Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 December 12

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 --Kbdank71 18:43, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• del. You cannot base categorization on controversial notions that have no clear, universally accepted definition, unless you really want revert wars all over wikipedia. We already had this kind of problem with Category:Dictators. mikka (t) 23:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I do think that the term "terrorism" is used too loosely in general, particularly when used in the context ot the phrase "state-sponsored terrorism". However, that loose (improper) usage isn't a reason to delete the category as such. Courtland 00:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The problem is not with usage, but with definition. If the definition is loose, you never agree what usage is "proper". mikka (t) 00:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Most of the contents are only tangentially related to the title. For example I don't think classifying the Holocaust as terrorism is appropriate. Genocide is quite different. Rhollenton 06:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ill-defined, lends itself to POV categorisation. Valiantis 16:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Mikka. gidonb 22:32, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Terrorism is POV. helohe (talk) 10:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I know the debate on terrorism is complex. I also know any "terrorist" category (whether state terrorism, state-sponsored or "independant" terrorism - if such is possible!) renders possible hasty generalizations. Hence, the claim that "terrorism" is POV and should therefore be removed. If this category is deleted, so should be the article (why would the category be POV and the article NPOV???). However, lots of things in Wikipedia are POV and are not removed (see Category: Neo-Nazi music for example: I personally think such a category is POV and makes it easy for Nazis to spam their external links and promote their hate bands.) NPOV is an ideal of objectivity, followed by modern social sciences: everybody knows that it is difficult to define (this doesn't stop us from using this word!). Terrorism is, like all political issues, POV. Having a Nazi category (not only neo-nazi music, which seem to have been created to promote those bands) on Wikipedia forces us to impede any historical revisionism attempts, in order to enforce a NPOV. The same should be done with "terrorism" or "state terrorism". However, nobody forbids speaking about political issues on Wikipedia. "State terrorism" is a really common definition. The US Department of State has an official list of state-sponsored terrorists and "rogue states" which may participate in terrorist activities. This list is interesting (even though POV), and is better defined in a "state terrorism" category than a more general "terrorism" category. Terrorism can (must) be studied as a historical subject (i would go so far as philosophical, as it concerns the use of violence, which has been legitimized by some philosophers, among whom Hegel). If you do study terrorism, you will see that almost all terrorist groups are sponsored by state. You will also find out some famous examples of state terrorism on which a NPOV can agree, such as operation Condor, the Great purge or Pol Pot's regime. Denying this is historical revisionism. I'm sure a debate on whether such or such entry enters this category is legitimate, but the category in itself is NPOV. Because of the War on terror, terrorism is today a really important issue. Ignorance - and ignoring this in Wikipedia - only helps fanatics. Kaliz 14:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I voted to keep some of the other terrorism categories above, but this one is out of control and likely to stay that way. Carina22 17:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Far too POV. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep this issue is too critical to not have a category. --Dschor 22:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Looking at the category it is being abused, but then what would be in it if it wasn't? Sumahoy 01:00, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• When i saw this category, it was almost empty and already with a "Category for deletion". I just filled it quickly, maybe abusively. We can discuss about the contents, without deleting the whole category. A far-left or far-right category is just as POV... Throwing in as argument: "this is POV", is not really argumentative... Kaliz 23:49, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • This category seems to be a virtual duplicate of Category:Human rights abuses, plus a few oddball entries. Mirror Vax 01:36, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Categorical boundaries way too murky. 172 02:38, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per 172 Osomec 14:09, 18 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 18:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Unnecessary category. This category has only one entry, which it shares with its parent category. The parent also has only one entry, but i think it might have more general usefulness under the overal heading of economics. (though I am still unsure whether a more appropriate alternative for the parent might also exist already.) Sandpiper 21:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Convert to article It looks like this was intended to be an article instead of a category was created by someone who wasn't quite clear on the generally accepted distinction between the two. Courtland 00:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Essay. Not a useful start to an article. Rhollenton 06:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Convert to article and delete category. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Sinus 17:01, 19 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

"By nationality" should refer to people only. GregorB 18:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nominator. Rhollenton 06:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. splintax ^(talk) 09:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom CalJW 09:35, 15 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:16, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Here is my contribution to the ongoing corrections of the variant North American categories. I was pleasantly surprised to find that the only sub-sub cats of Category:Buildings and structures in the United States which do not use the standard form are those for skyscrapers. These should all be corrected to match the country by country skyscraper categories:

• Category:Atlanta skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Atlanta
• Category:Boston skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Boston
• Category:Chicago skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Chicago
• Category:Cleveland skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Cleveland
• Category:Cincinnati skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Cincinnati
• Category:Columbus skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Columbus
• Category:Dallas skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Dallas
• Category:Houston skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Houston
• Category:Jersey City skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Jersey City
• Category:Los Angeles skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Los Angeles
• Category:Miami skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Miami
• Category:Minneapolis skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Minneapolis
• Category:New York City skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in New York City
• Category:Philadelphia skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Philadelphia
• Category:Phoenix skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Phoenix
• Category:Portland, Oregon skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Portland, Oregon
• Category:San Francisco skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in San Francisco
• Category:Seattle skyscrapers to Category:Skyscrapers in Seattle

Rename all Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename in line with convention. Rhollenton 06:04, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. 08:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename all. - Darwinek 12:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all as per nomination. Sumahoy 16:41, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. --Idont Havaname 20:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all per nom. Carina22 17:40, 14 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 17:17, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

To bring the category in line with every other sub-cat of Category:Cuisine by nationality, which are labeled Japanese cuisine, French cuisine, and the like. LordAmeth 00:23, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nom. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• While debatably a people/nationality/race/ethnicity, I still vote rename for continuity's sake. --Hersch 22:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom gidonb 22:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom et al. D'n 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Hersch. splintax ^(talk) 09:23, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nom Yoninah 09:51, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to bring in line with other cats. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 14 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 17:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

In accordance with stub policy to remove -related from stub category names.--Markles 14:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename but I don't think it is an improvement. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Why isn't it an improvement? --Markles 23:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong rename. Tacking on -related seems unnecessarily wordy. (Concise titles are best.) -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:34, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• While this would be in accordance with stub policy, it ought to be on WP:SFD. Somehow we also missed it in our mass-renaming of the ones with -related in the name... --Mairi 19:36, 17 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 17:08, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

This category should not have been created because the VERY comprehensive Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh already exists with many specific sub-categories in it.

NOTE: Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh represents Judaism's beliefs. To use "Hebrew Bible" alone would mean a partial acceptance of a Christian "compromise" by Judaism which would not be truthful. Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through Category:Old Testament books and Category:Biblical books (which includes the purely Christian Category:New Testament). And, in the end, all the above DO fall under Category:Bible (representing both the Christian and Jewish criteria for the categorization/s). IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Hebrew Bible/Tanakh for ANOTHER vote to rename the above, thank you IZAK 12:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC):[reply]

• Delete this double ASAP, (or perhaps redirect it to Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh). IZAK 11:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Or even better, create Category:Tanakh as suggested by Olve below, for categorization that would be in keeping with Judaism and since Christianity already has Category:Bible. IZAK 20:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to) ... all content in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category should be merged upwards to the Hebrew Bible category.  ALKIVAR™ 18:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alkivar: So according to your logic then just leave it at Category:Bible? And the problem with that would be, how do you indicate the differences between Judaism's and Christianity's views of these Holy books? Furthermore, the point is that Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is not for Category:Torah (which is only for those articles in the Five Books of the the Torah) and Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is for the remainder -- it's been that way for almost two years now. The problem with just having Category:Hebrew Bible is it creates too large a category and makes it harder to locate Torah-based articles. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • That is not what I said... merge upwards to HEBREW BIBLE... there should be a Bible category, within it a Christian sub folder (Christian Bible) ... and a Jewish subfolder (Hebrew Bible)... as both religions have a claim on said book's contents, and different interpretations. The name Tanakh could be a redirect to the Hebrew Bible category (I think category redirects work now?) if not it could be listed as an alternative title on the Hebrew Bible Category page.  ALKIVAR™ 16:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Alkivar: Firstly: No-one can "re-arrange" historical and religious facts. You are confused, the Hebrew Bible is Judaism's ONE and only Holy book and Jews have ALWAYS called it the Tanakh (similarly, just a small thought, why is Das Kapital always known only by that name???) (See my comments above that Christianity's beliefs are already adequately conveyed through Category:Old Testament books and Category:Biblical books.) Only a long time later did Christianity come along and decide to take for itself the Jews' Holiest books (that would be called a "copyright infringement" or "plagiarism" in today's legal parlance to be kind) and then they decided that it was to be "replaced" by a "New Testament" and they left the Hebrew Bible "behind". Judaism's view is NOT as you write: "..both religions have a claim on said book's contents" (which is Christianity's argument.) Because you can't "claim" what is not yours to begin with! But leaving historical and theological arguments aside for a moment, please NOTE: "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" is the compromise version, because "Hebrew Bible" alone is still used by Christians as another name for "Old Testament" (see Hebrew Bible article intro: "Hebrew Bible refers to the common portions of the Jewish and Christian canons") which is absolutely NOT universally used by Jews. When Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and all it its sub-categories were created in June 2004 [1] this matter was given a lot of thought and this was meant to bridge the differences and the discussions at Talk:Hebrew Bible which were incorporated. Because there is a lot of information in the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh it was necessary to create additional sub-categories to hold all the information. Thus in addition to Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh events; Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh people; Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh places; Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh prophets, you also have Category:Torah (for the Humash/Pentateuch); Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. Finally: Why are you talking about "sub-folders"? You seem to be confused about how categories work. And by the way, redirects are not usually used for categories. IZAK 16:39, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
      • Izak, I think you're conflating a few unrelated issues here. First, Tanakh isn't one book but 24, not that this matters here. Second, either the Torah category (if referring strictly to the original five books) should be a subcategory of Tanakh, or, if the latter is restricted to the Prophets and Writings, it ought to be a Nakh category. Third, your analysis above suggests that Christianity developed as a wholly seperate religion before claiming the Jewish bible, which is contrary to fact; depending on your perspective, either Christianity is an offshoot of Judaism, or the two are forks from a common origin. That modern Christianity has become a totally different religion than Judaism in no way makes the Hebrew Bible / Tanakh / Old Testament less fundamental to it. That said, this isn't really the place for that discussion. So. Getting to the main claim, by Alkivar, that "policy states we do not use / in an Article or Category title because it designates a subpage (or at least it used to)" if true, this would be a compelling reason to rename the existing category. However, that's not what the relevant policy actually states. What is prohibited is a name that uses a slash to suggest a hierarchy. That is, if /Tanakh here were meant to be a subset of Hebrew Bible -- which some have suggested, and which I'll return to in my reply below -- then Hebrew Bible/Tanakh would be out. As an equivalent term, however, there's nothing in the policy to discourage it.24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is, Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)[reply]
      • Shmuel: See Olve's comments below about how they overcame this conundrum on the Norwegian Wikipedia! We already have a "Nakh category" in two parts: Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim and Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im. I would be overjoyed to have Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh become purely Category:Tanakh with three main sub-categories (1) Category:Torah (it's the the T in Tanakh, for Humash information), (2) Category:Jewish texts/Ketuvim should then be renamed Category:Ketuvim, and (3) Category:Jewish texts/Nevi'im should be Category:Nevi'im. Finally, your views about "early Christianity" are moot in terms of the reality of things, meaning: Christianity as we know it today, rejects the Jews' views of the Tanakh because for the Christians it has been replaced by the New Testament. It's that simple. The history of Christianity is an exercise in futility at this point, and I certainly hope you are not trying to introduce the arguments of Hebrew Christians here. It is important to see that one cannot be both Christian and Jewish and think that it's "normal" to "unite" opposites, i.e. the conflicting views of how Christianity view the Bible vs. how Judaism views the Tanakh. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • No, I'm not claiming that Christianity and Judaism are compatible in their current forms; they're definitely distinct religions. With that said, Christianity does not hold that the New Testament replaces the Old Testament. It does hold that God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant, but it certainly sees the OT as both vital and relevant. Christianity has a different view of the scriptures in question than Judaism does; that doesn't inherently make it a lesser view. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
        • Shmuel: If they maintain that "God's covenant found in the OT has been superceded by a new covenant" they are telling the Jews to "buzz off" -- and no Jew could ever take such a claim seriously. Nice of some of them to think of "the OT as both vital and relevant" but I wonder who you are speaking for or about? Your average Christian thinks that the Jews are the agents of "Satan" a far cry from your detached view of things here. IZAK 21:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. And move the "/Tanakh" into it. The / in titles creates confusion. Not to sday it is redundant: Tanakh article says that the word denotes nothing but Hebrew Bible. It also says that the words Mikra or Miqra are also used, so by this logic the proper name of the category would be Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh/Mikra/Miqra. Finally, Hebrew Bible article says that Tanakh is a less neutral term. mikka (t) 00:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mikha: No-one in their right mind would add "Mikra/Miqra". The word "Tanakh" in this category indicates that it is category according to Judaism because only Jews use the designation Tanakh for the Hebrew Bible. On the other hand, Christians do use the name "Hebrew Bible" as another name for the Old Testament which is rejected by Judaism. This is more complicated than it seems. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • In this case, please write this in both articles more clearly. So far, the two require a rabbi to interpret :-) mikka (t) 01:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Use as renaming target This should probably have been listed as a Category-for-renaming from Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh → Category:Hebrew Bible; whether this now would require a deletion and re-creation I don't know. I agree with the comments on proper titling above. Courtland 00:26, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per Courtland and mikka. The contents of the "Hebrew Bible/Tanakh" category should be moved into this one. "Hebrew Bible" is a much more recognizable term to the majority of the English-speaking populace, and is arguably a more neutral term as well. LordAmeth 00:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • LordAmeth: "Hebrew Bible" is "neutral" to non-Jews but not always to Jews, and there is a need to convey the desigantion of the category in a more specific way the way Jews and Judaism would use it too, and "Hebrew Bible" would be insufficient in this case, that is why having "Tanakh" in it is important. IZAK 15:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adooni, when I look up on my shelf, it doesn't say Hebrew Bible it says Tanakh: the Holy Scriptures. Yes, for the record, it's an english translation. I think the goal here should be accuracy, not convenience or what's more generally recognizable. --Hersch 22:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tanakh is more precise and should be used. JFW | T@lk 16:01, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. --Briangotts (Talk) (Contrib) 16:30, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Per IZAK. Sebastian Kessel ^Talk 17:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. No need for it and I agree that including Tanakh is important. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 17:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per SlimVirgin. --Yodamace1 17:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh is more than sufficient for this. The inclusion of the word "Tanakh" is quite important as it demonstrates the non-acceptance in Judaism of the terms "Hebrew Bible" and "Old Testament" as they imply that there is another Bible that is relevant - which, in Jewish tradition, there isn't. Thus, the Tanakh category is necessary. pm_shef 18:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep but rename it "Tanakh". As this categories contains the hebrew views on the bible, it might as well be denoted by the proper hebrew word.
  • Hey anonymous, you did not sign your vote or comments with the four tildes ~~~~. Why? Your vote cannot be counted unless you do so. Thanks. IZAK 20:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete category:Hebrew Bible and move category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to category:Tanakh. Thus, one keeps the necessary multiple-point-of-view with practical, short and clear category names: category:Old Testament (Christian POV) and category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This has already been deemed the most suitable way in the Norwegian (Nynorsk) Wikipedia. -- Olve 18:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wow Olve: Even I never went that far (to create a "pure" Category:Tanakh), but I would most definitely support such a move! Thanks for this important information as to how this was resolved by the Norwegian Wikipedia contingent. Well done! Finally, in point of fact, there is already a de facto division between the Christian and Jewish categories for Bible vs. Tanakh, but your system has used clearer words. IZAK 18:45, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and ideally restructure. I agree that having Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and Category:Hebrew Bible is redundant, and that, in the absence of a compelling reason to change, the established category ought to be the one to stay. In this case, I think the current one is also closer to the NPOV ideal. With that said, I have two problems with the status quo. The minor one is that Torah ought to be a subcategory of Tanakh, not a separate category, as explained in my reply to Izak earlier in this section. The major one is the current division between the Christian Bible and the Jewish perspective, found on the Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh and Category:Old Testament books pages. This strikes me as artificial, substituting a choice of two POV approaches rather than devising a NPOV compromise. This might be the best we can manage right now, but I'd like to encourage the development of a more integrated scheme.24.91.213.44 19:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC) (That is, Shmuel 19:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC) . Sorry!)[reply]
  • Shmuel: The solution is simple, as per Olve above, let us then rename Category: Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to Category:Tanakh, plain and simple, see my response to you above. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Izak: If we're going to keep the two perspectives separate, then sure; as regards my concerns, however, this proposal makes the problem worse, rather than being a solution. Shmuel 20:59, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Category:Tanakh makes things worse? How so? We have just been informed that that was the precise solution used on the Norwegian Wikipedia, and I think it's a marvelous idea worth exploring. IZAK 21:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE as per Izak. Hebrew Bible is just not a term used by Jews. But used by Christians. The goal is to be neutral. Therefor we use the /. Not a big deal. No one should be offended. --Kempler video 19:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Category:Hebrew Bible -- Rachel1 20:02, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• DELETE category:Hebrew Bible and move category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to category:Tanakh (Jewish POV). This is a true original name of Torah, Neviim & Ktuvim --fivetrees 20:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Fivetrees had said: Please wait - I feel I have some wise decision for this problem. I'd like to chat directly with all of you about this question --fivetrees 20:16, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Er Fivetrees what are you up to? The discussion is talking place here, use the Talk page here if you must. There is no need for a major conference in cyberspace. Olve has given the best exmaple of a resolution above: A Christian categorization would use Category:Old Testament and the Jewish categorization would use Category:Tanakh as explained above. That would be perfect. Thanks. IZAK 20:34, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete The problem I believe is with the name Hebrew Bible/Tanakh. Hebrew Bible may be used as a common reference and a compromise name for the Old Testament and the Tanakh, but should not be used next to Tanakh as it refers largely to the same content. The name is worthy only in order to reach a common discourse and should not be used to refer to the Tanakh exclusively (yet may be used sometimes to alternate phrases in an essay). Hebrew Bible refers as much to the Old Testament as it does to the Tanakh. The name of the Jewish Holy Book is Tanakh and not Hebrew Bible. Therefore, the names should be either Old Testament and Tanakh seperately or Hebrew Bible combined. In the Dutch Wikipedia I have initiated shared categories, with Hebrew Bible as a theoretical shared reference to these books. The categories Hebrew Bible is now the Tanakh and Protestant Old Testament combined and Old Testament is now the Catholic and Orthodox ones combined, i.e. Hebrew Bible plus Deutero-Canonial Books. Such a shared structure is extremely complicated to reach and took endless debates. In all other cases I would go for the plain Tanakh category. Theoretically Hebrew Bible could still contain Old Testament and Tanakh, but in practice this brings only confusion. The terminologies are complicated anyway. In short: delete Hebrew Bible, rename Hebrew Bible/Tanakh to Tanakh. gidonb 21:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or redirect to the already existent category. No need to waste space on the 'pedia if we already have a more correct version of the sort. Evolver of Borg 21:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per a less passionate IZAK. We should not condone anti-semitism, however subconscious it may be. We should, however, promote accuracy. Wikipedia's ultimate goal, as any encyclopedia's goal, is accuracy. Alkivar's reasoning is archaic and contrived from a formulaic mindset. So therefore I vote to delete the new category. If it kept, it should redirect to the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh category... the category should ultimately be renamed to Tanakh for accuracy reasons, but since that is unlikely, my current vote is delete. --Hersch 22:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Kempler video and IZAK. I support keeping the term "Hebrew Bible" in there simply to avoid confusion, but feel it is important to have "Tanakh" be present, as well. The ideal solution is a compromise, accomplished by the /. ShalomShlomo 22:49, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restructure as per Olve et al. As an observant Jewish person I am unoffended by the term Hebrew Bible: be its origins Christian as they may, I have no inferiority complex when "my" bible is compared to the Christian Bible. However, IZAK is correct in his point that since this category basically reflects Jewish POVs, its title should also reflect the Jewish name (at least in addition to the "common name"). To preserve WP naming conventions and sort out the mess in the different related cats/subcats, I suggest a super-cat of Category:Tanakh with sub-cats Category:Tanakh events, Category:Tanakh prophets, Category:Tanakh texts Torah, Category:Tanakh texts Ketuvim etc. altmany 23:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• delete Judaism uses certain terms to describe the Hebrew Bible/Tanakh - create Category:Tanakh maayan 23:05, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect per IZAK. Given that it is coming from the Jewish perspective the term Tanakh should be used. Alansohn 23:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Izehar (talk) 23:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and restructure as per Olve et al., especially altmany. As another observant Jew checking in, but also (as we all are, I assume) supportive of the NPOV goal of Wiki, I regard the term Hebrew Bible as a specifically non-Jewish one. Calling a category Hebrew Bible/Tanach is philosophically like having a category Dogs/Cats, or cats which are really dogs. Category:Tanakh and sub-cats (no pun... well, almost no pun :) ) is clear, precise, and ideologically clean D'n 00:21, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong Delete -- In Judaism, the word Tanakh means Bible. Jews do not call their Bible the Old Testament. They do not call it the Hebrew Bible, so such a term would be confusing. There is a pattern to the year where Jews study portions or parsha from the Tanakh, in sequence. If someone searches for a Parsha, they will look for the word Tanakh. Joaquin Murietta 01:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and go with Olve's suggestion. There is nothing wrong with something being categorized twice. Other than, "Hebrew Bible" is only slightly less POV than "Old Testament," and "Tanach" is problematic only because it is only used in Jewish circles - it is not the least bit POV beyond that. --Leifern 01:26, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect. Per above. --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 01:33, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect Per above. -- Nahum 02:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IZAK's arguments above. Since there is already a very comprehensive (and more accurately titled) category, this one serves little purpose. -- אריאל יהודה 03:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IZAK's arguments above. I'd like to add that the Christian view of the Hebrew Bible is based on their interpretation of the translation, which is English based on Latin based on Greek based on the original Hebrew. The Jewish view is based on the original Hebrew. The way the interpretations come out are therefore completely different. (Moreover, early Christians deliberately mistranslated certain passages to enforce a different interpretation. For example, the names of most biblical characters are pretty similar in Hebrew and English, e.g. Avraham - Abraham, Yosef - Joseph, Shaul - Saul, but then you get Chava - Eve. Here the translation was skewed to suggest that Woman introduced "Eve-Evil" into the world.) Because Wikipedia insists on NPOV, each article must reflect both the Jewish and Christian "interpretations," but it's like comparing apples and oranges since they're not even working with the same text. Therefore there's a need to keep the articles and categories separate. Yoninah 05:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. Also, as an ideal, split Tanach/Hebrew Bible into the three subcategories for the three sections and put everything in there. Not that's wishful thinking! Frikle 06:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and use for the previous /Tanakh category. (!) For an English NPOV encyclopedia, I think the term "Hebrew Bible" is completely adequate for the Tanakh/Torah/Miqra. I find this discussion unnecessarily polemical and political. Numerous Christian and Jewish academics use "Hebrew Bible" as the best (yet) effort at a neutral terminology, moving away from Old Testament. Sure, I wouldn't use this term among Jews (except w/my wry academic humor) but Wikipedia is for a general English-speaking audience, probably mostly Chrisian. Tanakh isn't really much of an English word, if at all, and why use such an unfamiliar term for such a key category? Look, old Jewish Encyclopedia doesn't use Tanakh and the EJ only has Tanakh as a tiny stub (for "Bible"). So it looks like some of my fellow Jews are just voting for Tanakh in a petty way, to get back at the Christian POV. I think it would be more mature to go with "Hebrew Bible". Furthermore, it would be better pedagogically to familiarize Christians with this term (HB) as a less offensive alternative to OT. It takes the high ground and leaves open the possibility that we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV articles for these beloved books. HG 06:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • As I wrote above, when making a compromise between Christianity and Judaism "Hebrew Bible" is equally good (i.e. bad) for both sides and as such an optimizing option for scientific use or a shared categories here. But when the choice is not finding the best compromise between the religions (which has at a common project as ours a virtue of its own), but rather finding the optimal name for the Jewish book, Tanakh without Hebrew Bible is clearly the more accurate choice. gidonb 07:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • HG: While what you write may have a nice theoretical touch to it, it is at best a "daydream" and at worst a "nightmare". How on Earth can one possibly believe that (as you say:) "....we'll eventually get rid of the JPOV and CPOV and move to a single set of NPOV...?" It is liking wishing for a day when an article will emerge that will prove that "fire" and "water" will live in a "chemical NPOV" of "peace" which would be impossible in this world as we know it to be. Do not project notions that relate more to the subject of Jewish views of religious pluralism than they do to learning what are Judaism's strict and exact definitions, descriptions, and explanations of the תורה and תנ״ך with its כתובים and נביאים without getting side-tracked. If non-Jews are ignorant about Tanakh as a definitive name, then here is a golden opportunity to educate them and not allow them to impose "definitions" and terminology for Judaism's sacred texts. Christians are free to do with the New Testament as they wish, but they should not tell (nor "suggest" to) the Jews what to call the Jewish religion's texts. This is very logical I think. For example, Wikipedia respects Islam's holiest texts calling them Qur'an (not the English "Koran" -- and certainly not "Arabs Bible") and Aqidah ("creed"), and so without any apologetics they have created Category:Quran (a variation of "Qur'an" I guess) and Category:Aqidah and many more. Nobody is running around telling the Islamic editors to adhere to "English" standards all the time. Same goes with the Chinese, remember the days when Mao Tse Tung was called just that and not Mao Zedong as they want him known today, and when Peking was Peking and not Beijing? (Oh, and the Polish editors on Wikipedia never stop reminding everyone to spell things in Polish as much as possible, never mind that no-one will have a clue what they are trying to talk about, for example did you known that Żydowski Związek Walki is actually about "Jewish Fighting Union"? or that Żegota refers to the "Council to Aid the Jews"?) So if the Arabs, Chinese, and Polish don't feel bad about making the world aware of how they would like to have their important words spelled, why should Jews be concerned that non-Jews won't latch on to a little word like Tanakh? Maybe it'll take time, but like "Oy!" and "Shalom" the good word will get out. You have nothing to fear! IZAK 18:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Definitely delete the redundant Category:Hebrew Bible. The question of renaming or restructuring Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh should be dealt with in Category-for-renaming. Grika 15:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Redundant. Jayjg ^(talk) 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• IMO 'Tanakh' is as legitimate a term as 'Qur'an' and should be respected as such. Mississippifred
• Delete. Certainly The other category is better, that little "Tanakh" clarification will prevent confusions (Category:Hebrew Bible/Tanakh). --Vizcarra 19:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Sounds like a nonsense category. Sethie 19:11, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and redirect, Per Izak. I hate it when people try to justify an edit solely on the basis of it being more widespread, by this logic we should just call it the old testament, and refer to Jews as evil satan spawn.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 08:56, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. In an ideal world, we would not have separate Tanakh and Old Testament categories, since both refer to the same thing (more or less), but just have in the same category appropriately labeled Jewish and Christian POVs. More realistic would be to retain the old Tanakh and Old Testament categories reflecting the different views of the two different religions (or more accurately, two different families of religions). I don't see what the point of adding a third category does to bring us closer to the ideal. I also think that there should be Torah, Nevi’im, and Kethuvim categories within the Tanakh category, reflecting the traditional division of Tanakh in Judaism. Side note: I seem to be rather odd for an Orthodox Jew, since I use the term "Hebrew Bible" in English with the intent "this is what I recognize as Bible, to the exclusion of apocryphal and Christian material, and that this Bible is written in Hebrew and Aramaic, not English or any other language". As such, the term "Hebrew/Aramaic Bible", which I have also seen, is arguably slightly more appropriate. (By User:Aaron Solomon Adelman, see [2])
• Delete I like the idea of an old testament category for christian references and a tanakh category for judaic references. if relevant, of course an article might fall into both categories. Gzuckier 15:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Gzukier (but with proper Capitalization). ←Humus sapiens←ну? 06:03, 18 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 17:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These categories are concerned with the ease of access status of railway stations in Sydney. It is quite proper for Wikipedia to include this information, but it should do so through annotations to the list of Sydney railway stations. Categorisation places an excessive emphasis on this matter which is pov and unencyclopedic. An annotated list would also be easier to use than three separate lists. Furthermore there is a risk that the categorisation will go awry, with some stations placed in one of these categories only, when that is not appropriate. Indeed I don't know that this hasn't happened already. The three categories are:

• Category:CityRail stations with Easy Access
• Category:CityRail stations with Easy Access (planned)
• Category:CityRail stations without Easy Access
• Delete all Rhollenton 07:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete but I don't think this is a POV or un-encyclopedic issue, otherwise we should be arguing it shouldn't appear in the List mentioned either; I agree with the notion that annotation of the List is a better approach. Courtland 00:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's the overemphasis that is pov. Rhollenton 06:06, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nomination. Mushroom 08:09, 13 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:18, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Some of the Australian railway station categories do not use the standard form "railway stations in X", as used for Category:Railway stations in Australia, and the other national railway station categories:

• category:Adelaide railway stations amend to Category:Railway stations in Adelaide
• category:Brisbane railway stations amend to Category:Railway stations in Brisbane
• category:Perth railway stations amend to Category:Railway stations in Perth
• category:Sydney railway stations amend to Category:Railway stations in Sydney
• category:Melbourne railway stations amend to Category:Railway stations in Melbourne
• category:Geelong railway stations amend to Category:Railway stations in Geelong
• Rename all Rhollenton 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - Darwinek 11:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:10, 13 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These do not use the standard form "prisons in X", as used for Category:Prisons in Australia, the five sub-sub categories for prisons in Australian cities, the other national prison categories and the U.S. state prisons categories:

• category:Australian Capital Territory prisons amend to Category:Prisons in the Australian Capital Territory
• category:New South Wales prisons amend to Category:Prisons in New South Wales
• category:Northern Territory prisons amend to Category:Prisons in the Northern Territory
• category:Queensland prisons amend to Category:Prisons in Queensland
• category:South Australian prisons amend to Category:Prisons in South Australia
• category:Tasmanian prisons amend to Category:Prisons in Tasmania
• category:Victorian prisons (which also means something quite different) amend to Category:Prisons in Victoria
• category:West Australian prisons (which is incorrect in any case as there is no such state as West Australia) amend to Category:Prisons in Western Australia
• Rename all Rhollenton 06:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all - Darwinek 11:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:10, 13 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

It is unusual for a city to have such a category, but the usual form for countries is "sports venues" as in the parent category:Sports venues in Australia. Rename Category:Sports venues in Perth. Rhollenton 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename. Consistency is good. Sikyanakotik 04:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. as the creator, I have no argument with this rename -- Ian ≡ talk 15:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nominator. -- Reinyday, 20:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:11, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Should all these categories not be labelled " foo of Perth, Western Australia", in line with the name of the article? Otherwise it is very confusing for us Scots: Perth, Scotland. I note that Birmingham, another major city, has Category:Birmingham, England, not Category:Birmingham. Not that there is a cat yet for the Scottish city, but surely there will be at some point. For example we are about to create a new category for Stirling, and it is the same size as Perth.--Mais oui! 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • The two Birmingham's are about the same size. Perth Australia is 35 times the size of Perth in Scotland, and therefore takes precedence, as London, England does over London, Ontario. Rhollenton 00:40, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename CalJW 09:36, 15 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:58, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be changed to the usual form for categories of buildings. Rename Rhollenton 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Herostratus 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:12, 13 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Should be changed to the usual form for categories of buildings. Rename Rhollenton 03:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename per nom. Herostratus 04:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:12, 13 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:50, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Not relevant to the production of a better wikipedia. And anyway, everyone is nude some of the time. Delete Rhollenton 02:15, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: This category is auto-created by {{User nude}}, which will need this category removed if it isn't also rightfully killed - David Gerard 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Ill-defined. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Silly. Naked people have little or no influence in society == Mark Twain Herostratus 03:41, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to "Nude Wikipedians" as it is only being used by wikipedians on thier user:pages for the Template:User nude--Ezeu 07:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)Delete. I agree, its silly and useless.--Ezeu 09:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename helohe (talk) 08:06, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not harmless. Makes wikipedia look like an adolescent's joke. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I created the nude userbox as a humorous userbox like the {{User mad}} and {{User:Aeon1006/Userboxes/User Geek}} boxes, but I don't like the quasi-pornographic image that has been added to it, and I don't think a category for "nude Wikipedians" is appropriate because the userbox is not intended to be serious. If someone wants to create a serious category for real nudist Wikipedians, that would be acceptible. Otherwise, the box is intended to be humorous and a category is inappropriate. --TantalumTelluride 18:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No point. Noah 23:58, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Erm, you really need a better reason than that to vote. Dan100 (Talk) 10:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Mushroom 08:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wrong name and stupid. Ashibaka tock 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, but I advocate a serious Nudist Wikipedians category.--Aleron235 00:06, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, completely harmless, although probably should be moved to Category:Wikipedia users/Nude users or something. Dan100 (Talk) 10:53, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pranks are not harmless if wikipedia aspires to credibility. Carina22 17:41, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useless, as are many other Wikipedians categories. Subcategories based on knowledge are useful, but not social categories like these. --Vizcarra 19:02, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless they post pictures. In which case STRONG DELETE :) Sethie 19:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. We don't want to scare away Republican Wikipedians. (Just kidding--but still delete.) -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While it's a funny userbox, there's no need for a category. That's like making a category for users with a "ton of edits". Sure, edit categories would be nice, but not in as a joke. Drug free wikipedians? Fine. Geek wikipedians? Cool. Nude users? eh...Deckiller 03:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, come on, it simply is a category for personality of Wikipedians. -- Natalinasmpf 16:30, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, and also delete - David Gerard 18:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, it is funny DaGizza ^{Chat (c)} 01:13, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, unless all other userboxes are deleted. Hedley 15:51, 19 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Any wikipedians who achieve prominence in politics can have an article. Otherwise their aspirations are irrelevant to the production of an encyclopedia. Only 2 members and it should be "run for" anyway. Delete Rhollenton 02:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Neutral. May indicate the user has practical political experience, which would be useful to know if said user wishes to contribute to political articles. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Seems like it could be useful, although the lack of population is a problem, but that might be alleviated over time. Herostratus 04:48, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Wikipedians who have run for a public office (reasons to keep a grammatically named cat are as per Herostratus). Valiantis 14:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not harmless. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. the notion of "Wikipedian" as per user page has problems with wikipedia:Verifiability. The real person (i.e., one who can run for office) may be declared wikipedian only if he made such public statement in a verifiable source. BTW, what the heck is public office? It is a redirect to an article which does not explain the term and which pequires a solid cleanup mikka (t) 00:03, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • If this were a cat for articles in the main namespace then verifiability would be an issue. However, this is a user cat. By definition a user is a wikipedian. There are therefore no verifiability issues. Valiantis 16:10, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Soltak. Mushroom 08:15, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Ze miguel 15:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- gidonb 00:12, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Don't Care. Let me explain the history of the category. I was talking with Phroziac one day about making an article on the 2004 New Hampshire State Election, and then putting the link from my name to my user page since somebody who finished 14th place in the 2004 Hillsborough County 19 State Representative Race probably isn't notable even though i've done a few other things. She dissuaded me from doing so by starting this category. I don't know who that New Jersey Gov guy is.

Eventually i'll write that article, and I may still do what I just said, and there'll be another argument about that, and the cycle will continue. Frankly, i'm becoming jaded. karmafist 04:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Almost empty and unencyclopedic. Carina22 17:42, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • No more unencyclopedic then an ENTIRE NAMESPACE (User:). --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 18:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Vizcarra 01:30, 15 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

One member fan category. Will not help to produce a better wikipedia and why should anyone care which celebrities other users love? Delete Rhollenton 02:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. One-person category for B-list actress. The person can note his affection on his user page.Herostratus 04:42, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There remains such a thing as an unnecessary user cat. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Stupid. Noah 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I love Julianne Moore too, but this is frivolous. -- Taiichi «talk» 03:29, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mushroom 08:18, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Yoninah 09:54, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Well, at least it didn't read "Michael Moore". (Let's not go there.) Or worse yet: "the late Roger Moore". (An infamous message board joke.) -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:49, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This has already become ridiculous with so many wikipedians categories. This is not MySpace. So many useless subcategories. --Vizcarra 22:52, 14 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:30, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More irrelevance. Like those below, this will not help to improve wikipedia's depth or breadth. Delete Rhollenton 02:07, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Bizarre. Sounds like a joke. Herostratus 04:46, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. There remains such a thing as an unnecessary user cat. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Valiantis Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly. Noah 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mushroom 08:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Super silly. Yoninah 09:55, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Exorcise this category, and don't spare the holy water! -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 22:52, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete if there are many users in this, perhaps change to 'posessed users', but don't accuse people!--Akako|☎ 12:20, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Joke userbox and all...Deckiller 03:51, 16 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:40, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parent to the two irrelevancies nominated below. Otherwise empty. Delete Rhollenton 02:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Too broad. It can be re-created if and when more than a tiny handfull of users are using devices other than keyboards. Herostratus 03:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. As per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not harmless. User server resources, wastes time and creates clutter. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am the creator of this category, the dvorak subcategory, and the user box template:user dvrk. If Category:Wikipedians by web browser and Category:Wikipedians by text editor are wiki-kosher, why isn't this one?

• Because one's input device and browser determines how they view the site, which may be important in issues of formatting. You cannot adjust a website to be more "Dvorak friendly". Sikyanakotik 21:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Only because its not technically necessary. I think Dvorak should be kept, but not By Input type or QWERTY. By Input Type -- as far as I know, no significant numbers of users are inputting except via keyboard. If this proves otherwise, the category can be reinstated. So it is really By Keyboard Type. But QWERTY is the assumed default, does not need its own category. In the same way as you might have a category "Users in Iron Lungs" but not need the category "Users NOT in Iron Lungs", for example. Herostratus

• Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. -- Ze miguel 15:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete i'd be surprised if there were any other input devices than computer. I would be the first on the bandwagon for Category:Wikipedians Who Edit With Smoke Signals or Category:Wikipedians Who Edit With Their Mind. karmafist 04:57, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• See Input device for clarification.--Ezeu 05:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete irrelevant. Carina22 17:46, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Why are there is many rabid deletionists? This is a user category that does not affect the quality of Wikipedia. The user of Dvorak, frogpad or any other input device that differs from generic QWERTY deserves a right to have a community. Just let it be. Sjschen 01:46, 18 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:31, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Even more pointless than the ones nominated below. Only one person has wasted time and server capacity putting himself in it, and I hoped it stays that way. Delete Rhollenton 02:03, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Not necessary since this is the assumed default. Herostratus
• Delete. As per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Silly. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete This would be practically everyone. Noah 23:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another whiny dramafest as below, except this is even more useless. Ashibaka tock 19:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Still getting a feel for my limits on WP. Going for silly points, not drama points, not that it really matters. D-Rock 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per Herostratus and Noah. D-Rock 00:00, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Herostratus. splintax ^(talk) 09:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - useless. --Phroziac _. o º ^{O (mmmmm chocolate!)} 18:20, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep But only if the Devorak catagory continues to exsist. kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 19:51, 16 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:38, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More silliness. Not relevant to the production of a good encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 02:00, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Pointless, though this might change if a userbox template is formed. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep.. This is an unusual enough category that (unlike QWERTY users) it can contain a reasonably-sized subset of users, neither too large nor too small. If its parent is deleted, just move it up to top level. As to not being relevant to encyclopedia production, I'm not so sure. Anything reasonable that makes a user feel there is place where she can attach to a like-minded subset of editors may engender a greater sense of attachment to Wikipedia, and thus lead to increased contribution. Sort of like -- you know, putting flowers in the women's rooms in a factory mught seem to have nothing to do with making widges, but might lead to greater productivity in the long run. And who knows, two Dvorak users might meet up because of being in that category, and collaborate on great articles. There are six people in this category. I myself would not be inclined to kick them out of their category. I think we should give more leeway to editor categories than to article categories, since editor categories can't confuse or annoy readers. Herostratus 03:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete People who think this is a sensible contribution to wikipedia deserce a wake up call. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. I am the creator of the category and the user box template:user dvrk. Am not quite sure what relevence "to the production of a good encyclopedia" has anything to do with keeping or deleting user categories -- as far as I can see they are all pretty much vanity -- but what is wrong with a little vanity? — Eoghanacht ^talk 20:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Unique enough. Noah 00:00, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. nonverifiable. mikka (t) 00:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Extremely notable and is verifiable. Piecraft 01:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Easy to verify - how? Watch this: Kjg; ,sfph nd al da;t ,at ks .dogyt ,jsq; f;glu H.soave G ;frrs;d ;smdsld isfph ap,at; yavd gkw nfk ,jak ,sfph nd kjd rsglk{ Now either I'm a Dvorak user or I just looove pretending to use Dvorak. Mithridates 14:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Herostratus said it better than I ever could. Trent 14:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep since all the arguments for Delete so far can apply to almost any user category. They're all irrelevant to encyclopedic content and all self-reported so they're not necessarily verifiable. That said, this (binary) category is certainly more verifiable than some of the multi-level categories out there. --Pentasyllabic 16:24, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reasonable user catagories. --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 17:08, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Could be useful for something, and interesting anyway. Ashibaka tock 19:58, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per everybody. D-Rock 00:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per above - it's not like there are no other categories not directly relevant to creating a 'pedia - and comment - how is this any less verifiable than any of the other stuff placed on people's user pages? splintax ^(talk) 09:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Utterly pointless and ridiculous. Carina22 17:45, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, "cute" but useless. --Vizcarra 19:07, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Although Dvorak use amongst Wikipedians will certainly be a hot scholary topic in the 25th century, by that point they will have devices that can look backwards in time and will not need a wiki category to do their research for themSethie 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• keep I can imagine reasonable situations where someone might be able to make good use of this category. and it would not be too huge like qwerty keyboard users. Gzuckier 15:09, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep This is why I left wikipedia in the first place. There are way too many people on here that feel the need to go around deleting stuff that is on other people's user pages. I don't care if it's notable or not. It is on the user page and is therefore exempt from notablity requirements. I will not be returning to wikipedia until the attitude of the people on here changes and it becomes more community friendly. That is all.--God of War 00:33, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep cute? silly? Maybe. useless? ridiculous? scholarly topic? I don't know. The point is that this is a user category and it delineates a community, just like the billion other user categorizations. As such should we rabidly rush out and delete all other user categories?. I think not. Furthermore, the category in no way affects the quality of Wikipedia, so lay off. Sjschen 01:39, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Pointless. Osomec 14:11, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Categories like this are useful if an editor needs help from someone using a Devorak keyboard. Hedley 15:53, 19 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:37, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Category connected with a college sports team. Not helpful to the production of a good encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move and Rename. This is more likely a reference to users of Windows Vista and Windows Server "Longhorn". Though neither OS exists yet, it may not be a bad idea to leave this in as a placeholder. This should be moved and renamed to Category:Windows Vista users under Category:Wikipedians by operating system. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Either have a category for every team, or for none. I guess it helps to read the category description before commenting... Sikyanakotik 03:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. "Have a category for every team, or for none," isn't a reason to delete an existing article or category. If you'd like a category for every team, then start creating more categories - there's no reason to delete what's already there. This category is connected to and for the alumni of The University of Texas at Austin. How it's an invalid category I don't understand; in addition, it's a good place to pool talents for the recent improvements to the main UT Austin article itself, as well as for planned improvements to its sub- and related pages. -Rebelguys2 03:33, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Upon further inspection, I've noticed that there's a large "Wikipedians by alma mater" category. I'll redirect the template there. I'll support the deletion of this particular category; however, my points above still stand for alma mater related categories as a whole. -Rebelguys2 03:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fixed your wikilink, Rebelguys2. You needed a colon after the opening brackets and before Category (see here). jareha 10:09, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rebelguys2, only because its redundant. Herostratus 04:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete for reasons given. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mushroom 08:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Kyknos 15:14, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, as per redundancy. jareha 10:09, 14 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:35, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Parent of the below, with only one other article. Just as irrelevant as its child to the writing of an encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:55, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All wikipedians are assumed to be human, or at least humanoid enough to be called anthropomorphic, unless otherwise noted. However, see below. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic keep. See anthropomorphism, as in this case it refers to anthropomorphic animal-people. This category is for self-identified anthropomorphs (e.g. animal-people by persona) who do not identify with the furry culture (there can be complex reasons for this). Additionally, by experience I have encountered anthropomorphs who object strongly to being called "human," and take it as an insult. I don't have such a problem (I have a more inclusive perception of "human"), but besides why must we assume that every Wikipedia user is either human or a bot? I think there is always a possibility that a Wikipedia user is neither. - Gilgamesh 03:34, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Yes, this is about Otherkins and such, not just being humanoid. There are a number of Otherkins in the world, although it's not a huge number. However, (1) there's only one person in this category (Gilgamesh) and (2) the name is confusing, as shown by Sikyanakotiki's comment. But I'm not sure what name could be used. So I'm too on the fence to vote on this one. In any case, I don't think it should be the parent of Furry. Herostratus 04:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then how about moving all of Category:Furry Wikipedians to Category:Anthropomorphic Wikipedians to be all-inclusive? - Gilgamesh 08:10, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because wouldn't be all-inclusive. There are plenty of people who self-identify as furries who don't self-identify as anthropomorphic, and vice versa. Loganberry (Talk) 12:13, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete How is this supposed to help exactly? Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Based on Gilgamesh's comment I must vote delete, this is just a whiny dramafest being dragged over to an encyclopedia. (I would support Category:Otherkin Wikipedians.) Ashibaka tock 19:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's my right to whine, isn't it now? - Gilgamesh 03:01, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. (I didn't vote on this one yet, just commented). It's confusingly named and only has one user. I would support an Otherkin category, I think. I don't really get the difference anyway. Herostratus 10:04, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant. Carina22 17:48, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I know anyone can edit Wikipedia, but I thought the scope was limited to humans! -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:03, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Rolls eyes. --Vizcarra 01:28, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Again, I LOVE joke boxes, but categories are unnecessary. Perhaps this would be great for a social wiki...Deckiller 03:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is not a joke category. Many anthropomorphs take it seriously. - Gilgamesh 05:28, 19 December 2005 (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 consensus --Kbdank71 16:32, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense that has nothing to do with writing an encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move. It's a valid subculture. Move under Category:Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Emphatic keep. Furry has been a thriving subculture for decades, and has every reason to remain where it is. As above, though, not every person who maintains an anthropomorphic personality identifies with the furry culture. - Gilgamesh 03:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per my comments at Dvorak users and Move per Sikyanokotiski. There are 22 editors in this category. You want to tell them that their group has been eliminated by fiat? I don't. Herostratus 04:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. As per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I would be happy to tell everyone who wastes time on this user-category nonsense that it has been deleted. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:54, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for reasons already stated. -- Samuel Wantman 08:56, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep- Harmless--Jondel 11:57, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep - mostly harmless. Ashibaka tock 19:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete is not harmless, it fosters more useless categories. It diverts attention from more important activities. --Vizcarra 19:14, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Helpful hint: avoid editing Wikipedia during a full moon. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:10, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as silliness. What has this (and the various other categories about Wikipedians) got to do with creating an encyclopedia? --StoatBringer 10:31, 15 December 2005 (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 consensus --Kbdank71 16:27, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a social welfare project. If people want to sign up for good causes they should do so in an appropriate place. Delete Rhollenton 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Possible Rename to "Illegal Drug Free", Its not like putting this in Wikipedia for people to put in their talk pages is doing any harm.
• Keep per my comments at Dvorak users. Not inclined to tell others how they can define themselves. Herostratus 04:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Maybe keep. Rename if kept. Category title is ill-defined. Does it refer only to people who have not used illegal drugs, do not currently use illegal drugs, or shun legal or even prescription drugs? Sikyanakotik 04:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete or rename as "Drug" is POV. helohe (talk) 08:05, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. If kept, shouldn't this be named Category:Drug-free Wikipedians. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not harmless. Divisive and cluttersome. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is it any more divisive than say, Category:Christian Wikipedians? Part of what makes Wikipedia great is diversity. --Aleron235 22:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep provided the category is renamed per Valiantis, and an explanation is given as to what kind of drugs they mean. Using "drug" to mean "illegal drugs" as well as "prescription drugs" is vague, perhaps an Americanism (is it?). --Aleron235 22:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Another meaningless mode of unnecessary categorization. If users feel strongly enough to declare this sort of thing, let them do so in their user space. Soltak | Talk 00:51, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mushroom 08:17, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Unmaintainable. --Sachabrunel 17:40, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep reasonable user cats --JiFish(^Talk/_Contrib) 20:31, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a political campaign. Carina22 17:44, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good, neither is the drug-free category... --W.marsh 20:24, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not a soapbox. --Vizcarra 19:13, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename per Valiantis. It's as reasonable as most user categories I see out there. I think people are making this too political, it's just a way of describing people... like all user categories out there. --W.marsh 20:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - this category is acceptable, but there really needs to be some definition of what 'drug free' means. Otherwise the category is useless. See the Project page if you need more context. --Dschor 20:28, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I don't even know the list was deleted. It's harmless and it's preposterous to say it pushes for a pov. How is it divisive? Too sensitive to drug users or what? Maybe we can specify it so it only excludes recreational drugs. BlueShirts 01:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep of course. Don't see how having something like this promotes an agenda? Does Category:Wikipedians in Washington promote regional strife and secessionism? -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 01:22, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Because one mentions a preference for a political agenda and the other one the place of residence. --Vizcarra 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Then feel free to shut down the entire user categorisation programme. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 07:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

No, one makes you falsely assume there's a political agenda. Saying that I'm drug-free does not automatically mean in any way that I think you should be too. By your logic, anyone who added the 'in Washington' category is advocating everyone else move to Washington... which is obviously silly. So is saying that adding the drug-free category is automatically advocating something... it isn't. --W.marsh 15:54, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly. Kindly point out where exactly does this category promote a drug-free lifestyle. It does not, in the same sense that Users in Washington doesn't promote anyone to move to Washington. -- Миборовский ^{U|T|C|E|Chugoku Banzai!} 02:24, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as good a user catagory as any--Akako|☎ 12:16, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, rename, and define "drug" - 'tis a reasonable user category. Danthemankhan^(talk) 15:33, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - and change wording to "This user does not use illegal drugs." Rlevse 15:45, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Illegal where? Marijuana is perfectly legal in Holland but it will get you arrested in the US. Soltak | Talk 22:55, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. Perhaps 'Hallucinogens' or some other clarification will be appropriate. Although one could say 'illegal in my country', that would defeat the purpous.--Akako|☎ 01:13, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

how about just say "this user doesn't use recreational drugs" BlueShirts 19:44, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I find that to be acceptable. However, I still think that the category is unnecessary per my above comments. Soltak | Talk 22:47, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Cognition 20:59, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep — Moe ε 00:16, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep if we delete this, we'll also have to delete the others; they add spice to a userpage and allow for people to sum up the user in a quick manner. Deckiller 03:46, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why is that important, or even desirable? Soltak | Talk 00:47, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Different users may edit or create different sections based on their interests. It is quite possible that a user may have an interest in finding users who are into a certain topic so he or she can get some assistance. I agree that "drug free wikipedians" is not really significant as such. At the same time, "Users who don't use illegal drugs" may not be harmless; it may make users who are not in this category look like druggies, which may be unfair. Nevertheless, it doesn't bother me too much, hence my "Keep" vote. Deckiller 00:53, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Drug-free is very vague. I would suggest Drug-using Wikipedians is a more appropriate category. I'm guessing the majority on here would not take illicit drugs, so why make a big point of it? Rogerthat 05:29, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Rogerthat. -- Eagle^amn 01:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. --Lumijaguaari 04:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irrelevant. Osomec 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This category is necessary because it sends a positive message. -- OldRight 17:44, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Positive to whom? That's a blatantly POV argument. Soltak | Talk 19:31, 18 December 2005 (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 consensus --Kbdank71 16:26, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign
• Category:Capricorn Wikipedians
• Category:Sagittarius Wikipedians

Another silly classification of no value to an encyclopedia writing project. Deserves an early death. Delete all Rhollenton 01:49, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep all. Regardless of anyone's beliefs on astrology, these categories are based on existing userbox templates. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all based on freedom of self-definition if no harm is done. (Note how this is different from a same category for biographical articles, which I did vote to delete.) Herostratus 04:23, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all as per Herostratus. Valiantis 14:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia isn't a self realisation facilty. 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
• Keep all, freedom of self-expression. --Aleron235 22:39, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All A bunch of irrelevant nonsense. As the nominator mentioned, this sort of thing has absolutely no value to an encyclopedia project, harmless or not. Soltak | Talk 00:50, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep all. a bunch of irrelevant nonsense that s not within the main body of the encyclopedia, harmless, and does not devalue the work of the encyclopedia s body -Mayumashu 05:38, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is about pooling knowledge, not individual self expression. Sumahoy 16:43, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all I don't want to know that there are wikipedians who take astrology seriously. It is desparately sad that there are still such superstitious people. Carina22 17:43, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree with your sentiments, but then I feel the same way about UFOlogy, Druidism and Christianity:-) Who gets to decide which "superstitions" are acceptable and which aren't? If you wish to delete this category on the basis of superstition, I take it you will also be seeking to delete all user categories by non-provable belief system. If not, then Wikipedians by star sign has to stay. Valiantis 00:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all this is more of a social thing... if users are really into it, start a whole new wiki for such things.Sethie 19:15, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - it's unimportant and irrelevant to an encyclopaedia (that's what I was under the impression we were writing). Izehar (talk) 19:16, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:22, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wikipedia is not MySpace. --Vizcarra 01:29, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Herostratus--Akako|☎ 12:13, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep It's in userspace. Rules and policies are for article space.--Gbleem 15:58, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep There are plenty of userspace categories that would be inapprorpriate in the article space. If somebody's interested in this information, there's no reason not to have it as a user category. --ParkerHiggins 23:31, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Makes wikipedia look low brow. Osomec 14:13, 18 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:25, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

More nonsense of no relevance to an encyclopedia writing project. Delete Rhollenton 01:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. All wikipedians are human unless otherwise noted. Sikyanakotik 03:17, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and move valid entries to Category:Extraterrestrial Wikipedians. This should be an identification each user makes for themselves. Categorization of users by other people's suspicion is repugnant to me. - Gilgamesh 03:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Extraterrestrial Wikipedians per Gilgamesh. If you've ever beeen to a sci-fi convention, you know that some people really are from another planet. Herostratus 05:04, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not harmless. Brings wikipedia into disrepute and creates clutter. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irredeemable nonsense. And 'harmless' is hardly a valid reason to keep anything. Soltak | Talk 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mushroom 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Kyknos 15:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, small and unnecessary. Ashibaka tock 19:52, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Ah! So that's why a user added three missing planets to the solar system article! -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. --Vizcarra 01:27, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Joke userboxes don't need categories. Deckiller 03:51, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/Rename kc4 - the Server Monkey Enforcer 19:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per Deckiller Osomec 14:14, 18 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:21, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Self-indulgent nonsense. Of no value to the creation of an encyclopedia. Delete Rhollenton 01:38, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Move to Category:Wikipedians_by_fields_of_interest. Sikyanakotik 03:18, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. This is not the place for that. Seriously. The category doesn't really define much by itself, and so begs for meaningful subcategories such as "Wikipedians who like to be spanked" and so forth. And by "and so forth" I really mean "and so forth" if you catch my drift. And I don't think we want to go down that road. Because there's too much potential for being too offensive to too many people, because we don't need to get into arguments about which subcategories are or are not obscene, because we don't want to give this impression that WP is some kind of meet-up place, and because the whold thing is just prurient. Herostratus 04:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia already carries a number of articles on admittedly "kinky" topics, so it might be useful for users to be able to express an interest in the area. Of course, perhaps it should be renamed to a less evocative title. I just can't think of one right now. Sikyanakotik 04:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maybe the category name should be sexperts. --Tiger Marc 05:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, harmless. Christopher Parham (talk) 16:31, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not harmless. Brings wikipedia into disrepute and creates clutter. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Irredeemable nonsense. And 'harmless' is hardly a valid reason to keep anything. Soltak | Talk 00:47, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV -- Taiichi «talk» 03:35, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mushroom 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete --Kyknos 15:13, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Ashibaka tock 19:55, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete63.20.87.156 16:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete yes... harmless, but waste of resources. I don't want to see subcategories in the future if this category is chosen to be kept. --Vizcarra 19:08, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete unless we get lotsa female wikipedians in this category who are willing to put out. Sethie 19:17, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Useful only if you regularly edit Wikipedia in the nude... -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:37, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

  And don't even think of making fun of my user name!-,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 23:39, 14 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Ha ha! / Ezeu 03:53, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for same reasons as Nude users. This isn't a porn site or anything; joke boxes are fun for userpages, but categories are unnecessary for them. Deckiller 03:50, 16 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete just about the worst thing that could possibly happen to Wikipedia is a news report about people actually using this category for serious purposes. Scott Ritchie 03:52, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. —Lowellian (reply) 04:46, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Disrepute? It's in the user space! Okay, disrepute for those who list themselves, not for Wikipedia. And if you look down on people for being in this category, you're just as likely to look down at people for being LGBT (or is this a false comparison?) Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 05:53, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Yes it's a false comparison. Osomec 14:13, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep harmless. And Wikipedia is not paper. -- Natalinasmpf 00:05, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Harmless...to a degree. While the word kinky is not particularly offense, it is certainly irreverent. And while I have nothing against humor (as attested by my frequent use of goofy comments on these pages!), I think this category name goes one notch too far (for point of reference, it's worth noting that I voted to keep Category:Wikipedians by astrological sign). Moreover, I think this category has the potential for misuse—such as by giving ammo to vandals (though admittedly, that's a weak argument). -,-~^R'lyehRising~-,- 00:57, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - yes, terribly weak: LGBT is rarely used as vandal ammo, and I see no reason why Kinky would be used more. What's an argument you can make against this category that doesn't apply to the LGBT category? Redwolf24 (talk) Attention Washingtonians! 03:24, 19 December 2005 (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 --Kbdank71 16:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

These were started in October with a token couple of items each and have been ignored since. Trying to slice sport up into professional and non-professional strands with the situation is infinitely complex is just not helpful. Delete both Rhollenton 01:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete both. Concur. Bad taxonomy, confusing. If Professional Basketball is to be category, it should be a child of Basketball. Herostratus 05:02, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both A bad idea which hasn't been taken up by other users. Bhoeble 17:47, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Mushroom 08:19, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete both. As many sports people get paid, the conventional boundaries between paid and unpaid are POV. gidonb 22:38, 13 December 2005 (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 as nominated --Kbdank71 16:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

All other categories in the Category:Radio stations by country are named “Category:Radio stations in somecountry”. This category should be brought into line with the naming convention. This will not be a difficult move, as there are only three articles in the category. •DanMS 01:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename as proposed. Rhollenton 01:32, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename. Category title is ambiguous, as it may also refer to Russian-language radio stations. Sikyanakotik 04:27, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Herostratus 04:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename as per nomination. Mushroom 08:20, 13 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per the four users above me. Deckiller 03:52, 16 December 2005 (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.