Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 11

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Wikipedia:Categories for deletion‎ | Log

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Will Beback (talk | contribs) at 19:38, 15 August 2006 (→‎Category:Anti Iraq War activists: d). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Jump to navigation Jump to search
< August 10 August 12 >

August 11

Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus

Category:Places in Turkish-Occupied Cyprus (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Transferred from PROD as prod does not and shuold not do categories

- 132.205.45.148 23:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category title portrays a POV & only one page is contained in the category. 01:11, 11 August 2006 user:Ssbohio

Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath

Category:Knights of the Order of the Bath to Category:Knights Companion of the Order of the Bath

Category:Fictional demoness'

Category:Fictional demoness' (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Anaheim Hills neighborhoods

Category:Anaheim Hills neighborhoods to Category:Anaheim neighborhoods

Category:Fictional characters with super strength

Category:Fictional characters with super strength (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete. A hopelessly broad (and particularly ill-defined) category. The broadness isn't fixable; easily half and probably two thirds of the superhuman characters in American comic books alone would qualify, nevermind cartoon characters (Bugs Bunny pushes "ten-ton weights" off of himself; does he qualify?), characters in literature and lore (every ogre or giant or dragon or titan or god), almost the entirety of Category:Mecha, and so on. The criteria are specific but useless in the their specificity: specific lifting abilities aren't something often mentioned for a fictional character (save in the encyclopedia-style DC and Marvel character handbooks, but even those don't always reflect the actual comics), but often-times characters who wouldn't be associated with super-strength (Bugs Bunny again) are seen to move giant objects, for the sake of humor or just because the story doesn't put too much emphasis on logic or causality. This category is just unworkable. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 15:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    The current wording still includes every single kaiju ever, monsters of all shapes and sizes, most gods in fiction and lore, many cartoon characters, easily half of American comic characters and a good chunk of anime characters, and many, many other characters, many of whom will be perpetually on the cusp because of inconsistent depiction that doesn't constitute retcon (for example, how much Captain America or Wolverine can lift depends on who is writing).
    This category, if kept, is going to end up with dozens of disparate subcategories (DBZ villains, Buffyverse Vampire Slayers, and Fictional Werewolves are already subcats, and I suspect kaiju, mecha, and many others aren't far behind) as well as hundreds upon hundreds of characters that have little or nothing in common other than the ability to lift things.
    This cannot be reasonably defined in such a way that it doesn't include uncountable numbers of characters in fiction and lore, and, even if it's broken up into strength-by-source, there's going to be a bunch of categories that still include far too many essentially unrelated characters. - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 00:42, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree it is too broad. It does cover almost half of all the characters in comicdom, fantasy and sci-fi. However, I would like to see categories which define superheroes by the origins of their powers. Categories for superheroes with strength by nature = either psionic (e.g. Superman, Gladiator), mystical (e.g. Glorificus, Illyria) and physical size/shape/biology (e.g. Spider-Man, Hulk, Thing). So, yes, delete keep this category, but I was alreayd discussing on Talk:Superman some similar categories which I think will be smaller and easier managed. ~ZytheTalk to me! 15:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment someone, please come up with the appropriate rename for this. To me, this category is for comic book characters with superhuman muscular structures. We have Category:Fictional speedsters for characters who are "faster than a speeding bullet" , so I'm sure we can agree on a category for characters who are "more powerful than a locomotive, and able to leap tall buildings in a single bound." --M@rēino 16:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree. Some re-wording or subcategories would work for this article.(Animedude 18:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
  • By the way, my proposal for what to do with subcategories is located at User:Zythe/Project. ~ZytheTalk to me! 19:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per A Man In Black. --Newt ΨΦ 19:44, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Hawkestone 19:48, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another note, but I've edited the original criteria so it will exclude characters like Bugs Bunny. I really don't think this requires deletion, I feel it is salvageable. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Overhaul/subcategorization per User:Zythe/Project --M@rēino 21:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Really pointless trivia category.--JyriL talk 22:02, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Though I agree that some benchmarks need to be in place as to defining what "super-human" entails. Is a Mr. Universe competition good enough? For another example, comparing an alien from another planet to "human" may mean that we're comparing apples to oranges, depending on how we choose to define "human" (is Superman human?). That includes deities (such as Thor). Perhaps, if we're going to divide the category, try by species type? (Otherwise how about elephants? : ) I just think that this category needs to be pared down, with more sub categories. Also, a magical effect, such as a spell, or an item, irregardless of the duration of the effect, may give the target "superhuman" ability, but does that mean the character is superhuman? or just the bearer of a supernatural effect? So does enhancement through magic define a person as super-human? {Does Wanda Maximoff have superhuman strength?) How about enhancement through chemicals? If the chemical has a temproary effect (Hourman for example), does such a person qualify? : ) - Jc37 00:01, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Jc37: I think you just use your judgement. I don't think the semantics of "superhuman" need to be debated. Generally you only categorise characters with whom an ability is associated. For example, in one episode Buffy Summers briefly became a telepath but she is not under Category:Fictional telepaths. You just use judgment and common sense. I would agree with you about species but then I feel comic species are too broad - for example, Blob and Molly Hayes are both mutants and both have super strength but Blob's is because he's massive and Molly's is definitely psionic in nature. I think when this category is overhauled it will resemble Category:Fictional psychokineticists to a large extent. ~ZytheTalk to me! 00:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
You may be defeating your purpose if this category ends up looking like another one. Also, I think sub categories of: Comic book deities known for super-human strength; Non-terrans (Aliens) with super-human strength; etc, would be a better plan than presuming to make all super-strength to be psionic. A case in point would be Superman. It was made clear in the Man of Steel series that Superman's strength when flying is different than his "normal" strength (the difference between psionic strength and the "solar battery" powered physical strength). That he's Kryptonian is less arguable than the various sources of his strength. Captain America's strength has been shown to be due to the super-soldier formula (it's been "removed" from him before). And so on.

But this goes somewhat beyond the scope of this CfD. My vote is unchanged: Keep, with refocus on sub-categories (whatever they are worked out to be). - Jc37 01:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I dont think a Mr. Universe contest would qualify. most people use "Superhuman strength" to mean beings, not just humans, that can lift over 1 ton, something they dont even get close to in strongman contests. This of course varies from fiction to fiction, but its a good base for it. (Animedude 19:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC))[reply]
Sure. But dogs are right out. :P I wouldn't go with "race" simply because the majority are human; what are you going to say, "Fictional human characters with super strength?" That's a bit much. Likewise sometimes the source of strength is hard to determine: is a vampire mystically or innately strong? Is an android's strength innate or technological? -HKMARKS 20:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Heh, well race wasn't my suggestion. Technology is innate to an android, as I see it. Vampires - well it depends on the medium. If it's fiction where vampires are chemically different, like a virus or something - then innate. If it's like Buffy for instance, the source of their power is to do with magic, if physical changes occur it's not innate to them prior to being a vampire - like Juggernaut, he's physically bigger than before, but his powers are magical. But you have a point. If this survives I think someone should propose a vote about subcategorisation over at WikiProject Comics. ~ZytheTalk to me! 21:16, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. I can't see any value in this type of category, to be honest. Steve block Talk 18:48, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment I don't know, I've been curious for a while about whether more characters had superstrength compared to flight. As with most categories, it's only really useful if you happen to be looking for it. -HKMARKS 18:30, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I see the value, I just don't think we should classify fictional characters by fictional characteristics which are hard to quantify, are not immutable and are unwieldy, debatable and hard to annotate. It seems to me to stand against the idea the categorisation structure was brought in to implement. Steve block Talk 19:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Critics of George W. Bush

Category:Critics of George W. Bush (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, Vague. Is a "critic" somebody who advocates impeachment? Stated that they didn't vote for him? Or just criticizes some policy or aspect of the Bush presidency? Bjones 15:20, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
comment: Obviously, anyone who is critical of George W. Bush. And they are legion. Atlant 15:41, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, my problem is with the category, not the criticism.Bjones 16:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, as Atlant said below, if you find the one category vague, then break it up into subcategories. Clarification is always preferable to throwing the baby out with the bathwater.StudierMalMarburg 16:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Unwieldy and unhelpful. Is this category to include basically every Democrat, leftist, Hollywood actor, rock musician, leftist prime minister, etc in the world? This category then leads to "critics of" cats for almost everyone that is controvesial. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, then make subcategories; i.e., foreign critics; rightwing critics; leftwing critics; and so on. Also, this category would not include George Herbert Walker Bush. That's a facetious argument. G.H.W. Bush has always supported his son's administration. Fatherly criticism of a son is an entirely different animal. StudierMalMarburg 16:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. We've deleted scores of "Fans of X" categories, and I don't see "Critics of X" being any different. The number vast, and contributes little information about the vast majority of critics for two reasons. First, it is unclear whether "critical" refers to the person, his/her administration, policies or decisions, philosophy of government, table manners, golf game, handshake, etc. Second, that critical view is probably not going to be a primary or secondary characteristic, so inclusion in the category will be difficult to verify or be subjective. Is "N, who died in 1991, was quoted in 1987 that GWB wouldn't amount to anything" good enough? What about "N helped craft GWB's foreign and environmental policies, but has written numerous editorials condemning his stance on stem cell research"? -choster 16:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A category is too blunt an instrument with which to tackle this matter. Hawkestone 19:49, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A Critic is defined as One who forms and expresses judgments of the merits, faults, value, or truth of a matter. So yes, GHW Bush is indeed a critic of his son, unless he has no opinion at all, which is hardly the case. Being a critic doesn't automatically mean being a "negative critic". I can't see chunking this up into subcats would help the matter at all, either, for the same reason: Everyone who has an opinion is a critic. --Kbdank71 20:03, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is something that is better handled within articles (which can provide details about why a person is criticizing Bush) than through categories. --Cswrye 06:09, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doczilla 07:32, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His critics are far too many and varied to belong in a single category that defines them all in the same simplistic way. Honbicot 08:18, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete agreeing with nearly all above. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete polls indicate this category now contains some 67% of Americans (not to mention 90-some% of the rest of the world). Useless category.--csloat 11:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete useless, overbroad category. Postdlf 15:41, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Intangible 20:44, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No clear criteria. Potentially much too large. -Will Beback 22:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete would need to include every democrat, and every non-US statesman (except) Blair. Alternatively, merge with Category:Living persons--Doc 00:26, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Untrue! Not every Democrat is necessarily a critic of Bush, nor is every foreign statesman (minus Blair) a critic of Bush. Such generalizations are useless as arguments for deletion. StudierMalMarburg 14:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:User sae

Category:User sae (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs) *Delete - This is an empty English language Wikipedian category. There is no description explaining what this category is or what is supposed to be in it. Cswrye 15:34, 3 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dean Castle

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding 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 speedy deleted. the wub "?!" 11:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Dean Castle (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

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.

Category:National Artist of the Philippines

Category:National Artist of the Philippines to Category:National Artists of the Philippines

A notice of this discussion has been added to Filipino Wikipedians notice board. --Howard the Duck 14:00, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Anti Iraq War activists

Category:Anti Iraq War activists (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Comment there were four Americans in it and the previous pope. I moved the Americans to the right category and the previous pope did not meet the criteria (the criterion is that one should come from a country that was part of the coalition of the willing; the previous pope the political leader of a country which is not part of the coalition of the willing). Hence the category was empty and had become useless. - C mon 18:40, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Cities and Towns in the Jervis Bay Territory

Category:Cities and Towns in the Jervis Bay Territory to Category:Towns and villages in the Jervis Bay Territory

Category:Blasians

Category:Blasians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Articles needing sources

Category:Articles needing sources (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Improper Depopulation of this Category Prior to the Closure of the Discussion

In this edit Jyril removed this category from Template:Unreferenced, and the removal was not immediately reverted. Indeed, because of an apparent delay in categorization after restoring the category to the template, I was unable to get the template to apply this category to several pages that I had recently added the template to. In light of the fact that the depopulation of the category concealed the existence of the discussion to some extent, it is questionable whether this category should be deleted as a result of this CFD nomination. John254 16:13, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

    • Not as questionable as the fact that it was recreated after an entirely proper deletion. Choalbaton 20:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • If the category really were improperly created as a recreation of a previously deleted category, it could have been speedily deleted under CSD G4. The fact that there is a discussion over the proposed deletion would seem to indicate a need to avoid preemption of the discussion by depopulating the category before the discussion has concluded. John254 22:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, This is a recreation of one of the two self-referential sources categories which have recently been deleted (see Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21 for one of the debates, but I am having difficulty locating the other), and should therefore be instantly speedy deleted. It is just a pain for the millions of non-editing users, especially as it appears at the head of the list of categories. This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed. Many other reasons for deletion were given in the previous debates. The allegation that deleting this is some sort of cover up is completely spurious as there is no proposal to delete the template. Chicheley 11:17, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is also completely redundant because as Kbdank71 has pointed out below one can find out which articles need sources based upon {{fact}}, by a different method here.
I believe the other debate you're looking for is Category:Articles with unsourced statements, which was apparently a johnny-come-lately change to Template:Fact to distinguish it from Template:Sources. -- nae'blis 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Osomec 13:42, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I happen to think CFD got it wrong on this one. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of articles using this category because of the associated templates. While it SHOULD be subcategorized by month and year, so we can deal with long-standing problems first and thus clear the backlog, sweeping the problem "under the rug" doesn't make our sourcing problems go away. I'm inclined to agree with the person who said that {{fact}} should have a blinking neon background, because the uglier it is, the more likely people are to fix it. Chicheley should also probably mention that he instigated the other two deletion discussions. -- nae'blis 14:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • The same old arguments don't get better with repitition. It is risible to say that I am "sweeping the problem under the rug" because I am not proposing deletion of the template. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I wasn't in the first debate about this, and I apologize if you thought I was trying to get a rise out of you. I just think this is not the way to go about dealing with established cleanup methods (for instance, this does nothing about the templates themselves, or how to deal with the backlogs). -- nae'blis 22:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as re-creation of deleted category. --Usgnus 14:43, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This is populated by the {{fact}} template, one of the most useful maintenance tags on Wikipedia. Chicheley claims "This damages navigability and makes Wikipedia look sloppy and Wikipedians look self-absorbed." Wrong, wrong, wrong. What makes Wikipedia look sloppy is when people don't cite all their sources and we leave it unmarked, making it look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened. The most important thing we can all do as Wikipedians is make the articles accurate. --M@rēino 15:05, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • That just makes no sense because I am not repeat not, get that not, saying that the problem should be left unmarked. I can't comprehend how you can think that the absence of this category makes it "look like we've done a thorough check on the article when nothing of the sort has happened", that statement is just utterly, utterly nonsensical. Please try to stand back and look at Wikipedia from an outsider's perspective. The tens of millions of casual readers want Wikipedia to be user friendly, and if it is, some of them might contribute. If it just looks like a mess that is run by by club members for their own amusement, they are less likely to bother to help us. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Why is this category a problem, when Category:Wikipedia articles needing factual verification and Category:Wikipedia articles needing clarification exist and are populated with hundreds of articles? Not to mention Category:1911 Britannica articles needing updates, Category:Wikipedia articles needing copy edit, Category:Self-contradictory articles, etc. I don't understand the dichotomy here; YES, we need to address our obsession with templates and our massive backlogs, but I don't see how deleting the category furthers that goal. -- nae'blis 15:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • All of the self-referential categories should go, but one has to start somewhere. This one is egregious because it is huge, it interferes with category navigation from many high profile articles, and it cannot be moved from the top of the list of categories because it is added by a template that is added to the main text. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Despite this category's size I feel that it is needed because it is a good way of looking for pages that need to have any information that needs to be sourced and confirmed. -Adv193 15:35, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep part of the dispute resolution system; for those who wish to redesign that system, the policy pages are third door on the left. Septentrionalis 19:34, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • There is a rising trend for people who don't like results on this page to say that it is not the proper place to tackle categorisation issues, but it is called "categories for discussion" and it is the right place. Chicheley 20:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The category was never emptied, and recreated due to extant redlinks, no doubt. CFD, RFD, SFD, and TFD all suffer from a fair amount of isolation, because unlike AFD, you don't generally see the notice in your normal everyday browsing. Such a major change as getting rid of all self-referential categories needs to be discussed in a broader forum, IMO. Note that I am not in disagreement with you that something needs to be done, whether it's a metadata namespace or subcategorization of the major cleanup templates, I just am disputing that this was the way to do it (akin to nominating an existing policy for deletion on MFD). -- nae'blis 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Lots of doubt actually, because that isn't how it works. It is frustrating that so many people who pronounce on this page don't understand how categories work. When a category added by a template is deleted it does not, repeat does not create red links. The category was recreated because someone had a bad idea, that is all. Chicheley 22:38, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete obviously as recreation. Hawkestone 19:52, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as recreation. If people need to know what articles need sources based upon {{fact}}, here you go. --Kbdank71 20:10, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Whatlinkshere has serious technical limitations; it's not alphabetized or sortable by namespace, it will link to (for example) this discussion or any place in which Template:fact is linked to, including instructional uses like {{tl|fact}}; conversely it may miss usage of {{citation needed}} or {{cn}}. I have heard[citation needed] that Whatlinkshere only goes up to 1000 links, but I'm not sure on that one. -- nae'blis 22:30, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep: Verifiability is paramount. To maintain even the tiniest shred of credibility we should—we must make clear to the public which articles can be considered "safe" and which ones may still be dubious (really dubious ones should meet eternity in the Hell of Bad Articles). In this light, any argument regarding navigability and such seems so useless. It is true, however, that this category SHOULD NOT exist, as there should be NO article that qualifies inclusion.--JyriL talk 21:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Probably not useful because of its size; however, as John254 pointed out, editing can become problematic if there is no other way to list unreferenced articles. If this category will be deleted, I STRONGLY suggest figuring out better ways to keeping track on these articles. Until then, keeping this category may be better than nothing.--JyriL talk 21:12, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as recreation, useless and redundant. Anyone who thinks that an article is "safe" because it is not in such a category needs a few lessons on research methods. Golfcam 22:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure, but it shows that at least the articles listed in this category are to be treated with suspicion. Better system is definitely needed, but this could be a momentary solution.--JyriL talk 00:12, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Olborne 23:24, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. Casper Claiborne 00:25, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • KeepI see no reason to delete it. I think it can help users find articles that needs sources and they might know some sources that needs it.--Scott3 01:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This battle has already been waged. The keep side lost. Doczilla 07:34, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete If deletion decisions can be ignored we will have anarchy. Honbicot 08:19, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I just added a precise category and an unreferenced tag to an article. I am now going to remove the unreferenced tag to clear this category from it so the precise category receives due prominence. Nonomy 08:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Since, technically, nearly EVERY article would likely end up in this category, after one edit or another. {{fact}} is better used as an alert to editors and readers in specific articles, than as a voluminous list. - Jc37 10:48, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete I agree this is not valuable. Wimstead 13:45, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as per last time. ReeseM 22:24, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The following excerpts from the debate at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 July 21#Category:Articles lacking sources are worth reproducing here:
    • What we really need is a choice between "editing mode" and "reading mode", but on the whole Wikipedia's presentation is skewed towards the needs of editors, which can make it look rather scrappy. Most people don't edit anyway, but they might donate if their experience is optimised. Carina22 17:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Not useful to readers. Athenaeum 13:51, 22 July 2006 (UTC)
    • It's a pain when the first four or five categories at the bottom of the article are non subject matter related, so having one less of these administrative categories would be useful. More could be deleted too, in particular all of those related to sources, eg 1911 Britannica. Cloachland 00:42, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • Some of us use this category, which is a maintenance category, to help fill in gaps in sourcing in articles....FearÉIREANN 23:55, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • If there was a means of hiding this from all users apart from those who requested to see it, then it would be fine, but as things stand it is category clutter. Golfcam 02:40, 23 July 2006 (UTC)
    • "Not a help for readers" isn't a convincing argument for deletion, since there are plenty of categories used throughout wikipedia which facilitate the work of editors. ... The category serves the important role that most of the subcategories of Category:Wikipedia maintenance do, which is to help editors improve wikipedia. Kayaker 00:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC).
    • Ideally all the maintenance categories should be deleted, or at least hidden by default, but I have nominated this one because it is the very worst I have seen. Chicheley 03:54, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
    • The arguments deployed for this deletion could be replicated (equally erroneously) for deleting all articlespace maintenance templates and categories (including dispute and controversy notices, stub tags, etc). Alai 21:22, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • [I]t may be that all article maintenance and template categories can be deleted. Merchbow 22:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
    • [T]he rationale of this CFD applies to every meta-category, and is in no way particular to this one, which strongly suggests to me that this is more sensibly the realm of centralised discussion and guideline creation, rather than "picking off stranglers". Alai 01:56, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I reproduce these comments here because they support the case that this CFD is just another instance of the ongoing debate about what categories are for and how should MediaWiki present categories of interest to editors (e.g. Category:Wikipedia maintenance) rather than readers. If you read Wikipedia:Categorization guidelines and the Wikipedia:Categorization FAQ, you'd get the impression that categories are only for readers; that fact, and the comments above could imply that the real vote we need to have here is whether to recursively remove everything under Category:Wikipedia administration. 66.167.138.118 12:17, 13 August 2006 (UTC).[reply]

Category:Personal lubricants

Category:Personal lubricants (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Category:Diversity

Category:Diversity (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_11&oldid=69868434"