Jump to content

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 30

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 29 August 31 >

August 30

[edit]

Category:Wikipedia vandals and all remaining subpages

[edit]
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 delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia vandals (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Comment - It seems to be a consensus as nearly all of the vandal subpages have been deleted.--Lorrainier 05:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment an act of deletion, unfortunately, can be done without concensus. I would be interested in seeing where a list of such concensus exists. - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Not from this vantage point there isn't. Stirling Newberry 10:24, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Can you tell me what use this actually, specifically, is? What use is it in tracking vandals? How is it actually used? Do you use is, and to what end? --Doc 00:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment to Ryan Delaney - I know that there was recently a nomination to delete the Counter-Vandalism Unit, and there is currently a nomination to undelete it. I'm not sure if that's what Lorrainier was referring to, but if it is, there are quite a few editors who question whether or not that constituted consensus. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I have used Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts during one of my past encounters with a vandal, and I can see how it (along with the similar categories for vandals) could be helpful to others. Guidelines are good at telling you how to handle vandals, but sometimes it can be beneficial to see the actual process that was taken against one. If an argument develops about what constitutes vandalism, seeing some precedents can help make a point against it. In my case, I looked at some of the users that were blocked in the past to see what type of vandalism they were doing and the types of warnings and blocks they received. By looking at some of their edits, I could see what constituted serious vandalism (such as what might require the {{blatantvandal}} warning) and minor vandalism. I could also see how this might help look for patterns of vandalism since many vandals target certain types of pages. There may be some things that "glorify" vandalism, I don't think that a category (which does nothing more than list the vandal's name) really does that. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - once all of the subpages are deleted/transfered, it will be an empty category.--Lorrainier 05:38, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
So you are saying keep this one, because I once used a different one. Perhaps you can enlighten me how did the category of 8000+ names help you in you r encounter with a vandal. What new information did it give in "see the actual process that was taken against one"? WP:VANDALISM lists the types of vandalism which I would suggest is far better use of time than working through 8000+ entries in a category to see if something is similar to vandalism someone else did. --pgk(talk) 06:18, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Lorrainier, if the project pages in this category are deleted, this category should be deleted as well. My reasoning would still apply to the other categories up for deletion though (I linked them to this one so I wouldn't have to rewrite my argument multiple times). pgk, I didn't look through all 8,000 entries, of course. I only looked at about ten or so to see some examples. If the category is gone, I would have no way to look at any of them unless I just happened to remember the name of a previous vandal. Yes, WP:VANDALISM is good, but again, actually seeing how a vandal was handled (maybe even seeing mistakes that were made by others so you don't repeat them) is also good. --Cswrye 13:53, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ok so how did you know which 10 to look at which were going to be similar to the situation you faced? If you are saying that the specifics weren't important just the general "process" wouldn't it be better to enhance WP:VANDALISM to give worked examples rather than relying on people getting lucky? --pgk(talk) 17:51, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It was just a random selection. I know that's not a representative sample, but combined with WP:VANDALISM, it told me what I needed to know. I'm all in favor of enhancing WP:VANDALISM as much as possible, but I don't think it can replace seeing the actual behavior of vandals and the people who stop them. It's like the difference between reading something in a textbook and seeing it done through a job shadow or internship. Both have advantages, and there are things you can learn from one that you can't learn from the other. Another thing to keep in mind is that different people may interpret Wikipedia policies and guidelines differently. What one person considers obvious vandalism may not be considered vandalism at all by another. That's the reality of human nature, and no changes made to WP:VANDALISM will ever overcome that. A lot of decisions made on Wikipedia are based on precedents, and a seeing the actual actions that were taken against a vandal can help users in their interpretation of the policy. There's value in knowing what NOT to do as well as what we should do. --Cswrye 22:39, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
OK, well I'm not personally convinced that you can extract any useful information that way, but assuming you can would you not agree a category consisting of 1000's of examples and growing is excessive? --pgk(talk) 22:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
No one's going to look through every entry, but I'm not sure of a good way to pick and choose which entries to keep to use as examples. I'm not convinced that it hurts anything to have them there, and it could potentially be helpful. --Cswrye 23:59, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well I guess we'll have to differ, I look through the list of deletes here and see many people involved in anti-vandalism work for a long time, and in my own experience I've never once refered to this category when dealing with vandalism. I was hoping you'd come back and give me something solid to work on but you seem to be saying that you randomly clicked on 10 and luckily found something useful to the situation you were looking at. --pgk(talk) 06:37, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete per User:The Anome. Naconkantari 15:05, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all categories in the "vandal hall of fame". --kingboyk 16:30, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • STRONG Delete on wheels! per all the "delete" votes above. -- FrostytheSnowman 'sup? 16:57, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why is everyone so keen on denying recognition? From what I can tell, it's an essay. If people have reached consensus to follow its principles, then make it an accepted policy. Until then, it's just an onofficial, crappy essay. And in the words of Cswrye, There may be some things that "glorify" vandalism, I don't think that a category (which does nothing more than list the vandal's name) really does that. SoaP 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per The Anome - it's making too many imitators. Unless the vandal is created by the IP who was the vandal, just delete the category. Bigtop 20:07, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some users are so dangerous that they can put the encyclopedia into major trouble. One of them is Primetime. He has a subpage here, and he keeps inserting copyvios from other encyclopedias. If people don't know what was going on, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Compton's, and our other competitors will jump at the opportunity to shut Wikipedia down in a court of law, and then go back to selling encyclopedias that are unaffordable to many of us. Another one (which was removed from this category so that it would not be deleted if this category got deleted) dealt with the Anonymex vandal gang. Wiktionary had a similar vandal known as Wonderfool. He attacked Wiktionary in the same manner this vandal gang is rumored to be trying to do by creating a sockpuppet which became an administrator, and then used his admin powers to block the other administrators and go on a rampage which included unblocking Willy on Wheels among other users. Wiktionary could not do a thing to stop this because the only steward was on an airplane at the time of the rampage, going home from WikiMania. A developer eventually had to manually tweak the database to remove his sysop flag to stop him. He did this because he was once an administrator at Wiktionary who was desysopped after going on a similar rampage. He seemingly reformed, but no one wanted to grant him sysop tools due to his earlier rampage. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot afford to delete this category due to the potential of a few vandals to possibly ruin Wikipedia. Some did not merit pages, because they did not pose major threats to Wikipedia like Willy on Wheels, the Communism vandal, and MascotGuy, but losing track of vandals like Primetime can get Wikipedia shut down. This category should be reserved for vandals who are believed to present a truly mortal danger to Wikipedia and those that are very hard to spot like Headley Down. Jesse Viviano 16:00, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, I agree that not all vandals vandalize for attention. I would like to keep the subpages of particularly serious vandals. -- FrostytheSnowman 'sup? 18:59, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Dang it. I forgot to name the sleeper account Wonderfool used. It was Dangherous. "Dangherous" exists in Wikipedia and is a sleeper account that tried to become an administrator here, and has not been blocked yet. See this for how this sleeper tried to become an administrator here, and this and this on what this sleeper did on Wiktionary. Jesse Viviano 20:03, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a vandal would ever be granted adminship tools. Sure, it happened over at wikitonary, but IIRC, at Wikipedia, it's physically possible for an admin unblock themselves (though it's not allowed). -- Selmo (talk) 20:04, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Wonderfool never vandalized until he became an administrator on Wiktionary. It is just a shame for somebody with this user's acting skills to waste them on Wiktionary (and attempt to do so as Dangherous here) instead of using them as a spy for the CIA to infiltrate terrorist groups like Al Qaeda. Jesse Viviano 21:38, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry for the off-topic bit here, but this needs to be said: If someone, in trying to "get Wikipedia", does hundreds of good, useful edits, in order to build up enough trust to become an admin, then "attacks" by deleting the main page and unblocking some already abandoned sockpuppets, I'm sorry, but Wikipedia "won". Undeleting the main page is trivial, and re-blocking the sockpuppets is too. Something like Primetime's quiet addition of copyvios is a real danger, or an admin who quietly screwed with things might be, but a "rampage", unless done by a developer with shell access, is fundamentally a triviality. If more than a few good edits were made, the encyclopedia won. People seem to forget this. JesseW, the juggling janitor 23:59, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Useful for what? Keeping them organized? All we do is block throw-away accounts like Willy on Wheels socks, so why should we keep giving them attention for thier disruption? — The Future 01:34, 4 September 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.

All subcategories of Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts that list Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked in DATE OR during or prior to DATE

[edit]
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 delete --Kbdank71 15:22, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

? This is a category. What useful information is in the category which isn't in the block log? (Note this isn't about not having a note on the user page/talk page saying indefinitely blocked, it is about categorising those pages). --pgk(talk) 06:42, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The ability for an overworked admin to find such information. Sockpuppet attackers rely on "security through obscurity". I was just blocked in an edit war with a socket puppet serial harrasser, simply because the very well meaning admin couldn't find the information needed to see that it was a known sockpuppet range. The deletionists here are protecting sockpuppets and assorted other problem people. We've already reached the point where recognition is given to persistent trolls - see GNAA if you need proof. Stirling Newberry 10:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cswrye. 1ne 07:41, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Why is everyone so keen on denying recognition? From what I can tell, it's an essay. If people have reached consensus to follow its principles, then make it an accepted policy. Until then, it's just an onofficial, crappy essay. And in the words of Cswrye, There may be some things that "glorify" vandalism, I don't think that a category (which does nothing more than list the vandal's name) really does that. SoaP 16:04, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
What I'd like to know is why you're so against others wanting to deny recognition.--Lorrainier 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Bigtop 21:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. My reasoning is not based on WP:DENY. Simply put, nobody has expressed a useful purpose for these categories. I do not think they do much harm, either, but they are a stupid form of instuction creep: these category's very existence implies that an indef-blocked user that hasn't been slapped with the right tag to be put into one of these cats hasn't been "properly handled" yet. Also, one must worry about making sure you've put them into the right dated category, etc. It's a bunch silly hoops that a lot of strange people (at least one of whom checkuser has shown to be a vandal themself) seem eager to jump through, and nobody has pointed to one blessed thing it actually does for the encyclopedia. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:55, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I think that the templates that are put on a blocked user's userpage will automatically put them into this category. If they don't and this category is kept, I would recommend changing the templates so that they do. With that in place, there wouldn't be an extra steps to go through to put a blocked user into the appropriate category. --Cswrye 22:11, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • The templates do, but what makes you think we need to create a user page and subst: a template on it when we block User:BunchofgrapesDrinksFetuses or some other blatant, vandalism-only account with a handful of edits? See, the templates are part of the same package of instruction-creep goods, and the category has you thinking they are a requirement. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 22:35, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Some users are so dangerous that they can put the encyclopedia into major trouble. One of them is Primetime. He has a subpage here, and he keeps inserting copyvios from other encyclopedias. If people don't know what was going on, Encyclopaedia Britannica, Compton's, and our other competitors will jump at the opportunity to shut Wikipedia down in a court of law, and then go back to selling encyclopedias that are unaffordable to many of us. Another one (which was removed from this category so that it would not be deleted if this category got deleted) dealt with the Anonymex vandal gang. Wonderfool attacked Wiktionary in the same manner this vandal gang is rumored to be trying to do by creating a sockpuppet which became an administrator, and then used his admin powers to block the other administrators and go on a rampage which included unblocking Willy on Wheels among other users. Wiktionary could not do a thing to stop this because the only steward was on an airplane at the time of the rampage. A developer had to manually tweak the database to remove his sysop flag to stop him. He did this because he was once an administrator at Wiktionary who was desysopped after going on a similar rampage. He seemingly reformed, but no one wanted to grant him sysop tools due to his earlier rampage. Therefore, Wikipedia cannot afford to delete this category due to the potential of a few vandals. Some did not merit pages, because they did not pose major threats to Wikipedia like Willy on Wheels, but losing track of vandals like Primetime can get Wikipedia shut down. Jesse Viviano 01:01, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand what your arguments have to do with the categories in question -- ones like Category:Wikipedia users indefinitely blocked in August 2006. Could you explain? —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 03:06, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oops! I mistakenly put this vote on the wrong category. Striking through my vote. I seem to be very mistake prone lately. Jesse Viviano 15:42, 2 September 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.

Category:Indefinitely blocked Wikipedia accounts

[edit]
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 delete --Kbdank71 15:03, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please be specific, if you can show how that would be practically useful I will change my vote. --Doc 10:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the block log is a far more accurate method of record keeping. --pgk(talk) 17:52, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - so you're saying that you want vandals to be glorified?--Lorrainier 22:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Either with you guys or against you guys, eh? 1ne 06:06, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - see my reasoning above. These categories in all their multitudes are confusing and create the mistaken impression that there are required processes one needs to follow after blocking User:JimboWalesEatsInfantSpleens. —Bunchofgrapes (talk) 21:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename to Indefinitely blocked IP addresses, and remove all registered accounts from it. Some IP addresses are blocked indefinitely, and need to be unblocked someday. People change ISPs, move, and die. We need to make it easy for someone to know which IPs are blocked due to a reason other than being open proxies, and eventually remove them. It would be nearly impossible to find such addresses otherwise without a bot to read the IP block list, to check to see if the block was done because the IP was an open proxy, and then print out the results. Jesse Viviano 00:46, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't think that there are really any non-open proxy/zombie computer IP's on that list. I could be wrong though. —Mets501 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Here is an example of an indefinitely blocked address: User:24.174.10.231 Jesse Viviano 03:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - 100% useless —Mets501 (talk) 23:41, 2 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No more troll feeding. — The Future 18:36, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to the banner at the top: "This is a top-level category. Pages should not be placed directly into this category, which groups subcategories of users that have been indefinitely blocked from editing." Therefore, Empty of pages, but Retain it as the top-level category for the subcats, since it is useful. - Jc37 22:25, 3 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think the "top level categories" are being put up for deletion too, which all the "top level categories" do is organize the other categories for deletion. — The Future 01:37, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Whether they are or not has nothing to do with this CfD. If it turns out that concensus wishes to delete ALL the sub categories, then put this up for CfD again, and in that case, it would likely be Speedied. But in the meantime, I think it should remain as the top category for the sub cats. - jc37 20:55, 6 September 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.

Category:Wikipedia inappropriate username blocks

[edit]
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 delete --Kbdank71 20:26, 8 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Username blocks don't go into a great rationale. If you think something needs a username block I doubt anyway searches through the 8500+ names in this category to find one similar to see if they can justify it. Using a sledge hammer to crack a walnut seems the analogy here, why not look at WP:USERNAME to see if it could be considered inappropriate? That's somewhat smaller lists the high level cases complete with rationales, 1000 times more useful --pgk(talk) 06:23, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Were not here so you can get a good laugh. Because we can find them in Special:Listusers is more the reason to delete the useless categories. — The Future 01:41, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - For humor, visit Wikipedia:Blocked users with bizarre usernames (once it is restored).--Lorrainier 22:16, 1 September 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.

Category:Wikipedians interested in coin collecting or numismatics to Category:Wikipedians who collect coins

[edit]
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 rename. Runcorn 19:14, 9 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I thought I'd listed this for renaming on this page, but I obviously hadn't, as pointed out by an admin and a member of the category. Here's a "relisting" to match all categories of category:Wikipedians interested in collecting.--Mike Selinker 15:30, 30 August 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.

Category:Piacenza F.C. players

[edit]
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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 15:00, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piacenza F.C. players to Category:Piacenza Calcio players

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:Piacenza F.C.

[edit]

Category:Piacenza F.C. to Category:Piacenza Calcio

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 rename. Runcorn 19:08, 9 September 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.

Category:Wikipedia blocked imposters and all subcategories

[edit]
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 delete --Kbdank71 20:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, most of these are not imposters but boring trolls. User:(21:06:15) ***bumm13 has no friends IRL, basically or User:JoanneB sucks the chrome off Jake Remington's trailer hitch are hardly likely to be mistaken for the real things. These attack accounts are created by unrelated individuals and there is no point to lumping them together or categorising them at all (see also WP:DENY and the debate below at below) --Doc 08:17, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Striking because the IP commented again below. — The Future 01:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Few of these are convincing imposters - most are just abusive trolling names. The ones that have edited a bit, and who might be confused for the genuine article can have 'imposter' marked on their userpage - but you make no case for categories.--Doc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - See my reasoning above. --Cswrye 02:47, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"help distinguish the real users from the imposters", if the imposters have been indefinitely blocked why does this help? Isn't that fact that they have very few edits and got indefinitely blocked a bit of a give away? --pgk(talk) 06:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Contributions like this will be discounted, unless they explain how it is userful for that purpose. Assertions without reason do not convince. --Doc 14:44, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Well, I'm not convinced by your reasoning, either. This category is useful because WP:AIV often works by looking for patterns. Remember, a blocked user can come back simply by creating a new user name. If that new user's first edit looks like vandalism, maybe it's a previously blocked vandal, or maybe it's an innocent newcomer who didn't know about the sandbox. How can we tell? Often, it's by following the pattern established by previously blocked accounts. --M@rēino 22:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • You seem to be somewhat confused as to what this category is, it is blocked imposters no need to look for past patterns relating to vandalism, if someone is an imposter of a legitimate account then it gets blocked. Perhaps you can give me a real (as opposed to abstract example) of when you have used one of these lists to list someone on WP:AIV ? (In my copy of the database dump from 16/8/2006 I can't see you having ever edited WP:AIV, I'll double check later to make sure I haven't made a mistakeIndeed I had made a mistake, I'll look through them later and see if I can track down examples where this category may have been useful--pgk(talk) 09:37, 31 August 2006 (UTC)) --pgk(talk) 06:48, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I've been through the fifteen reports I have found you made to WP:AIV prior to 16/8/2006, majority are IP addresses engaged in simple vandalism, couple of dodgy usernames (Shitmaster 5 and Vandalizer3) and one posting an admins phone number (I guess the alkivar troll). No mention of being impostors against any of them or suspecting that they are the same as one of these imposters, so I'm at a loss to work out how this category is helping you in fighting vandalism. --pgk(talk) 18:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Addhoc 14:22, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. These categories serve no useful purpose other than boost the egos of the users being impersonated. Bastique▼parler voir 14:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, more trouble than they are worth. Tom Harrison Talk 15:18, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete All per WP:DENY. Naconkantari 15:43, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete - the less recognition this idiotic vandals receive, the better, dammit!--Lorrainier 16:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAREHOUSE isn't a policy either. — The Future 01:43, 4 September 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.

Category:Political_Critics_of_George_W._Bush

[edit]
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 delete --Kbdank71 14:59, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please delete. It's basically a vacuous category getting added to a lot of Democratic politicians like Kennedy, Kerry, Dean, Gore, etc. Are we to name every Democratic party office holder here? Do we then also list them as Critics of Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda as well? The point is that _obviously_ they are critics, they are in the _opposition_ party. Now, Republican critics might be a useful category, or foreign critics. But this is silly. Derex 08:07, 30 August 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.

Category:Wikipedia navigation templates

[edit]
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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:56, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Wikipedia navigation templates to Category:Interwiki category linking templates

  • 'Rename'
These are part of the sister projects interwiki sharing and linking in compliance with WP:Btw, I guess, and a direct spin-off of the Maps recategorization project ongoing on the commons along with all the consequent image retagging. The templates tie the two sister spaces together, along with some forthcoming links that do the same for a small set of other sister's categories.
Moreover, this is not a good name off en.wp, particularly on the commons, for many people on those other sister's bemoan the chaotic-seeming give and take (and trolls and edit warring, and picyune discussions about not much) and so prefer not to be here. I can hear some people there grind their teeth every time they read this current name on the commons. <g>
   A) Retagging Can not be done by BOT, it messed up the template logic back in June.
   B) The good news is the tagging is automatically done by the few control templates, so the hand editing is simple when you know where to look.
    You get the cat moved, and I'll move the contents by fixing the templates. (What a deal!) // FrankB 08:13, 30 August 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.

Category:UCL alumni

[edit]
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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:University College London alumni. -- ProveIt (talk) 03:17, 30 August 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.

Category:Notable fencers

[edit]
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 rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 14:50, 11 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Notable fencers into Category:Fencers

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:Slaves of the Musilm world

[edit]
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 delete CSD G7 - author's request, category empty. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 08:24, 30 August 2006 (UTC) Category:Slaves of the Musilm world (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)[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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_30&oldid=1136104992"