Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2006 August 10

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< August 9 August 11 >

August 10[edit]

Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy Notable Persons and 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. the wub "?!" 09:33, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy Notable Persons and Alumni to Category:United States Merchant Marine Academy alumni Cat should be renamed for consistency with other subcats of Category:Alumni by university in the United States. --musicpvm 22:29, 10 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:Fictional unicorns[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 keep. the wub "?!" 09:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Fictional unicorns into Category:unicorns

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:Media groups of the University of Leicester[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. the wub "?!" 09:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Media groups of the University of Leicester (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

  • Delete, currently only contains one entry and the potential for growth isn't exactly great. makomk 18:41, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Chicheley 22:17, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I'd be happy if the one article got zapped too. --kingboyk 17:39, 16 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:Rouge admins[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 no consensus (WP:DRV, here we come!) --Kbdank71 19:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, Per conversation with Cyde, I'm proposing the category for deletion as there is an inherent unencyclopedic nature to the category. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 18:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    For the avoidance of doubt: this is not a joke category, it is a category of administrators who put policy first, and are prepared to take firm action to enforce it. Read between the lines of WP:ROUGE. Many of The Cabal are in this category, including Essjay, The Epopt, Mackensen and David Gerard. And indeed Cyde. Just zis Guy you know? 15:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Between the idea that WP:ROUGE is not a joke and the idea that one has to "read between the lines" (in other words, the jokes) is a very large freakin' shadow of cognitive dissonance. wikipediatrix 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the section could theoretically hold some sort of encyclopedic benefit such that it makes users realize that administrators aren't out to get them and that they have a sense of humor, too, but the category would be unnecessary. Perhaps if it was made into a Wikipedia namespace page that specifically outlines that administrators have a sense of humor too. Cowman109Talk 18:21, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Like WP:ROUGE? - A Man In Bl♟ck (conspire | past ops) 18:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Precisely, in which case this category isn't really necessary, in my opinion. Cowman109Talk 18:23, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I think it's necessary so that we can identify which admins have a sense of humor and which are humorless. No reason why everyone should have to learn the hard way. ;) --M@rēino 19:22, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I don't think it's at all appropriate to suggest that administrators not in the category are humourless. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:30, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • Either that was irony or you just made Ino's point for him :o) Just zis Guy you know? 20:25, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think it's quite appropriate and fitting. Besides, I like the concept. :-) Kim Bruning 23:22, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Cowman, and because I seriously doubt that if a user is so new that they believe admins are out to get them, they're probably not going to know about the Rogue Admins category. I didn't for a while; I initially thought it meant missing admins or something to that effect. Additionally, admins can express their sense of humor in other ways - putting themselves in the Crazy Wikipedians category, their user page, their signature, etc. Srose (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; this category is very important to community-building, and has been around far too long for people to be deleting it withuot a reason other than "unencyclopedic", which is a weasel word. Rename Category:Wikipedia rouge admins to bring into closer conformity with other user cats. --M@rēino 19:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • To elaborate upon my original labelling of the category as being unencylcopedic (which I don't think is a weasel word at all), the category does not help build the encyclopedia in any way. It is not a tool for identifying administrators (there is already a category for that) and the date created has little to do with its encyclopedic nature. It is purely used for humourous purposes, and is very similar to the recently deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" category. I hope this clears things up a bit hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:27, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please elaborate: this is a category for Wikipedia administrators who put policy before process, and are firm in enforcing policy (made clear in WP:ROUGE). What are the similarities with Gangster Wikipeidans? Just zis Guy you know? 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sure thing, I'd be happy to elaborate. From my interpretation of the two categories (that is, the deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" and the "Rouge Admins" categories), both exist(ed) for purely humourous reasons, and as such do not belong in the encyclopedia-building environment that is Wikipedia. I believe precedence has been set many times over, most recently with the "Gangster Wikipedians" category. I spoke to one of the administrators that deleted the "Gangster Wikipedians" category and he agreed that this category should be deleted as well. The "Rouge Admins" category says nothing about putting policy before process. In fact, it states; We promise to block IPs for 61 years, block and protect the talk pages of editors we edit war with, and unprotect the main page on April Fool's day. Again, while this is obviously a joke, it is not appropriate for Wikipedia. It also has the potential to give off the wrong impression about administrators (not just the 38 in the category, but administrators at large) on Wikipedia for those who do not understand the underlying humour. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There are hundreds of user categories that are totally useless and uninteresting (wikipedians who insist on having the word lobster in every article is one example). This one is actually funny and humorous. — Dark Shikari talk/contribs 19:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Then perhaps those should be brought up for CFD as well? Cowman109Talk 20:17, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree with cowman here. So many hours wasted on trivial stuff. The more wikipedia matures, the more wikipedia seem to take on the role of a social club. Jokes are fun but let's not get too distracted from the task at hand. David D. (Talk) 21:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep As per Dark Shikari
  • Keep, rename in line with current naming conventions. Supports an encyclopaedic topic (WP:ROUGE) which has a humorous wrapper around a core of solid policy. Rouge admins are policy wonks. Just zis Guy you know? 20:24, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete if we can delete/merge Category:List of freshwater aquarium plant species, which from below seems to be on the chopping block, then I have no qualms deleting/merging this info. David D. (Talk) 20:56, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • See below. --M@rēino 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • I just noticed that freshwater plants is a bit safer than i had suspected when I wrote the above. Nevertheless, aren't there rules such as 'wikipedia is not a playground' and such? We encourage people to be responsible with their user space but ignore admins messing around with the main space? I suspect that this could be seen as being a little bit hypocritical. What is a rouge admin anyway? Is it a play on words with rogue admin or a reference to blushing? David D. (Talk) 21:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • I just noticed this reference in the picture on the Rouge admin page, "Rouge admins: known either for their uncanny makeup skills or POV-pushers' inability to spell "rogue"". Obviously that answers my question above. I have to say, it was not obvious from scanning the page. David D. (Talk) 21:33, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I can assure you i was not voting to make a wikipoint. i was merely considering its neighbour in this CFD and reflecting that if we can can delete that (freshwater plants), but not rouge, then there is something wrong. As it happens, it seems that freshwater aquatic plants may get a reprieve. I'm still not convinced, however, that the joke category should be maintained. David D. (Talk) 22:34, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Freshwater plants has only two members, and is unlikely to be deleted anyway, more likely to be renamed. Just zis Guy you know? 07:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I hate to appear humorless, but I think that joke categories are a little out of hand. It's not that I'm against having humor on Wikipedia; I just don't think that categories are a very good way of doing it (and to be honest, joke categories usually aren't all that funny). --Cswrye 22:31, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, all joke categories should be deleted. --musicpvm 22:35, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Joke category that isn't even funny and was possibly created as a form of mockery or WP:POINT. KleenupKrew 02:06, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Call me humorless if you like, but we've been busy deleting joke user categories, and this should be no exception. Administrators need to be held to a higher standard, and shouldn't act as if they're above the rules. - EurekaLott 02:32, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I created the category before WP:ROUGE even existed. Perhaps the category page should be cleaned up, but I see no reason to delete it altogether. Ral315 (talk) 03:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Precedent has been set to delete these types of categories (see the recently deleted "Gangster Wikipedians" category). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. [ælfəks] 03:25, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion, not a vote. An explanation of why it should be kept according to policy would be helpful. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I dunno... it's kind of grown on me Bastique▼parler voir 03:26, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion, not a vote. An explanation of why it should be kept according to policy would be helpful. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Rebecca 03:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a discussion, not a vote. An explanation of why it should be kept according to policy would be helpful. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 05:11, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per nom, categories describing Wikipedians do not need to be encyclopedic. If you have problems telling that this category is non-encyclopedic, rename to Category:Wikipedia rouge admins or Category:Rouge Wikipedia admins or similar. Kusma (討論) 08:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not funny or helpful. Recury 13:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and rename per JZG's various comments. youngamerican (ahoy-hoy) 15:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG. Mackensen (talk) 18:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the rename being proposed here? I think I missed that... The notion behind this category is important.. it is the category of admins that won't shy away from doing the right thing when it is needful, because they are willing to not be blocked by process from doing it. That takes courage. You can say "hey, all admins should be willing to do that" but the truth of the matter is, not all are, and that is OK as long as some are. Just like admins willing to make hard blocks, or admins willing to be recalled in a peaceful collegial manner, it's not for everyone. It is not fair to expect all admins to be exactly the same, and it is useful to know who to turn to when you need to. By the way... Getting put in this category is not something done as a joke, in my view, it is something you earn by having shown that you are willing to Do the Right Thing. This category is VERY encyclopedic, as knowing who to go to in a pinch is important to the proper functioning of the encyclopedia. Keep and perhaps try to educate people on why this is important and why we need some (not necessarily all) admins willing to be this way. ++Lar: t/c 18:53, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what the rename is trying to accomplish either. Wikipedia Rouge Admins does not make the category any more encyclopedic with the Wikipedia prefix. I understand what you're saying Lar, but that category doesn't mention or even allude to the points you're making. If there was a renaming of the category and an explanation that this group of administrators would be happy and readily available to help users with controversial issues, then I'd support a category like this, as it would serve as a great reference for users needing help. Also, if being in the category is not a joke, then why is everything a joke on the category page? hoopydinkConas tá tú? 19:51, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JzG. Rougely,  RasputinAXP  c 06:55, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or rename. We rouge admins will not be defeated! You suxx0r. —Nightstallion (?) 14:21, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is absolutely ridiculous... this CfD has turned into a three ring circus, and again, while I understand the humour of the category, it is still a serious discussion and we are building a serious encyclopedia. Lar has been the only one in favour of keeping the category to provide a reasoned explanation. If you wish to participate in the discussion, you're certainly welcome to and your reasoned input would be both helpful and appreciated, but mocking the CfD is not helpful in the least. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 14:38, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hoopydink, you're the one who hasn't provided a reasoned explanation for your point of view. All you've done is call this category "unencyclopedic" (a weasel word) and compared it to "Gangster Wikipedians" (a polemic attack, since members of that category claimed to be felons).--M@rēino 02:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
        • Please see Wikipedia_talk:Rouge_admin#A_serious_postscript.3F, and give Hoopydink a break. This is a serious concept, wrapped in humor, just like many other things here. At least I think it's serious. We had one admin pull themselves out just now because they didn't think it's serious, which is OK by me... the point this category, and the associated page WP:ROUGE are making is that we should not let process stand in the way of doing the right thing. If that needs further elaboration so people realise it's a serious message, so be it, even if it wrecks the joke. I was proud to have been placed (by someone else, someone I respect highly) in the category, and consider it a singular honor. NOT every admin has earned the right to be in this category, frankly. Make jokes if you want but please don't attack others for not yet being clear on why this category is highly useful. (this isn't directed at Marieno, per se, just at the level of discourse I see here) ++Lar: t/c 19:19, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete. Stupid, useless, elitist "insider" humor. Non-encyclopedic.Courtney Akins 04:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, being a rouge admin is a state of mind and a matter of makeup, nothing to do with categories.-gadfium 06:53, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. What's all this about it being unencyclopedic? Is this a mandate to delete every category of Wikipedians? Mackensen (talk) 14:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. Wikipedia isn't a gulag. It doesn't have to be perfectly stark and utilitarian, and probably shouldn't.--70.240.15.231 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - And, if the users want to list themselve as rouge, the can make a list of rouge admins on WP:ROUGE. Iolakana|T 15:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    What makes this different from everything else in Category:Wikipedians? Mackensen (talk) 16:37, 13 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Categories are better than lists, so I'm not sure I agree with that argument, Kilo-Lima ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete --Ligulem 19:15, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongest Possible Delete - 100% useless, the banner is offensive, and it is hard to figure out if this is a joke or not. —Mets501 (talk) 19:29, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... so you think that administrators would openly claim that they would block IPs for 61 years if they weren't obviously joking? Pffh! Come on now, really!--70.240.15.231 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per Just zis Guy. -- Szvest 19:31, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Wiki me up&#153;[reply]
  • Keep, whoever nominated this is likely suffering from a brief bout of Wikipedia:Adminitis, and probably should go on wikiholiday to get some rest :-) Kim Bruning 22:32, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll be happy to address that thinly veiled insinuation about my behaviour. In terms of the symptoms of "adminitis"; I've never taken Wikipedia seriously enough to ever become adversely affected by the website; I've been creating and expanding articles (mostly rugby union-related) at a nice little pace; I've never thought an administrator to be "more equal" than any other user and have always carried myself as such; I am not in the least bit depressed and firmly believe a website could not drive me even an inch in that direction; no biting, no trolling, no self-imporatance on my part either. Hence, I'll ask the user to retract his/her statement to reflect the category, not the nominator (as the nomination was clearly in good faith). As it stands, your remark does not add to the CfD in a positive manner. Kim Bruning, please address the category rather than making assumptions and insinuations towards the nominator. Thanks in advance hoopydinkConas tá tú? 22:49, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Whoa! <ducks and covers> Now is probably a bad time to point out that typically the inability to snicker and/or laugh at an accusation of adminitis is the first clue that something is amiss? ^^;; Kim Bruning 23:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    i agree with Hoopydink. If this CFD is so frivalous why does it have so many users who support its deletion? It seems like a valid CFD, even if it does not reach concensus. Ad hom arguments are really very weak, in fact, worthless. David D. (Talk) 23:04, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    It's not frivolous, it's dead serious! The world will end unless we delete this category right now, if not yesterday! Have you never cared to dive into the mind of an adminitis sufferer? Those who return are considered with respect by their peers, if only because they think the returned have become insane!!! Kim Bruning 23:20, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    If the comment had been addressed to me on IRC or my talk page, I'm sure we would've shared a laugh. However, to make thinly veiled insinuations of an improper nomination as justification to either keep or oppose an XfD is improper and again, while I respect and appreciate your decision to participate in a voluntary CfD, please remove the comment directed at the nominator (I apologise if I'm taking this a bit more seriously than is my normal demeanor; another user used You suxx0r as an explanation and I've rather strong beliefs of how one should conduct oneself when faced with differing opinions. Chuckling inappropriate behaviour off and making a mockery on an XfD sets a bad example). hoopydinkConas tá tú? 23:28, 14 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    I think it's excellent behaviour anywhere, anytime on wikipedia. If you can't have fun, what's the point? It's hard to assume good faith when you haven't had a rest. Take a break man! :-) Kim Bruning 23:52, 14 August 2006 (UTC) Would you have been happier if I'd gone all dark and moody and said "I Take A Dim View Of Those Who Are Out To Ruin Other Peoples' Small Pleasures"? That would be silly, and possibly a WP:BEANS violation besides, not to mention hypocritical. Kim Bruning[reply]
    I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I believe that you are ineffectively attempting to use humour to make inappropriate comments directed at the nominiator (me). I'm obviously not out to ruin anyone's small pleasures, and I discussed my potential nomination of the category with an admin who placed himself in the category and he agreed that it should be deleted. This has been done with nothing but the best of faith, and I'll ask you again not to assume otherwise. As we seem to be quite off-topic, I'll ask that any further comments directed at me and not the category itself be posted on my talk page. Cheers and thanks in advance! hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:02, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I'm trying to use humor to get you to lighten up a bit and see what you're saying in perspective! Nothing inappropriate intended. One of the symptoms of adminitis is that you don't realise when people are trying to be nice to you. ^^;; (hey, that's a new one... let me add that). Kim Bruning 00:15, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    Again, I'll ask you to stay on point and deal with the issue at hand, which is a CfD. I do appreciate your trying to be nice (really, I do!), but I do think that I've things in a pretty clear perspective if I may say so. Again, I'll ask you to retract the bit of silliness about me as a person and reflect upon why you think this category should either be kept or deleted. I stand by by comments, however, which includes the part about continuing discussion on my talk page if it doesn't pertain to the actual category. hoopydinkConas tá tú? 00:25, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep "A little song, a little dance, a little seltzer down your pants." Most people appreciate humor that spices up a flat presentation of facts. Nothing wrong with presenting Wikipedia matters in a humorous way. Humor is used in most real world venues for a variety of reasons. Employee orientation, class lectures, parenting books, sermons...use humor to better reach the audience knowing that a constant stream of dry, bland content sucks. (No surprise that I agree with Chuckles Bites The Dust's #1 rank on TV Guide's The Greatest Episodes of All Time.) FloNight talk 01:08, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or listify. There's a lot of WP history behind this joke. FeloniousMonk 03:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. History is important, whether it's Wikipedia admin categories or election results, etc. This is part of Wikipedia's history and should be kept. RyanGerbil10(The people rejoice!) 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Normally I don't like non-encyclopedia-related stuff like this, but purging humor isn't the place to start. Opabinia regalis 04:12, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. ~ PseudoSudo 04:32, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. 'Nuff said above. Misza13 T C 08:45, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this category predates WP:ROUGE by quite some time. It exists per the bread and circuses principle. CanadianCaesar Et tu, Brute? 09:31, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Not divisive; humorous way of stating an admin puts policy above special pleading or other concerns. KillerChihuahua?!? 10:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I think it's lame and not very original or funny, but if people find it useful to put themselves in there, it's no more harmful than any wikiproject member category. - Bobet 16:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Juvenile humour that undermines wikipedia's credibility. Merchbow 16:26, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Supposedly says admins will purposefully violate Wikipedia policy and associates them with an imfamous murdering terrorist organization. Presumably an attempt at humor; take it to uncyclopedia then. Sheesh. -- Infrogmation 16:36, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Umm... a terrorist organization? I think what you just said says more about yourself than it does about the category.--70.240.15.231 03:58, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was going to say delete as lame silliness, but per JzG's extremely convincing analysis, exceptionally strong delete. Alai 17:29, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, this humourous category has been around for quite a while, and there's no reason why this needs to be deleted. The image might be another matter, but one image does not a category delete. --Deathphoenix ʕ 17:39, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep from the top of the Reichstag - CrazyRussian talk/email 18:49, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete These rouge admins are just too zany for me. Can I sue wikipeadia to have my sides stitched back up?--Tess Tickle 03:42, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for being quite possibly the most juvenile and embarassing officially sanctioned in-joke in all of Wikipedia. It's only a matter of time until some news media reporters quote this puerile garbage out of context and have a field day with Wikipedia's already sinking reputation. wikipediatrix 04:13, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete (because this is not based entirely on objective criteria)—A serious concept wrapped in humor? In my opinion, this is the wrong kind of humor. It is condescending and mocks various people, including new users who may not understand policy, "behind their backs" as they will likely never see the WP:ROUGE page...Wikipedia:Assume good faith...even though said users tend to not assume assumption of good faith, taking the high road is for the better. Additionally, I myself somehow feel mocked, and I have never done anything wrong :). I know that I just quoted AGF, but the tone of the whole Rouge concept seems to be in the wrong spirit. Having the category makes it appear more serious and legitimate. Ardric47 07:26, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. There are rouge admins, so why not categorize them? Its nomination for deletion is extremely close to WP:POINT. MaxSem 08:57, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, and take the self-glorifying funny down the pub. There is at least one user here who actually uses this category, and addition to it, as the basis for asking questions on RfA and thus presumably as part of his decision making process on it. Thus it is not a joke and needs to removed. -Splash - tk 13:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - not that this !vote is necessary given the number of keep !votes above. I laughed when I saw it, and see no reason why it's any worse than the thousands of other user categories about. Plus, it's been around for quite a good while, and is part of Wikipedia culture. Thanks! —Celestianpower háblame 15:27, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • One reason that's it's worse is the overlap between people in this category, and those intent on deleting said userboxes/other user categories. (Yeah, I know, the rich irony is part of the stupendous funniness of it all. Allegedly.) I'm highly inclined to tell anyone in said intersection to "first, mind thy house", if that doesn't use up this week's quota of Robert Bolt quotes. Alai 15:49, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, ego-inflating nonsense. --kingboyk 17:38, 16 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's harmless. People shouldn't take every little thing so seriously, as doing so prevents one from enjoying life to the fullest.--70.240.15.231 03:49, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Dugwiki 21:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, diverts attention from the real cabal. the wub "?!" 22:36, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, it is important to keep rouge admins labelled and categorized as such so we can keep a close eye on their wicked rouge behaviour. --Stormie 04:36, 18 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per Stormie, KnightLago 13:50, 20 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.

List Categories[edit]

Category:List of freshwater aquarium plant species[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 merge to Category:Aquatic plants and subcategorize if needed. the wub "?!" 09:39, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete; merge members into Category:Aquatic plants. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)Rename per David D. --M@rēino 21:12, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • rename/move- it does not seem appropriate to merge into the aquatic plant section since this is a specific subset of aquatic plants. New name could be Category:Freshwater aquarium plants. This seems like it could become a popular category, even if it is not right now. David D. (Talk) 20:59, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Um, it is a category, but it's named List of... Clearly it should either be listified or renamed. I think rename is proabbly best, but I sure hope it has more than two potential members! Just zis Guy you know? 22:05, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and move contents to Category:Aquatic plants. Subcategorizing that category can be discussed separately. I doubt botanists consider aquarium/non aquarium plants an important distinction. I suspect almost every aquatic plant could be grown in an aquarium. The subject of aquarium plants seems much better suited to a list or article. --Samuel Wantman 23:14, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Category:Aquatic plants per Samuel Wantman. It doesn't look like a subcategorization is necessary at the moment.
  • Merge into Category:Aquatic plants per Samuel Wantman. Sumahoy 20:42, 16 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:List of Disney anthology series episodes to Category:Disney anthology television series[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. the wub "?!" 09:40, 21 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:List Of Exile Creatures[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. the wub "?!" 09:41, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete; cat currently has only one member, and Exile (computer game) doesn't look notable enough to merit articles on its other characters.--M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even creatures in well-known video games usually get put on lists instead of getting their own articles. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 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:List of farms in Norway to Category:Farms in Norway[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. the wub "?!" 09:42, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename per nom below. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. Osomec 13:55, 11 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:List of farms in Oppland to Category:Farms in Oppland[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. the wub "?!" 09:43, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to keep a clean distinction between lists and categories. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 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:List of noted film director collaborations to Category:Lists of noted film director collaborations[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. the wub "?!" 09:44, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Rename to plural, as seems to be the convention for categories that collect list articles. --M@rēino 17:57, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rename per nom. ♥ Her Pegship♥ 03:46, 12 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:Piano rockers[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 merge. the wub "?!" 09:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Piano rockers to Category:Rock pianists

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:Print media in Belize[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 merge. the wub "?!" 09:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Belizean media, see Category:Italian media or Category:American media for examples. -- ProveIt (talk) 15:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. --Cswrye 00:22, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge per nom. David Kernow 05:14, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge The distinction between print and non-print media is no longer clear cut, so this is a misleading category. Chicheley 10:57, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Go ahead and merge; it is a distinct category of Belizean media (I should know, I created it). --Aaronhumes15:02, 11 August 2006
  • Merge is fine. (Note: I'd rather prefer everything be put into a "Category:Media in Belize" as neater naming.) -- Infrogmation 16:38, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • merge with the categories that provelt suggest Yuckfoo 17:05, 15 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:Incubator tests[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. the wub "?!" 09:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Wikimedia Incubator languages. -- ProveIt (talk) 14:48, 10 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.

Artists by record label[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 all except KLF Communications. the wub "?!" 16:04, 21 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.

The Triangle, North Carolina[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 keep --Kbdank71 19:03, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename, "The Triangle" is a denonym, and as I have no problem with calling the metro that in the article, the category should be renamed to its formal name. User:Arual 12:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

  • Oppose for now. The Triangle is a nickname, not a demonym, and the category name should align with its main article. If there's consensus to change the article name, then we should rename the category. - EurekaLott 14:38, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • OK. User:Arual 12:01, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. The Triangle is a common name, known all over the state and arguably all over the country. It is not the Raleigh-Durham metro area, except in official terms... in this case, this official term is almost never used, therefore, both cats should remain as is. Wikipedia encourages common language as long as its not too informal, which this is not; "The Triangle" is an extremely common term for Raleigh-Durham-Chapel Hill (and arguably Cary instead of Chapel Hill), just like the Piedmont Triad. --TinMan 04:38, 14 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.

What's Good For You[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 not a category --Kbdank71 19:06, 21 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.

Former buildings and structures[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 keep --Kbdank71 18:58, 21 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 aircraft to Category:Aircraft with historical significance[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 no consensus, ha ha, just kidding, rename to category:Individual aircraft --Kbdank71 18:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]


  • Rename, Notable is vague, historical significance is more accurate. Vegaswikian 05:32, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The proposed name is still vague. category:Individual aircraft might work. Osomec 13:42, 10 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • category:Individual aircraft seems to be more vague since it allows any aircraft that has an article and is about a single aircraft. But then if an aircraft meets that criteria maybe it belongs in a cat like that. However it would exclude aircraft when the type is historically significant. Vegaswikian 07:09, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the end the problem is that the judgment is subjective. This one may be better listified with an explanation of historical significance for each entry. Just zis Guy you know? 07:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Any opinion on which of the three names would be 'better'? Vegaswikian 19:23, 11 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that naming this category is not straightforward! Not all its members refer to specific or individual aircraft, so, given the current suggestions, I think I'd support Category:Aircraft of historical significance, but per the comments above, I'm not sold on it. Maybe something more effective might occur to me if/when I read a few more of the articles within. Regards, David Kernow 04:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
"Notable aircraft" is redundant as non-notable aircraft should not be in Wikipedia. "historical significance" would exclude current aircraft. if you mean "historic significance", this is too specific as some aircraft may be notable for other reasons (John Travolta's jet maybe?). Individual aircraft is best, as a straight subcat of Category:Aircraft, and explain on both pages that one is for types/designs of aircraft, the other for specific instances. Of course, it's tricky if there is only one instance of a given model, as with Hughes H-4 Hercules say; but that's fine-tuning that can be debated once the name is settled. jnestorius(talk) 01:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. To closer. The name needs to be changed. I'd rather have any of the suggested names used then the current one. Consider this comment to support the naming choice of the closer. Please do not close as no consensus! Vegaswikian 18:32, 16 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:List of Canadian companies[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 17:04, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Companies of Canada, member of Category:Companies by country. -- ProveIt (talk) 04:33, 10 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:Companies listed on the National Stock Exchange[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 17:01, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Rename to Category:Companies listed on the National Stock Exchange of India, since it is for the National Stock Exchange of India, and not the National Stock Exchange of Chicago. -- ProveIt (talk) 00:34, 10 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.


Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_August_10&oldid=1144867322"