Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 March 24

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. Syrthiss 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

rename. sub-category pages listed here are of both ethnic and national origins. its too POV (and pointless, i say) to differeniate between origins by ethnicity and origins by country Mayumashu 04:09, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:53, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Consistency with all the other Macintosh categories. Dread Lord CyberSkull ✎☠ 01:35, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I wholeheartedly agree, there is a category named "Windows Games" and everyone knows that Windows is only for PCs so "Mac OS" makes sense because only Apple computers use that. Change it if you like. Yumpizza 15:17, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:52, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(because the main article about this group is Chabad-Lubavitch with the hyphen in its name) and to match with all the others (in the master category of Category:Hasidic dynasties) such as Category:Satmar Hasidism; Category:Ger Hasidism; Category:Bobov Hasidism etc. IZAK 21:31, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from speedy after question. Vegaswikian 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Not sure if this fulfils the criteria for speedy-renaming... Regards, David Kernow 21:41, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? "Chabad Lubavitch" would be corrected to "Chabad-Lubavitch" with the hyphen (as explained above), and they are a Hasidic dynasty (part of the master category Category:Hasidic dynasties) like all the others in it that have "____ Hasidism" in their category's name. I do not see the difficulty nor why you object. Can you explain yourself more clearly? ("Not sure" is not good enough #:-}) IZAK 22:20, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Apologies if my comment appeared to be an objection; it was not meant that way. Perhaps my understanding of the speedy-renaming criteria is defective. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:32, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hi David: Absolutely no need for any "apologies" either, this is all in a day's work at Wikipedia. Thanks again. IZAK 06:36, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. An obvious change, should be speedied. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question Does this have any affect on which kind of articles will subsequently be included in this Category? Shlomke 03:25, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Answer: The change will have absolutely no effect on any articles or categories that related to Chabad-Lubavitch, (why should it?) Your question is unfounded and I am curious to know if you could explain the basis of your concern/s in greater detail please. Thanks. IZAK 06:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Thats cool, Its only Your first edit on Wikipedia and you already know this place better then me (Unles of course its not your first edit, in which case I might get curious about why you didnt use your username). In any case thanks for the answer, I thought so too but wasn't sure. Shlomke 05:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ooops it was me, I got "timed out" by Wikipedia and didn't notice it till now ... IZAK 06:30, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support Consistency is a necessity in an encyclopedia. -- Avi 17:01, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:50, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after comments. Vegaswikian 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(to match new cat Category:George W. Bush administration controversies, tho now I wonder if both should be capital "A"dministration) --Syrthiss 12:50, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• I'd say not unless "Clinton Administration", "George W. Bush Administration", etc. are indeed proper nouns, i.e. officially used. Regards, David Kernow 16:14, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Support. Vegaswikian 22:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support. I'm not too sure myself, but most of the newspapers, including the NYT, seem have the lowercase in these Google News results. ×Meegs 23:15, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete POV no objective criteria for what is included or not included in this category so it has no meaning other than POV. Carlossuarez46 23:26, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename. Syrthiss 15:49, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

to be consistent with Category:Reform Jewish day schools, Category:Modern Orthodox Jewish day schools etc. IZAK 03:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved here from speedy after questions. Vegaswikian 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Objection. Doesn't qualify as a speedy. Osomec 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why not? They are all part of the master category Category:Jewish day schools. IZAK 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Then again... I think people are noticing that you're adding words to the category name, IZAK, hence their saying that your recent proposals don't qualify for speedy-renaming; that's all. Best wishes, David Kernow 01:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hi David: I don't know what you mean by "adding words" -- isn't that the point of "renaming"? Now, please know that I am NOT "making up" names (i.e. I am not "plucking" random words out of the thin air -- I am being very careful and precise.) I am providing the correct names and terminology that these schools are known by in their known fields (which perhaps may seem a little uncertain to outsiders, but is all very reliable to people familiar with this subject), that's all. Thanks for your care though, it's important to ensure "quality control" at all times. IZAK 06:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

IZAK, so far, nobody has opposed the proposed renaming. They have, however, noted that your request does not meet the speedy renaming criteria. Please familiarize yourself with the criteria before making further nominations. That said, I agree with the proposal. Support. - EurekaLott 21:57, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. An obvious change, should be speedied. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:01, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was rename all. Syrthiss 15:48, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Elementary schools in Georgia → Category:Elementary schools in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:High schools in Georgia → Category:High schools in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Universities and colleges in Georgia → Category:Universities and colleges in Georgia (U.S. state)
• Category:Georgia school stubs → Category:Georgia (U.S. state) school stubs
• Category:School districts in Georgia → Category:School districts in Georgia (U.S. state)

132.205.46.156 22:01, 22 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Moved from speedy after objection. Vegaswikian 22:21, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Objection These aren't eligible for speedy renaming. Osomec 14:29, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Support. Does the one for the stub need to go the WP:WSS project for their approval? Vegaswikian 22:35, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tedchnically, yes... in this case, though, since it's one of a batch up for renaming at the same time, it's probably as well handled here. I'll post a note at WP talk:SFD. Grutness...wha? 01:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note, though, if this move vote is passed, that stubs are placed in the category via template, so the template will need to be edited and all articles will require a subsequent null-edit. Grutness...wha? 05:40, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I thought there was a bot running to deal with the null edits. Vegaswikian 21:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • True - all I'm saying is that this should be remembered when the category is changed. It's easy to forget that categories populated via templates work differently. Grutness...wha? 01:37, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support The country should be given primacy. Osomec 00:27, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Support as disambiguation needed. David Kernow 17:14, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Note for reference, Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_March_21#Category:Middle_schools_in_Georgia_.28U.S._state.29_to_Category:Middle_schools_in_Georgia was closed as a keep...which sort of spawned this request. --Syrthiss 14:05, 29 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:46, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a silly and highly POV category that may even be offensive. None of the subjects in it had admitted to being "former" anythings! (Indeed there is already Category:Prominent Lubavitchers which is much more neutral.) Will Wikipedia now list Category:Former Reform Jews or Category:Former Hasidim or how about Category:Former Jews etc. as well? The thought of which is hilarious and pathetic if one considers that Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. This category violates the rules of NPOV and Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought and possibly borders on violating Wikipedia:Libel. It should be deleted. IZAK 21:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for above reasons. IZAK 21:19, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment : The category per se seems valid, inasmuch as I can imagine someone who was a Lubovitch Jew becoming something else. The problems might arise if someone is labelled as a "former Lubavitcher" but is still a Lubovitch Jew or at least has not declared that they no longer identify themselves as a Lubovitch Jew. David Kernow 21:34, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Correct, and the problem is compounded that as far as I know, two very prominent rabbis now in this category: Rabbi Shmuley Boteach (very much alive) and Rabbi Shlomo Carlebach (deceased) if they ever definitively categorized themselves as "Former Lubavitchers", on the contrary, they both claim/ed to be continuing with mandates from the original Lubavitch Hasidic Rebbes who ordained them. In the case of Rabbi Carlebach, the article about him in fact says that on his tombstone is engraved that he became a devoted Chabad Hasid of the previous Rebbe. Seems this category was started as a clear POV gripe. Category:Prominent Lubavitchers should suffice, because its name does NOT "judge" the status of that "prominence". IZAK 21:47, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Silly at best, libellous at worst. Jayjg ^(talk) 07:00, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nominator. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 08:03, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Evolver of Borg 08:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IZAK. JFW | T@lk 10:19, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. jnothman ^talk 10:20, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per IZAK. Kuratowski's Ghost 11:43, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Ridiculous and meaningless. Yoninah 12:23, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete this seems like a problem with OR. Who deserves the title of 'former lubavitch'? Someone who specifically says that s/he's former lubavitch, or intelligent analysis of a lifestyle change. If Rabbi Eliyashiv was born to a Chabad mother, does that make him former Chabad? --Shuki 12:40, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete as per nominator --Eliezer | £€åV€ m€ å m€§§åg€ 14:46, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per User:Jayjg. What happens if a "former lubavitcher" recants and becomes lubavitch again? Will there be a need for Category:Former Former Lubavitchers? DUH. D'n 16:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Gilgamesh he 17:31, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete w/ extreme prejudice per all of the excellent reasons given above. This is just more of the same ridiculous hyperclassification crap that's spawned the various OR lists, taken to one of its many illogical extremes. Too bad it didn't get deleted the first time. Tomer^talk 17:55, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete current affiliation is one thing, but former affiliation or interest seems rather silly. Is Wikipedia:Played with marbles at age 4-8 the next category??? gidonb 21:38, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. -- Avi
• Delete Per nom Shlomke 03:19, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg | Talk 01:10, 28 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was speedy delete. - EurekaLott 22:26, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The original author made a typo in the name, it should have been Calumet County. I moved the only article to the correct category Category:Calumet County. *Delete nom by Royalbroil 16:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete empty cat Where ^(talk) 20:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete, it seems. David Kernow 01:38, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete per David. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy faster why isn't it done yet? ;-) Tomer^talk 17:58, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Online communities are virtual communities, and while actually a subset, the terms are used 100% interchangeably. Avi 15:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as nom. -- Avi 15:42, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete online communities cat; it is empty Where ^(talk) 20:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per above. --Khoikhoi 05:24, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was no consensus. Syrthiss 15:41, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to lack any real amount of articles, with no forseeable improvement any time soon. Articles all fit well into other categories as well. Delete - The DJ 03:18, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Rename to Category:Free-to-air transmission and keep, as this seems a viable distinction from Category:Free-to-view transmission, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by David_Kernow (talk • contribs)

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. Syrthiss 15:38, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A duplicate of category:Women's basketball players. However, that category has only subcategories by league and status, not individuals. The few individuals represented here are already in those subcategories.

• Delete. --Mike Selinker 03:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. ×Meegs 15:55, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. — Dale Arnett 17:24, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Question : Would appreciate clarification as to whether this category is meant to contain people who play "women's basketball" (Category:Women's basketball players) or women who play basketball (Category:Women basketball players, perhaps Category:Female basketball players). Thanks, David Kernow 21:38, 24 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • There really aren't notable coed college or pro leagues, so the two concepts are synonymous here. That said, I have no problem with the final category being named "Female basketball players" if it comes to a vote on that.--Mike Selinker 09:11, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result of the debate was delete. Syrthiss 15:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

POV category. Who defines a "child support recidivist"? What is the academic authority for the term and its definition? Who decides whether an individual case merits this appeallation? How many of these self-identify as "deadbeat dads"? If we can't come up with a less pejorative category than this it would be better to have no category at all. Just zis Guy you know? 12:43, 25 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. ReeseM 02:51, 26 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete; is this category meant to carry anything other articles explaining "deadbeat moms/dads"?  If so, not sure what or how it would be maintained. David Kernow 17:23, 27 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• There were three other entries, one a fictional character and two articles which bordered on outright attacks. Since we don't typically mix living and fictional, and since the term has no obivous authority, I removed them.

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.