Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 August 2#Category:File Comparison Tools

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:49, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

:Category:High schools in Australia, :Category:Australian high schools, :Category:Melbourne high schools, :Category:Sydney high schools converted to Cfdu ∞Who?¿? 04:54, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

These catogories have been replaced with the following:

• :Category:Schools in the Australian Capital Territory
• :Category:Schools in New South Wales
• :Category:Schools in the Northern Territory
• :Category:Schools in Queensland
• :Category:Schools in South Australia
• :Category:Schools in Tasmania
• :Category:Schools in Victoria
• :Category:Schools in Western Australia

with the parent cat being :Category:Schools in Australia

-- Ianblair23 23:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I guess nothing else needs to be done? ∞Who?¿? 17:36, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Object. High schools and schools are not the same thing. Although it's hard to judge since the articles were removed before listing, I think we should keep at least :Category:High schools in Australia. Remind me when this CfD closes, and I'll happily go hunt down tenants for the category. (Seems a little pointless to do that now). -- Visviva 15:01, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:04, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. While high schools a subset of schools, it would be overcategorizing to give each of several subsets of schools their own cat. Radiantmeta:mergist 15:55, August 6, 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't have any other genre-specific categories (in fact, this one wasn't even properly filled with articles; it was filled with links. If it is decided it should be kept, it should be moved to :Category:Hip hop producers and properly filled. --FuriousFreddy 22:11, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• What do you mean by "We don't have anymore genre-specific categories? ~J.D., beby_"Louisiana's finest" 9:40UTC 8/3/05
• Comment I think he meant, no genre-specific producer cats. As I dont' see any right away. I'm thinking maybe merge with :Category:Record producers. ∞Who?¿? 12:05, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge as above. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Speedily renamed. As a side note, I took the links and populated the new cat. --Kbdank71 16:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 13:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Now an empty category, as contents moved to :Category:Environmental economics. Rd232 21:28, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete I'm not complaining, don't get me wrong, but isnt this what Cfr is for? Unless it was a project of some sort. Anyway, delete now. ∞Who?¿? 12:07, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Not sure if the nominator forgot about the prior cfr. See Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 27#Category:Free-market environmentalism .E2.86.92 Category:Environmental economics. It's already been taken care of. --Kbdank71 16:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• I thought it looked familiar, didn't vote on that one. ∞Who?¿? 17:32, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:47, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

This is an empty category that contains a hard redirect to :Category:United States law. Since hard redirects don't work for categories, this should be deleted. Russ Blau (talk) 21:26, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Delete. Agreed. --Nlu 01:55, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 04:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete a soft-redirect maybe useful tho. ∞Who?¿? 12:09, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete --Kbdank71 16:17, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:44, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I know, it's a mouthful (that's beause it's not a very natural category, but that's another story). I put this up a short while ago (Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 July 23); there were two votes for deletion, none against, and some comments, but it was closed as no consensus. I've speedily moved it from its old (incorrectly capitalised) name, but it's still inaccurate.

It's not a category for fictional characters who are anti-Semitic, as the title implies, but for fictional Jews portrayed in an anti-Semitic way. It has two entries (Shylock and Fagin). Now, that those are anti-Semitic is of course PoV, and some editors might want to vote to delete the category for that reason — but even if we don't delete it, could we at least rename it so that it does what it says? Its parent category is :Category:Fictional Jews, so at least my suggested new name follows on naturally. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:59, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

:Wouldn't something like :Category:Stereotypical fictional Jews be a little less POV? Admittedly not all Jewish stereotypes are anti-Semitic, but it might well be a more useful category that way anyway. Grutness...wha? 01:16, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::I thought of that, but then thought that I'd better try to keep to the original intention as far as possible. You're right, though. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 09:14, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete - While agree with the new name more than the old, I still think it is too POV to say that characters like Shylock were created out of anti-Semitic sentiments (would Shakespeare then be an anti-Semite?) MicahMN | Talk 21:30, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• :During his time, Anti-Semitism was the norm. --DrBat 14:14, August 5, 2005 (UTC)
• ::Though it's been pointed out that Shylock's given some very sympathetic lines ("do we not bleed?" etc.). --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete don't rename. Clearly pov under either name. Osomec 04:10, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, pov. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. I'm not liking either, frankly, and the two articles can be merged into :Category:Fictional Jews. --Kbdank71 16:20, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete pov. Merge per Kbdank71, if not already cat'd there. ∞Who?¿? 17:30, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge (and delete) per Kbdank71. Didn't we have this a little while ago, or was that an article on VfD? -Splash 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• :Kbdank71 closed the CfD debate (two voted for delete, no-one for anything else) as no consensus, which is why I reproposed it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 16:20, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• ::Sigh. And Sherool and DrBat thought it would be better to rename it. You yourself appeared to be on the fence between deleting and renaming. If you're going to make me out to be the bad guy on this, at least know what you're talking about. Now if you'll all excuse me, I'm going to have a drink with Tony Sidaway. --Kbdank71 16:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• :::There were two votes, the rest were comments. The only votes were for deletion. When someone writes "Comment" they don't mean their views to be included in the closure process. If you think that they do, then we need to change the instructions. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 17:05, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• ::::Consensus is built by discussion, not voting. You've been around long enough to know that. But assuming for a moment you're right, there was one delete vote from Jmabel, and your nomination, which wasn't a vote at all, but when you say right off the bat, the real problem is that this is very misleadingly titled, that's a nomination to rename, not delete. You've got your re-nom, just let it go. --Kbdank71 17:40, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• :::::Well, first, my nomination included no renaming option. more importantly, though, I'm worried by the position you've adopted (presumably not only in this case). In VfDs, at least, comments are not taken into account when assessing the consensus, because they indicate that the person involved doesn't want to be counted (perhaps because they're not yet sure of their opinion, and are simply considering the issues — that's certainly my usual reason. If you are going to count their musings, explicitly labelled as non-votes, as if they were meant, then we need to make this clear in the instructions. I think that it's a bad idea, though, as it might well have the efect of stifling discussion. I've copied this to Talk, as that seems to be the best place for it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 18:33, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Merge per Kbdank71. siafu 19:24, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

: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 (keep) --Kbdank71 14:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Was formerly populated with about six articles for musicians and record producers. The correct category is :Category:Hip hop ("rap" and "hip hop" are synonymous when referring to genres of music) for the musical genre/culture, and one of several subcategories for sub-genres, rappers, djs, etc.--FuriousFreddy 19:26, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment well actually I was just using the defintion from hip hop which [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Category:Rap&diff=next&oldid=20132970 you removed] from the category.

:The term has since come to be a synonym for hip hop music and rap to mainstream audiences. They are not, however, interchangeable—rapping (MCing) is the vocal expression of lyrics in sync to a rhythm beneath it; along with DJing, rapping is a part of hip hop music.

:There was no consensus, because no one was sure, I used that terminology for the Rap category to show it was different. You really shouldn't have depopulted the category before nominating it for Cfd, as this gives a false impression of use. Given this, I still feel that :Category:Rap should be a child of :Category:Hip hop and populate appropriately. Or it should be merged with :Category:Rappers or appropriate sub-cat, which btw is a sub of :Category:Hip hop musicians. ∞Who?¿? 05:12, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::I removed it because it's incorrect, and likely comes from an old, outdated version of the information from the hip hop music or hip hop pages. "Rap music" and "hip hop music" refer to the same genre, which is correctly termed "hip hop" and not "rap". "Rap music" and "hip hop music" are indeed interchangable, "rapping" and "hip hop" are not because the former referes to an element of the latter, the same as singing and R&B music are not interchangable. :Category:Rappers is properly a subcategory of Category:Hip-hop musicians, and that is where the article on MC Lars belongs. The Banging on Wax article belongs under :Category:Hip hop albums with all the other hip hop albums. (you'll notice there are no genre boxes labeled "rap", the genre box is based at hip hop music). There isn't any need for a "Category:Rap", when it is obvious that all of the other related articles are correctly filed under :Category:Hip hop and its sub-categories. As far as depoplating the category, none of the articles in the category were properly categorized (one of them I placed on VfD, where it's well on its way to being deleted). If we kept a "Category:Rap", what, pray tell, would we put in it that wouldn't or shouldnt't properly belong under "Category:Hip hop"? --FuriousFreddy 12:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::BTW, I went ahead and repopulated the category with the six articles that were in there. These articles include two articles on solo rappers (:Category:United States rappers), an article on Eminem's producers (:Category:Record producers), an article on a hip hop group (which, if it were't on VfD for being non-notable, whould be in :Category:Hip hop groups), an article on a 1993 album (:Category:Hip hop albums), and (Lord help us all) an article on an R&B singer (how did he get in here??; :Category:R&B musicians). --FuriousFreddy 12:37, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• I fail to see how "rap music" and "hip hop music" are interchangeable, but "rapping" and "hip hop" are not, and "rappers" and "hip hop musicians" are not. I'm going to agree with Who and say we should keep it as a subcat of :Category:Hip hop and populate it. --Kbdank71 16:26, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::Again, populate it with what, exactly? Give me some examples of articles that belong in this category, and not in one of the other ones that actually exist.

::Let me try to expain this:

1. "Rap music" and "hip hop music" are perfectly interchangable. Both describe the same style of rhythm-based music with vocalists delivering lyrics in a rhythmic fasion. Some people might term the "underground" records as "hip hop", while calling the more commercial records "rap", but the two words are indeed synonyms (other people, I have learned, mistakenly label R&B singers like Destiny's Child and Usher as hip-hop musicians). There's not a single "rap artist" who wouldn't be (more properly) termed a "hip-hop artist".
2. ...speaking of which, "rapper" and 'hip-hop musician" are not neccessarily interchangable, but a rapper is indeed a hip-hop musician; they are a vocalist. A non-rapping hip-hop musician is a DJ, a record producer, or an instrumentalist.
3. Also, one must understand that there is hip hop culture and hip hop music. The two are not interchangeable, but are (of course) highly related. This is important, because it leads to to my next point about "rapping" and "hip hop"...
4. ...no, "rapping" and "hip hop" are not interchangable, the former is a part of the latter. "Rapping" is one of the four main elements of hip-hop (that is, "hip-hop culture"), along with DJing, graffiti, and breakdancing. Hip-hop music is comprised solely of rapping and DJing. The article on rapping should be under :Category:Hip hop along with the articles on DJing, graffiti, breakdancing, and few other "extra" elements (like beatboxing) that some hip-hop folks (like KRS-ONE for example) also consider elements of the culture.
5. Note that we do not (and correctly so) have a seperate article for rap or rap music (the former is a disambiguation page, the latter is a redirect to hip hop music). The article on rapping properly descibes the action and process of rapping, much like singing describes the process of singing.

I know it might be confusing to people unfamiliar with hip-hop culture or music, but this is a case of apples and apples here. I'd say leave the Category:Rap open, but leave a note not to populate it, because there is absolutely nothing that we could or should put in it. --FuriousFreddy 19:01, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• So I could then say a hip hop musician creates rap music, and I'd be correct? --Kbdank71 19:19, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Uh-huh. --FuriousFreddy 19:28, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

::*I would still say no, they are different. I would suggest merge of any biographies to :Category:Rappers but specific music articles should stay in :Category:Rap. As everyone seems to agree on, or at least state, rap is a part of hip hop, so its cat'd under it. Still seperate though. ∞Who?¿? 22:59, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:::*Again, I ask (excuse the emphasis) what specific music articles? How are they different? And, yet, no one has still not answered this question: "If we kept a "Category:Rap", what, pray tell, would we put in it that wouldn't or shouldnt't properly belong under "Category:Hip hop"?" --FuriousFreddy 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

• Note that rap is not necessarily rap music and hip-hop is not necessarily hip-hop music, even if the musics might be considered interchangeable by some (though their lineage suggests otherwise). A rap is the special repartee which is not necessarily with music, or as rhythmic as music. Hip-hop can refer to the special subculture, with its dancing, dress, and other artistry, including hip-hop music. By this lineage, it stands to reason that an instance of rap music may or may not be hip-hop music, and an instance of hip-hop music may or may not be rap music. - Centrx 00:45, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Not exactly. A rap is someone rhyming in rhythm. A rap can be included in a non hip hop song, but, there is no rap music that is not hip-hop music and vice-versa. If you do not agree, then give me some examples. Just because a song has rapping in it does not make it a rap song (eg. the eight bar rap verse in many R&B songs, or one of those "rap/rock" songs). Yes, hip-hop can refer to the culture itself, but when we are talking about hip-hop music, it is the same as talking about rap music. Usage of the rap music name derives from mainstream identification; people who originally where unfamiliar altogether with hip-hop culture. --FuriousFreddy 01:39, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Actually I think everyone who has commented/voted had answered that question in one way or another. Even the article says rap <> hip hop. I agree with much of what you're saying, some articles need to be re-cat'd, this is not a cat problem. Although recat'n of these articles may leave the cat empty, I can't simply support a merge for the wrong reasons. I see that this cat is clearly distinct, and can be populated properly with Rap based articles, seeings there is a Rappers cat for the actual biographies. ∞Who?¿? 06:14, 6 August 2005 (UTC)
• Nobody answered my question. Which Wikipedia articles, that we have now, are rap based articles, but not hip hop based articles? I'd like specific examples, because if the six articles in the category were properly categorized, this category would be empty. We don't, and never will, have a single article that doesn't properly belong under :Category:Hip hop. I actually have worked extensively with people who make hip hop music, so I do have qualifications to speak on the matter. What article says rap music and hip hop music are not the same thing? Any article that says that is incorrect. This is so frustrating and makes no sense. It should be obvious from use: Category:Rap has six articles, none of which belong under it. Category:Hip hop has hundreds.--FuriousFreddy 13:57, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

• delete - for the reasons cited in FuriousFreddy's post above. As there aren't any 'rap' articles which aren't also 'hip-hop' articles, then having an extra category will only serve to confuse things. 'Rappers' is a useful category (although 'Hip hop musicians' would be better') 'rap' isn't - it will only serve to provide duplication.illWill 16:04, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• "Rappers" is a subset of "hip hop musicians", I believe so that non-rapping DJs and record producers can be included in the category. We don't seem to have such a distinction between vocalists and non-vocalists for any other musical genre, though; perhaps :Category:Rappers and :Category:Hip hop musicians should be merged? --FuriousFreddy 16:44, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:31, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems to have been made by the same person as :Category:WNBC'S Live at Five. --Howcheng 21:03, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep but expand. Today is a longstanding, high-rated, nationally televised program of historic import, with many famous alumni who can be added. - choster 21:57, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete yes it is a high-rated show, that goes good with a high-rated article, I see no reason for a cat at this time. The staff can be listed on the article. ∞Who?¿? 12:18, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• It'd be at least as useful as, say, :Category:The_NFL_on_NBC if we properly populate the category, whose missing entries include The Today Show itself, J. Fred Muggs, Len Berman, Tom Brokaw, John Chancellor, Hugh Downs, Joe Garagiola, Dave Garroway, Alexis Glick, Bryant Gumbel, Jim Hartz, Floyd Kalber, Bill Macatee, Frank McGee (journalism), Deborah Norville, Estelle Parsons, Jane Pauley, Willard Scott, Gene Shalit, Barbara Walters, and arguably one could add Campbell Brown, Steven Cojocaru, Lester Holt, and others, just among those with WP articles or stubs.- choster 07:53, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Who. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Who. -Splash 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete per Who. siafu 00:08, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:30, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Seems kind of pointless. Recommend for deletion. --Howcheng 19:20, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete, overly narrow. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete; not a usefully categorifiable topic. -Splash 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete as above. siafu 00:09, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:27, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Its articles have been moved to :Category:Communications in Hungary and :Category:Hungarian media, which are the standard Wikipedia names for the intended concept (see :Category:Categories by country). -- Adam78 18:27, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Comment again, don't get me wrong, I would probably agree, but I am beginning to think we should rename this Wikipedia:Categories for deletion and renaming as more than just deletion happens here. Not specifically just these cats, as I do not know their history, but Cfr allows the community to discuss these things, even if they agree with the current setup. Still Be bold though. ∞Who?¿? 12:24, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

:*Oh yea delete too. :) ∞Who?¿? 17:27, 3 August 2005 (UTC)

• Delete since a better cat is found. Who has a point as to the name of this page, but I'm afraid it's too widely-established to rename it now (just like VFD is up for rename every month or so since it's not a 'vote' page...) Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. -Splash 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, it has also typo in name. Pavel Vozenilek 02:07, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

: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 --Kbdank71 14:25, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

In my opinion, the category name is not NPOV. "Drug cheat" implies that the person both (1) used the illegal substance intentionally and (2) did so with the intent to improperly enhance his performance, neither of which is required to be proven under baseball's policy. I am not saying that baseball's policy is an unfair one. On the other hand, the category should not imply what has not been proven. I would suggest "Baseball players suspended for violation of substance abuse policy" as the name. --Nlu 15:10, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Keep. Renaming would require renaming all of the :Category:Drugs cheats in sport subcats, and removing from the cats all players who cheated by using drugs and were not suspended (probably a fair number). I agree that the phrase "drugs cheats" is awkward and potentially inflammatory, but I don't have anything more appropriate. "Drug abusers in sports" would just be silly; that's practically everybody! ;) --Quuxplusone 18:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Would :Category:Drugs offenders in baseball be better? One can be an inadvertent offender. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:05, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. "Substance abuse" is a broad concept-- the substances Darryl Strawberry abused doubtfully enhanced his performance prior to his suspension. "Drug cheat" is more descriptive of the current contents. - choster 21:36, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename, if Quux thinks there are other wrongly named cats he should bring them to our attention, that's what bots are for. I object to both the terms "cheat" and "substance" here, so my preference would be 'drugs offenders' or 'drugs abusers'. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. The other cats I mentioned were the :Category:Drugs cheats in sport subcats. Does that clarify anything? :) Also consider whether the phrasings "drug abuser" and "drug offender" would really help with the NPOV issue, given that most drug abuse is also a crime in the United States, and the original objection was to the guilty-until-proven-innocent slant of the current category name. (My vote's still keep, given that the proposed alternatives are worse IMHO.) --Quuxplusone 22:47, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename I like Radiant's wording better. Though I dont know if i can get it to work if we go with something like :Category:Baseball players suspended for drug abuse or :Category:Baseball players suspended for drug offenses ∞Who?¿? 17:40, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename to :Category:Baseball players suspended for drug offenses or something similar. Hall Monitor 22:50, 4 August 2005 (UTC)
• Comment. If this category is about steroid abusers, why not say that? Instead of "drug abusers", which seems like a problem per Quuxplusone, why not call it ":Category:Steroid violators in baseball"? --Titoxd 22:01, 8 August 2005 (UTC)
• However, the policy is not just about steroids (although that's the current issue in the news) but covers other drugs as well. --Nlu 00:39, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

: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 --Kbdank71 14:08, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

No reason not to cover other aspects of the river in the same category. --SPUI (talk) 07:01, 2 August 2005 (UTC)

• Rename both. --Kbdank71 15:06, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename both per nominator. --TheDotGamer ^Talk 20:45, August 2, 2005 (UTC)
• Rename per nom. -Splash 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Rename. No argument. siafu 00:11, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 14:05, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's guidelines clearly states that a category like this is not useful; see When to use categories. This should be a list. There seems to be no purpose for this at all, individual articles are already categorized by genres, authors etc and a list of books already exists. Should be noted that this category has been previously nominated and although it would (IMHO) appear to be an obvious consensus for delete, the result was no consensus. [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2005_June_13#Category:Books_by_title] K1Bond007 06:50, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Strong delete, same reasons as before. --Kbdank71 15:08, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, I do not understand why it wasn't deleted for previous vote. Pavel Vozenilek 17:52, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. ComCat 04:13, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, hadn't we seen this before? If so, speedy. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• If you read what I wrote it specifically states that this was brought up before, but somehow resulted in "no consensus". See the link K1Bond007 18:51, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Sorry, long day. Radiantmeta:mergist 20:33, August 3, 2005 (UTC)
• Deleted cats by title. not going to have a no consensus here :) ∞Who?¿? 17:34, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete, per nom. -Splash 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. No argument. siafu 00:12, 5 August 2005 (UTC)

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

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

The result of the debate was merge --Kbdank71 13:28, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

• :Category:Pages needing translation to :Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation
• :Category:Wikipedia articles that need translation to :Category:Partially translated Wikipedia articles.

First, having two fairly distinct categories with such similar names invites confusion. Renaming the first category (which has to do with {{template link|Notenglish}}) as I've suggested would conform more closely to Wikipedia:Categorization#General naming conventions. The second category contains articles tagged with {{template link|cleanup-translation}}, and its current name does not at all reflect its current purpose. I would appreciate suggestions for a new name, because I don't very much like the one I've picked, but I do think a change ought to be made. NatusRoma 03:00, August 2, 2005 (UTC)

• Agree with the first rename. Do we need the second at all? Toss a cleanup template on it and be move on. --Kbdank71 15:12, 2 August 2005 (UTC)
• Er, what? Merge both to 'wikipedia articles needing translation'. The distinction is far from clear. Radiantmeta:mergist 12:42, August 3, 2005 (UTC)

:*:Category:Pages needing translation is for Wikipedia articles that are in a language other than English. :Category:Wikipedia articles that need translation is for text from any source that has been translated into English but needs a look from somebody skilled in both the source and target languages. NatusRoma 03:38, August 4, 2005 (UTC)

• Question. I have always been confused by the distinction between these two procedures. Although this rename makes it clearer, does the commuinity that deals with these want these two separate cats, or will one centralised cat do the job? -Splash 21:39, 3 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge per Radiant. If one is not skilled in both source and target, then one probably should not be translating. One cat is all that's needed. siafu 00:15, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
• Merge to :Category:Wikipedia articles needing translation, per Radiant. (I think it would be nice to have subcats for German, Spanish, etc., but that's for WikiProject Translation (or whatever) to decide, I suppose.)

: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 on either category (keep) --Kbdank71 13:24, 9 August 2005 (UTC)