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep -- it is what it says. 17:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. This is an awesome category. I'm less interested in the one that refers outward from the vice presidents, but this one really does define this group of people. (As an aside, the category should decide whether these vice presidents are standing or sitting, at least when they shoot people.)--Mike Selinker 19:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Trivia, in the long term. Not a notable factor. - TexasAndroid 19:21, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, garbage. Pavel Vozenilek 19:26, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete obviously. Carlossuarez46 19:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Far from silliness; probably one of the most valuable categories Wiki carries, worthy of future reference for research purposes. -- Barrettmagic 23:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. To everyone voting keep for the two categories, isn't one enough? Vegaswikian 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.--Kross^Talk 01:35, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Might come in handy! Hannah Commodore 04:11, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and enlarge by removing "standing" (which is not idiomatic anyway). This will include Tecumseh, shor by Richard Mentor Johnson. Yes of course there should be two cats; they are (fortunately) disjoint. 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Wikipedia is serious; but it doesn't have to be solemn. Septentrionalis 06:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wouldn't object to this. User:Savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 06:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good call. Adrian~enwiki (talk) 07:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yeah, do that. Tecumseh should definitely be in this category.Good points below. Let's keep it at "sitting" (if we keep the category).--Mike Selinker 17:49, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The historical accuracy of Tecumseh is doubtful; plus we would have to count any number of other vice-presidents who served in the military and killed people. GHW Bush, for example, was a renowned pilot and surely shot at least one person with the guns on his plane. Better to limit to "sitting" vice presidents for accuracy, completeness, and interest128.12.185.4 01:36, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is actually where I would draw the line. People being shot by sitting Veeps seems much more newsworthy, notable, and useful for research to me than people being shot by civilian ex- or future Veeps. I would change my vote to delete if the category was thus altered. - Jersyko·talk 20:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for the sake of the children.--143.92.1.33 06:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I can hardly believe we're having this debate. I can only assume that some of the Keep votes are tongue-in-cheek. If Mr. Cheney shoots anyone else, maybe *then* we reconsider having a category. JRP 14:45, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete unless this can be populated with serious entries. — brighterorange (talk) 15:14, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Too narrow. Merge with Category:People shot by elected officials of the US government or some such. --Super Aardvark 17:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. John Kerry - some kid, in the back, in 'Nam. JFK - lots of Japanese soldiers. Teddy Roosevelt - well, yes. I admit, this would be an amusing category. Better would be one for elected officials of the US government who have shot people.
• keep "Wikipedia is serious; but it doesn't have to be solemn." -- couldn'ta put it better myself
  KarlBunker 18:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• keep Why would you not want this category? You people make no sense. Elrosewood 19:51, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It definitely has a silly aspect, but, seriously, after hearing The Daily Show reference Whittington as only the second man to be shot by a sitting vice president (of the US), I was curious. Alan smithee 19:59, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Please see my comment I added to the other category below (1st one of Feb. 14)--Kalsermar 20:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The point would be better made in the articles' text. A category of 2 is unrealistic. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and BJAODN. I reserve the right to change my vote if Cheney shoots someone else before 2008 though. 24.11.104.196 01:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, that was me, forgot to log in. Technogeek 01:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Interesting, but "two does not a category make" FloNight ^talk 02:49, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete - It's POV, partisan, clearly meant a personal attack, ungrammatical (it's "sitting VP", not "standing" in the US system) and has only two entries, which is not a benefit to any Wiki user. Nhprman 03:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep Factual and interesting category. May be expanded in the future. (But, should be changed to "sitting Vice Presidents"). --JW1805 (Talk) 03:34, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, useless category of 2. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Note that List of sitting U.S. Vice Presidents who have shot people is up for deletion on AfD. Given the size of the list and the fact that it is not dynamic, it may make more sense to delete the categories and keep the list. Vegaswikian 05:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Pointless category. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete. You people have got to be kidding me. Crunk 01:49, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: as I found when one editor was bold enough to empty the cat during this discussion, it's not that easy to find Harry Whittington without it. One of the uses of cats is finding articles from scratch. Septentrionalis 04:03, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Its easy to find. We know who shot him and he's linked from that page. John (Jwy) 07:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep but rename. It isn't inaccurate, it isn't malicious, and the need for such a category can only be judged in hindsight, a parameter that I think excludes this category from deletion right now, but it certainly needs to be renamed. I have to admit laughing when I noticed it at
  Grza 04:18, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep because it is unusual enough information to be notable. It looks like most people who argue for deletion are doing so for partisan reasons, yet claiming partisanship by anyone who disagrees. This is a repository of public information, not a place of restriction of information. There must be a clear and inarguable reason to delete something, in the face of controversy it should be maintained and made available.

Comment - Deleting it is partisan? Look one entry above. Whenever the Leftist Wonkette "loves" something [1], everyone to the right of How.Dean should be worried about POV. Of course, she agrees with me on one thing: "We are aware that the proper term is “sitting.” We love, but do not trust, Citizen Media." See, the creator of this cat. even fails to impress their admirers. Now let's end this misery. Nhprman 15:34, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not get into a shouting war over this. Wanting to delete it is not partisan, and wanting to keep it is not partisan. The issue is over whether we want to linking Whittington and Burr and (potentially) others in a category, and I do, but not because of who I voted for.--Mike Selinker 16:16, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: The main objection seems to be that there are only two entries. However, I think we have to weigh the overwhelming notability of these two incidents against the fact that there are only two people in this category. Somebody point me to the wikipedia policy which defines the required number of members for a category. This category is the most NPOV wording possible (although "standing" does need to be changed to "sitting"); those who seek to delete this are likely much more politically motivated. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 00:57, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --CFIF 01:02, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Hamilton has better claims to fame, and the other guy was, as Shakespear might have put it, "a good start." If he hadn't been standing at the wrong place at the wrong time, he'd have no claim to fame at all. On the other hand, Pokimon characters all have their own articles... Rklawton.

• I don't understand. Are you advocating deleting the Harry Whittington article?

The Harry Whittington article didn't exist until Cheney shot him. It's great background for a Wikinews story, or as a footnote to the shooting footnote in the Cheney article, but hardly encyclopedic. We should also keep in mind that Whittington isn't as popular as Pikachu.[2] On the other hand, Pikachu as been in the public eye a lot longer and has had an article here for a couple of years.[3] Rklawton 07:54, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per my comment at the other. --DanielCD 02:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment if this ends up as keep, it should probably be renamed to represent the fact that it is U.S. vice presidents only, and not all countries. If we included all countries I'm guessing there would be more to add to this list. VegaDark 07:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete useless, trivial, unnecessary, political John (Jwy) 07:33, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The category describes something that happens so rarely that the category is useless as an organizational tool. This is like having a category called
  Cleared as filed. 12:35, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Yekrats 20:19, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per several above, include Cleared as filed. NatusRoma 03:39, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge with Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people, the new cateogry could be called, [[Category:People who were either shot by Vice Presidents, or were Vice Presidents and shot people]], either that or I've just invented the name of the next BJAODN page--152.163.100.132 23:22, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. It's hilarious and yes, more than one person has been shot by a VPOTUS. Эйрон Кинни 01:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Borges' animals. The connections between the people in this category are entirely tenuous. Comparing people who were injured in hunting accidents with people who died as a result of "pistols at dawn" style dispute resolution is like comparing apples and orangutans. Please take your lists of trivia elsewhere. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, silly/BJAODN. --
  Interiot 01:40, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, ridiculous. This category creates a false causal link. Hamilton was involved in a duel, while Whittington was pegged during a hunt. Entirely separate situations. Moreover, it is unlikely that there will be many future members of this category, seeing as it took 200 years to get the first two. Mackensen (talk) 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, silly. Rhobite 04:34, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete BJAODN Trödel•talk 04:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Suggestion while I believe that this category was made after the Cheney shooting incident, but I think we could rename this cat to
  Fair use policy 07:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete By the time honored Come on! technique. While amusing, Wikipedia is not the place for jokes (this catagory had an appearance on the Daily Show). It is also not encyclopedic, and gives the appearance of POV editing. --Hansnesse 16:53, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per all the above. Christopher Parham (talk) 19:28, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - not all facts should be categories. Flcelloguy (A note?) 20:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too narrow a scope for a category. Also, silly. android79 21:08, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete -- ephemeral sensationalism of a POV variety (and let there be no mistaking -- I am no fan of Dick Cheney). older ≠ wiser 22:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete two people in a category isn't a category. Mention it on the shooting article if you must, but please don't force the well written Alexander Hamilton article to be poluted with this garbage. (which, if the category is kept, it must be) Hipocrite - «Talk» 22:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete two persons, thus far once every two hundred years. This is what see also is supposed to cover. gidonb 00:31, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep with possible rename. - Dozenist talk 04:35, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep - Relevant and factual. - Chadbryant 04:57, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete We don't ACTUALLY know FOR SURE if he was standing or not. He may have been sitting down at the time. --Eat At Joes 05:02, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if only for semantic reasons; "Vice Presidents" of where? If it's just for American VPs, a new, more specific cat needs to be created and this one deleted. Kafziel 05:11, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• 'Delete as per
  Cleared as filed and gidonb. Wikipedia doesn't have to be solemn, but it doesn't have to be stupid (or maybe I should say "stoopid"), either. --Calton | Talk 05:18, 22 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong Keep a relevant distinction, all the more engaging in its specificity. Vice presidents of other countries can be added as well. [not logged in] 06:37, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 21:50, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category is made up of articles with the word "controversy" in the title. That appears to me to be a poor criteria. This category appears to be a variation on category:cause celebre which has been deleted previously. -Will Beback 21:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. Not guilty, m'lud. Completely different concepts. A cause célèbre is something much more specific. David | Talk 22:38, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The category contains controversies, not articles whose title contains the word "controversy" (although most do, because - uhm - they are controversies). — Timwi 18:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• FYI, I was told by the category creator that that was the criteria. Since then more articles have been added, apparently because someone decided they were controversies. -Will Beback 23:15, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be idiotic, but of course, nobody said such a thing. That's your invention, which I had to correct you on.
    Mirror Vax 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• IMHO delete. Insufficiently defined, puts together items of no relation. Very prone to controversy. Pavel Vozenilek 19:27, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • The word "controversy" is a clearly defined term, therefore it does not need to be redefined in the article itself. The items "put together on the page" are items related by the fact that they are all publicly established controversies. No argument to the contrary has yet been made on the corresonding talk page.

• Delete per Pavel Vozenilek. Carlossuarez46 15:28, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • But "why", just because you, personally, don't have use for the content? That is no reason to delete a wiki article... A mere vote is not useful towards consensus building, and has no place on this page. pat8722 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per above. Postdlf 05:30, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Any "above" in particular? Any "reasoning" to your opinion? pat8722 14:23, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or move to a List Let it develop. Controversies are a legitimate topic of study. It will eventually need to broken down into subcategories, but to nip it in the bud is censorship. pat8722 15:36, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It'd help if you or other editors who wish to keep it could develop a criteria for inclusion. What is a controversy, for this purpose? -Will Beback 21:25, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As not being otherwise stated, the present criteria for inclusion would simply be the "default", i.e. whatever meets the dictionary definition of "controversy", which is identified as such in wiki-qualified media. As I stated above, further qualifications (sub-categories) will eventually be needed, but it is advantageous to let the article develop under it's present broad definition, until the appropriate subdivisions naturally become apparent. This article is a great place for those studying "controversies" to begin. pat8722

• Comment If it's kept, make sure it's not misused. I could see prople trying to add Ann Coulter, Pedophilia and Evolution or Creationism being slapped in here. Make sure it's clearly known it's not for POV disputes, cause I can already see ppl trying to use it that way. I'll have to think about this one before I venture a vote. --DanielCD 21:31, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why would you want to rule-out the controversies which YOU have political viewpoints on? POV's are certainly (and virtually everywhere) permitted in wiki, just not the POV of the editor. Any other controversies you want to exclude, or just those four (to eliminate reputable POV's you don't like, would be the prohibited POV...)? The point is, any item which doesn't belong on the "Controversies" page, can be argued as such in the talk section of the article. No disputes about what a "controversy" is, have yet arisen on that page. To delete a page just because disputes might arise as to what belongs on the page is against wiki rules, and would eliminate just about every wiki article... pat8722

• Keep. Of course.
  Mirror Vax 04:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please state "why", so we can use your input towards consensus building. Thank you. pat8722

• Delete Inflammatory. Constant area for abuse. Difficult for average Wikipedian to to assess. FloNight ^talk 00:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In what sense do you think the article is "inflammatory" and a "constant area for abuse?" Not a single dispute has yet arisen on the talk page. Abuses can be handled there, as for every other wiki article, and is no reason to delete the non-abusive information from wikipedia. To document publicly recognized controversies is not, of itself, inflamatory, it is just fact. "Difficult for average Wikipedian to assess" is condescending, ridiculous, and no reason for a delete. To get rid of this information would be censorship. pat8722 02:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 21:47, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As with other proprietary Magazine polls and lists, this usage violates Categorization. I havent listed a cat for deletion since Category:Maxim 100 sexiest people, back when cats were first implemented and some paid hack tried to sneak it in. This seems to fall in the same category. -Ste|vertigo 21:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Improper use of category system. Postdlf 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I very seriously doubt that the information on what people have been selected as Time's Persons of the Year would be protectable as "proprietary". - Reaverdrop 23:37, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. --maclean25 00:52, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep, from what I've seen, being named Time's person of the year has become a major honor, but then again there is already a list here.--Fallout boy 03:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong keep This has been a big deal for over half a century. Many other news outlets cover Time's selection as news in and of itself. Dr U 04:12, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A bad category, but would make a good list, which it
  Samuel Wantman 07:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per
  Samuel Wantman Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. It's the definition of newsworthy, as the selection is on the front page of every newspaper in America each year.--Mike Selinker 19:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Neither primary nor secondary characteristics of a person (IOW category-cruft). List is better and since exists no information will be lost. Pavel Vozenilek 19:28, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep it is an honor akin to Nobel prizes, which are categorized. Carlossuarez46 19:45, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not a serious award, just a way of selling magazines. Bhoeble 13:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Mike Selinker. — brighterorange (talk) 15:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Keep unless you plan to get rid of the Nobel Prize category, too. Man of the Year is known world-wide and is news worldwide; objecting on the basis of a proprietary name is pigheadedness128.12.185.4 01:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an interesting point, but a particular national magazine shouldnt be regarded in the same category as an endowment. Thats at least a material distinction we can base an editorial judgement on. Category:Recipients_of_formal_honors lists Time, which is at least a miscategorization. Yes prizes are tacky too, but magazines are tackier. We cant make an exception for one, or else how can we argue against a tabloid mag category? -Ste|vertigo 06:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. Golfcam 21:57, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Already a list made: Person of the Year. VegaDark 07:48, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete- If this ends up as keep, how will "groups" be represented in this category? For instance, "The American Soldier" was Time's Person of the Year in 2003, and "U.S. scientists" was selected in 1960. "U.S. scientists" was represented by 15 scientists, do all of them deserve to be in this category? Or none of them? I think this is a cumbersome category to work with when ambigious groups or multiple people get voted as person of the year, thus I have to regretfully vote delete. VegaDark 07:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete Potential swing vote here. I'd say it's good, but it's going to cause problems with the multiple people of the year issue. If it was clear cut, might be harmless, but I just think it swings a little to the delete side. --DanielCD 21:39, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.--Kross^Talk 21:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. The comments about "people" not having Wikipedia articles ("The American Soldier") or multiple people are red herrings. The primary goal isn't to make a category complete, but to get the people who do have articles into that category. The lists, of course, can include "The American Soldier" even if it doesn't have an article to be categorized; that's one of the primary distinctions between lists and categories which serve different purposes. Gene Nygaard 01:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But what about years that list multiple people? In 2005 3 people shared the title. Do we add all of them in the category? What about in 1960 when 15 people shared it? Where do we draw the line of inclusion? are we going to add every single american soldier into this category? If there were an established consensus for this I would be inclined to change my vote to keep, as my delete vote was purely on these grounds. VegaDark 06:41, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why we can't include all three whistleblowers (in fact, those three are an excellent argument for keeping the category, since it's hard to classify them elsewhere), or all the scientists. Obviously, the soldier and computer are weird outside cases, but they don't determine the merits of the category, in my opinion.--Mike Selinker 20:30, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Is long-established and internationally known. Nhprman ^UserLists 03:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: I suppose some "paid hack" snuck in the category of Nobel prize winners. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 16:04, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep has international meaning. FloNight ^talk 00:37, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge -- TexasAndroid 21:45, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge first is duplicate of better named second category. Rocket articles are under appropriate rocket categories. Josh 20:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 21:38, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This category refers to administrative regions, which are not an official governmental subdivision of South Africa. In fact, they are only employed in the Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, and are not self-governing (the council for Johannesburg is elected from the municipality as a whole). This category has only one member, Category:Regions of Johannesburg, which will not be orphaned by its deletion. For evidence, please refer to The South African Constitution, Chapter 7, describing "Category A" municipalities (which Johannesburg falls under). -Kieran 20:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was no consensous -- TexasAndroid 20:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CG janitor 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 19:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose. The majority of subcategories of Category:People by city use the proper demonym, and there is only one significant Tucson in the world so little danger of confusion. Any deviation from this convention should be adopted as an encyclopedia-wide guideline, otherwise we will have conflicting CFRs as has already happened.-choster 17:57, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose support use of demonyms where possible Mayumashu 02:47, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Easy to understand. Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support what Carina22 said - and rename everything likewise 132.205.45.148 17:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose proper demonym used in name Brcreel 04:36, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • See additional comments at Ashevillians. CG janitor 00:44, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support'. The "demonyms" are obnoxious and in many cases rarely used (if they are all correctly given). I have never noticed the term "Columbusite" used outside of Wikipedia, yet I was apparently one for 25 years. Postdlf 05:32, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- TexasAndroid 20:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge — a language family is a group of dialects. bmills 17:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, not because of family (which I would prefere) but because this category lists individual languages, not articles describing groups of languages and their common features. Thus the name is very misleading and the category only adds cruft into articles. Pavel Vozenilek 19:32, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• ??? There's some kind of overlap here, but "dialect" is the wrong way to describe the relationship of
  O'Caml for instance. They are simply not both dialects of the same language. But they are certainly in the "ML family." I don't really know what to do. — brighterorange (talk) 15:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]

O'Caml and Standard ML are both "dialects" (for some notion of dialect) of

ML, just like C++, Objective C, and C# are all "dialects" of C; in this case, a programming language is a dialect of any previously existing language it substantially contains (modulo minor syntax changes). I suppose what we really want is a hierarchy of influence for programming languages — maybe it would be best to move both to Category:Programming languages by ancestry or something like that. --bmills 15:56, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply

]

I'm all for anything that makes sense, but I'd just remark that I find this definition of "dialect" pretty strange. Is Haskell a dialect of Miranda? Of the lambda calculus? Java of C? Of BCPL? I'd reserve "dialect" for different implementations of a language that share a compatible core. A good example would be "emacs lisp" and "common lisp". — brighterorange (talk) 22:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm. That's a good point, though certain parts of "Programming language dialects" don't really work that way at the moment, most notably the BASIC subcategory. Also, there's a matter of redundancy -- at the moment, implementations of X are in either "X dialects" or "X programming language family"; some members of a language family are categorized as dialects of their parent language. Maybe I ought to work on making the difference between the two more explicit and revisit this question then. --bmills 22:54, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Oppose The article does not list dialects. I suggest moving/merging both categories to be somehow under "List of Programming Languages" as Lists. What don't I understand about "categories"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pat8722 (talk • contribs)

Lists are, in general, a very bad idea because they're so hard to maintain. Also, they're not encyclopedic -- when's the last time you read a real dictionary with an article called "List of ..."? At any rate, it may be productive to move both Category:Programming language dialects and Category:Programming language families to Category:Programming languages by influence or Category:Programming languages by ancestry or something like that. The main reason I want the two merged at the moment is so they can both be cleaned up into something that actually makes sense; we can figure out what to call the cleaned-up, unified category at a later date. --bmills 16:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think the original titles use more common/understandable terminology than your proposals. It sounds like you are targetting to lose the separate indexing quality of the two "articles", are you sure you want to do that? Will you be losing more than you are gaining by trying to merge the two? As to lists vs. categories, typical encyclopedias have no more the latter than the former. I think lists might be more appropriate here, but I admit am not yet well educated on that point. pat8722 03:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original titles wold work well if they were actually organized that way; but Category:Programming language families isn't about programming language families — it's about related programming languages, which is the same way Category:Programming language dialects categorizes articles.

While typical encyclopedias don't have categories, they do have indices, which Wikipedia lacks. Think of categories as Wikipedia's index, whereas lists are (attempts at) articles (they are, after all, in the article namespace -- not some special index namespace). --bmills 04:06, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, do not merge, do not rename. The reason is that "programming language families" is useful as a pure metacategory. It should only be populated by categories (as is currently the case), never by articles. As a pure metacategory, "...families" is more descriptive of its members. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:36, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per MarkSweep. FloNight ^talk 02:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Plain and simple: language families are not language dialects. Both categories make sense. GregorB 11:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was Keep -- TexasAndroid 20:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Appear to be duplicate, but I know things can get a bit tricky with "British" vs "English". - TexasAndroid 17:06, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom. Josh 20:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose This is not a duplicate: the British Army only began in 1707; there had been English armies for approximately 1000 years before that date. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of notable English generals.--Mais oui! 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose not duplicates, very simply Mayumashu 02:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose as per Mayumashu Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to English generals before 1707 or merge. Are more than half the British generals, properly so called, to have both cats? Septentrionalis 04:10, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • The present condition is unmaintainable. I am leaving the Scot now listed under Category:English generals as a demonwstration. Septentrionalis 04:15, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 20:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The University of North Carolina at Charlotte has branded itself as "Charlotte" for athletics purposes since 2000. I've slapped a CFR on all the relevant categories, asking to drop the "UNC". — Dale Arnett 16:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. I just created these, and I was obviously in error.--Mike Selinker 12:23, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the categories are: Category:UNC Charlotte 49ers basketball and Category:UNC Charlotte 49ers men's basketball players, and in both cases the "UNC" should be dropped.--Mike Selinker 23:09, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge -- TexasAndroid 20:07, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wyoming is another school where men's and women's athletes and teams are known by different nicknames—here, Cowboys and Cowgirls. See the school's official athletics site, wyomingathletics.collegesports.com. — Dale Arnett 18:04, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Again, I created these, and I didn't do my research. These should change.--Mike Selinker 12:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge as nominated -- TexasAndroid 20:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

merge into Category:Hindu philosophical concepts. No difference between cats. Concepts in Hinduism is redundant. --Dangerous-Boy 10:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1. I'd say merge --Melaen 12:54, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge both into Category:Hindu philosophy. Tomer^talk 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Lingam is not a philosophy. It is a concept so therefor merge into Category:Hindu philosophical concepts not Category:Hindu philosophy. --Dangerous-Boy 20:01, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete --Latinus (talk (el:)) 00:27, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

By looking at the eleven articles in this "category" it is clear that this article's name is a

• Delete --Rachack 21:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete IZAK 09:48, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This description is too unsubtle for the diverse contents. Piccadilly 10:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per POV issues -- Avi 13:01, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - each of the articles in this category is interesting, but they are so dissimilar in their purpose, scope, fate, etc., that they hardly can be lumped together. The category seems to beg a highly tendentious question. Leifern171.159.192.10 13:32, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete completely worthless for navigation purposes. PhatJew 13:46, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not sustainable. JFW | T@lk 14:21, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Move - could be Jewish state attempts or Jewish territories or Jewish political entities. I see why it should be deleted under it's present name, but I do think there's something there. Could even be listed in an article about them rarely succeeding in making a state until now. Adam Mathias 14:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. per nominator. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 15:43, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 16:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Yoninah 16:14, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete although, per Adam Mathias, I can imagine a useful category under a different name. "States" is the problem. - Jmabel | Talk 17:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. gidonb 17:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete could not exist without original research. Yid613 20:11, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Original research. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 23:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reserve me a place on the Delete bandwagon. I can see an article dealing with what Adam Mathias is talking about, related to Jewish history (Nationalist aspirations of the Jews perhaps?) covering the gamut from time immemorial until today with mention of the main article Zionism and discussion of why the concept is rejected by many today on either religious or political grounds, etc.), but there will never be enough here to have a viable category. Some of these articles belong perhaps in Category:Jewish history, but not as a category of their own, especially not such an esoteric collection of articles. In no way, however, can I understand how Ararat, City of Refuge wound up in this misbegotten category... As I read it, the entire "city" is nothing more than a placque.  :-\ Tomer^talk 23:59, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. Rachel1 08:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator Evolver of Borg 08:31, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, ditto Kuratowski's Ghost 10:41, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above. Carlossuarez46 19:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nominator. Shlomke 23:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete original research. FloNight ^talk 02:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 20:23, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Of all the bad England categories created by the same user this one really takes the biscuit. It contains one article about something which is not only not English, but isn't a youth organisation in the usual sense of the term. There is nothing to subdivide to England in Category:Youth organisations of the United Kingdom and no non-political reason to attempt to do so. Delete . Merchbow 06:00, 14 February 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Keep It contains only one article because Merchbow has just gone round empting all of these categories.--Mais oui! 06:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It contained one article the first time I ever saw it. Merchbow 06:27, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In that case it is because one of your colleagues had already done the job for you. I assumed it was you because you have just spent the whole morning gleefully depleting several England-related categories of articles.That category had several articles recently. There are thousands of youth organisations in England: perhaps only a hundred or so will be notable enough to have an article, but they deserve their own cat.--Mais oui! 08:17, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete unless usefulness is proven. Piccadilly 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete It wasn't me guv! Anyway, England categories created by Mais oui! should be speediable. CalJW 10:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is as daft as saying that "categories created by CalJW should be speediable".--Mais oui! 11:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep even if it is not populated now, it is obviously a catagory that will eventually be populated. PhatJew 13:49, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not obvious at all. It is much better to categorise at UK level as these organisations are not restricted to England. It is not a question of whether it could be populated with organisations which work with youths in England, but of whether it should be. We could create and populate Category:Youth organisations of the Balkans, category:Youth organisations of southern Germany of Category:Youth organisations of the Left Bank, Paris, but we won't. Categorisation is done mainly at state level and England is not a state (or a local division with its own tier of government). Categories for England should therefore only be created when they will be useful to the user; this one isn't, because it will always be better to refer to the British category, since that is the standard level at which these things are categorised and the one that matches up with how youth organisations are organised in the UK.Merchbow 16:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nom. Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Empty and unnecessary. Bhoeble 13:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The organisations in the parent cat Category:Youth organisations of the United Kingdom are organised either on a UK-wide basis or at a local level; none appear to be solely England-wide, so the category has little point. Valiantis 19:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was merge -- TexasAndroid 19:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This should be merged into Category:Health charities in the United Kingdom for the same reasons as the parent category:English charities, which was created by the same user was merged into the UK category. To quote the arguments put forward by user:CalJW when making that nomination:

This is yet another English category which doesn't match up with the real world. We have deleted quite a few so hopefully this one will go too. It is not possible for a charity to be English in a legal sense: the

Charity Commission

covers England and Wales. It is extremely rare for a charity to be national, but cover England only; they cover the UK, or England & Wales or the UK exluding either Scotland or Northern Ireland. Charities do not lobby the English national media, because it does not exist (which is why we deleted the English media category) or the English government, because no such government has existed since 1707. It is pointless to use this to categorise local charities when around 85% of local charities in the UK must be based in places in England (and we have city and county categories for local categorisation, so that's covered already).

This category has not been taken up by users in the month since it was created, which tends to confirm that it is not necessary. It is just a confusing extra tier to click through and will lead to inconsistent categorisation. It will be particularly confusing for people from outside the UK, who may not understand the underlying issues re UK/GB/Britain/England. There is no need to try to shove everything relevant to England into Category:England, because there is a clear explanation in that category that users should see the UK menu on many topics. The only purpose categories like this one serve is the political one of diminishing the prominence given to the UK/Britishness below that which it has in the real world. The category system is a navigational tool and should reflect the world as it is rather than the world in which some users would like to live.

• Merge as above. Merchbow 05:56, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This nomination is part of a recent campaign against all the English categories here at Wikipedia. Please do not humour this series of politically-motivated nominations. -- Mais oui! 06:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is well known that it is Mais oui! who is politically motivated. He is Scottish and wishes to pretend that there is no such thing as "British". If his categories were valuable people would not have voted to delete several of them. Merchbow 06:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that Merchbow's initial draft of the above comment gives the whole game away: "He is Scottish... they would have been created by English users (hardly in short supply)". This proves what I realised a long time ago: it is not my work which these people object to, it is my nationality. I ask that an Admin steps into this situation, to explain to people that a persistent campaign against a User because of their nationality is TOTALLY unacceptable here at Wikipedia. "... wishes to pretend that there is no such thing as "British": that is preposterous: British is my citizenship, and I am very well aware of the existence, and importance, of the United Kingdom. On the other hand it is clear that several people around here are trying to pretend that England does not exist.-- Mais oui! 07:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)"[reply]
• Delete England exists, this category shouldn't. Piccadilly 10:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Same old Mais oui!. Happy to dish out the abuse, but as soon as someone says something he doesn't like, he runs to teacher an administrator. Take note that if he finds one to speak on his behalf it is likely to be a personal pal of his who should therefore be ignored as not being impartial. I would have nominated some of these England categories and voted to delete the others if they had been created by an English user, but no English user created them because they are not appropriate. It is of course complete nonsense to say that there is a campaign against all English categories. The many appropriate English categories which existed before Mais oui!'s totally unnecessary intervention have been left undisturbed. Indeed I have almost certainly created some myself (I've created categories for over a hundred countries, so I can't remember for sure without going through them all). Note that he is the only user who creates inappropriate English categories. CalJW 10:42, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge This came up when category:Companies of England was created in my specialist area, which was a very unhelpful idea. Carina22 08:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge Not appropriate without the parent category and it was right to delete that. Bhoeble 13:48, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge As per nom. Valiantis 19:45, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the category 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 page.

The result of the debate was delete -- TexasAndroid 18:56, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unneeded political category without potential to be meaningful Kalsermar 03:13, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Very useful. Just what I was looking for this morning. nocklebeast 21:55:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Best category yet! Dr U 06:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete As much as this one gave me a chuckle, it is not category worthy. --
  Samuel Wantman 07:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Humorous, but not really useful. - TexasAndroid 12:23, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is a minor story, please don't exaggerate its importance. Also - vice presidents of what? Rhobite 12:33, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Every one who was a veterean, as well as Alexander Hamilton, would have to be in this category. It is unencyclopædic, and merely a gag. So, to paraphrase Cæser: we smile, we delete, we move on. -- Avi 13:03, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, Hamilton never served as VeeP, I checked. Rklawton
• Delete And ban whoever created it for being clinically POV impaired. PhatJew 13:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or rename to something to the effect of "people who have shot people" - the category is too narrow to be useful). TheronJ 14:34, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Too narrow. Yoninah 16:16, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I was lucky enough to see the Daily Show live when they were making hash of this story yesterday. Funny stuff. Delete. Postdlf 18:19, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per suggestion of the nominator. Hall Monitor 22:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep potentially of academic interest. One of the unique features of wiki is that we can draw connections between people which can be useful but no obvious or easy to draw just from reading their articles. If you consider it too broad or POV consider sharpening its focus or changing its name. Savidan 22:08, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and BJAODN. David | Talk 22:39, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom.
  T
  22:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
• Delete and BJAODN. Puh-leeze. Her Pegship 23:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I was thinking of not voting but this nom and Category:People shot by standing Vice Presidents changed my mind. Vegaswikian 23:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete funny but alot of VP's (prior to entering the white house) have shot people in combat.
• Keep. This category represents newsworthy history. - Reaverdrop 23:35, 14 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Category:Presidents with pet dogs would be more worthwhile (and if anyone creates that, I'll nominate that for deletion as well. This is an encyclopedia, not a tabloid newsrag. Tomer^talk 00:04, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If there are more VPs who have shot people then add them... Savidan 01:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete too narrow, and pretty awkward counting Burr and Cheney along with war veterans. ×Meegs 02:35, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but BJAODN. Wouldn't this have to include Veeps with military experience? - Jersyko·talk 05:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: Why is having to include VEEPS with military experience a reason to delete? Savidan 05:30, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This is undeniably a group of truths held together by a common theme (in other words, a category). objectively, this may be something someone needs to know. Deletion is likely politically motivated censorship in this case. --Ghetteaux 12:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, similarly to "category" listed above. Pavel Vozenilek 19:34, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete of course. Carlossuarez46 19:49, 15 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Probably one of the most valuable categories Wiki now carries. -- Barrettmagic
• Comment. To everyone voting keep for the two categories, isn't one enough? Vegaswikian 00:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Possibly useful. Hannah Commodore 04:13, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I am glad to see that the first VP Johnson is included. Truman was artillery, but I suppose that his actually hitting anybody is unverifiable. :-> Septentrionalis 06:04, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and BJAODN. Why can't it be both? Adrian~enwiki (talk) 06:16, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or at least mention all three names in all three articles.--143.92.1.33 06:19, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', but mention all three names in all three articles. -- Mystman666 ^(Talk) 10:21, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Besides, shouldn't it have been Category:United States Vice Presidents who have shot people? :) JRP 14:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Cheney's incident is certainly encyclopedic, but this category was intended to stick a little extra jab on Cheney's page, not to make a meaningful categorization of articles. — brighterorange (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Im not sure how it is political. It is an interesting fact and it should stay around. Elrosewood 19:52, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment To all the keep voters in this and the other related category (see above), how on Earth is this encyclopaedic and how does it add any meaningful content to the articles who use it? Categories like these only reinforce many people's negative perceptions of Wikipedia and confirm that wikipedia is nowhere near as to be taken as seriously as any other reference work. What's next... a category:interns pleasured by sitting presidents, category:Japanese prime ministers puked upon by US presidents or perhaps Category:Senators who drew their gun in the Senate chamber? The incident deserves a footnote in the Cheney article at best, not the overblown reaction it is getting.--Kalsermar 20:27, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Just beucase you think the issue has been overblown does not make in non-notable. In fact, every time someone says "This issue has been covered too much in the news media" makes it even more notable for our purposes. This category is worded in the most NPOV way possible, is of potential interest, and the useful. It should be noted in the articles text as well, but if that was our standard there would be no categories. Categories or for finding related articles, i.e. other Vice presidents who shot people. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 01:24, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. The point would be better made in the articles' text. A category of 2 is unrealistic. — Eoghanacht ^talk 21:40, 16 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and send to BJAODN. Cute, but kill it. -GTBacchus^(talk) 04:43, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fad category. Too small a group to need category. FloNight ^talk 07:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Completely pointless and a way overblown reaction to a minor event in the greater scheme of things. -- Rune Welsh | ταλκ 12:00, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and send it to BJAODN. Unencyclopaedic category. --
  e Ong 16:05, 17 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Unencyclopaedic category. Golfcam 21:56, 18 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strongest Delete This is complete nonsense. Complete abuse of the category system. Why don't we have a Category:Presidents with warts the shape of Richard Nixon's face on their Asses ? There's a gray area of subjectivity where human judgement needs to be used in category making, but the judgement here (strong general consensus) is that this has nothing about it that makes it special enough for a category. --DanielCD 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment As I recall we had a Real Americans category that survived for almost 2 weeks while it was processed through CfD, apparently, the rule of thumb is that if you want your nonsense article to last the longest, you should make sure it starts with Category:--152.163.100.132 23:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete. Who comes up with this nonsense? Monkeyman 02:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mememememe. I came up with it (though I didn't actually create it). Another Wikizen kept insisting on adding references to Cheney's incident directly in the Aaron Burr article, and we argued ourselves silly trying to talk him out of it. I ended up suggesting this category addition as a compromise to defacing the
    Hamilton-Burr duel articles. I should probably quote Frankenstein about now. But to paraphrase him, please put this creature out of our misery. I assumed if he did it would end up here. Sorry 'bout all the fuss, but it was either that or block him with a 3RR, and I'm not an admin. Rklawton
• Delete please. Rklawton
• Comment: Why is this non-sense? A Vice President is a huge public figure. Shooting someone is a big deal. The
  Dick Cheney hunting incident has been a huge media firestorm. Both of them are exteremely notable under any rational definition. There is an obvious connection between these events, which after all is the purpose of categories. savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 04:38, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment Still you can't dismiss the opinions of everyone else that works on these articles and doesn't want to see them cluttered with garbage. You don't think it's garbage, and that's fine. But look around. Address it in the articles; I don't see the need to make more and more categories. There are aspects of what's "right" on both sides of this. But many others and myself simply believe the pile tilts toward the garbage can instead of away. --DanielCD 04:53, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did create the Hamilton-Burr duel article, so I hardly think I'm dismissing the content contributors, but there is a limit to how much autonomy we give to them. Often, the main contributors to the article may be diehard fans of its subject. For example, most people who wrote the Dick Cheney article probably object to references to the Valerie Plame affair, but that doesn't mean they should be able to censor references to it.

savidan^{(talk) (e@)} 05:10, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm solely referring to the debate here in regards to the existance of the category per se. In that regard, wider opinion than simply the article editors is relevant. If this is that important, I'm sure there's someplace we could open a debate and find compromises suitable to all. Humans are boundlessly creative, so I'm sure we could come up with something. --DanielCD 15:47, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Not encyclopedic and not useful. John (Jwy) 06:01, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per my note (with a longer explanation) on the other related category. No one denies that the event is notable, but every type of notable event doesn't need its own category if it performs no useful organizational function. —
  Cleared as filed. 12:37, 19 February 2006 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. I support the other category, but not this one.--Mike Selinker 23:11, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment/Suggestion This category is 100% inappropriate for an encylopedia, and terrible as a category that will probably only ever have 2 things in it, now on the other hand were we to strike the category bit, and turn it into a list of Vice Presidents who have shot people, now that would be totally in keeping with encyclopedic standards, besides, just about everything has a list here, in fact, we could start List of Wikipedians who voted KEEP in "Category:Vice Presidents who have shot people"'s CfD, or not--152.163.100.132 23:26, 20 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unencylopedic trivia. --MarkSweep (call me collect) 01:49, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Very narrow and the Cheney and Burr articles already link to each other in appropriate ways. --Martin 05:41, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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 page.